A Little Sanity, Please

 A little sanity in the discussion of the war in Gaza would be useful. Shouting slogans with ambiguous meanings only muddies the water. We must strive for peace, and to do so, we must think and talk clearly and sensibly. So, here are a few ideas for talking about the war sensibly.

First, we can condemn the bombing of Gaza without denying Israel’s right to defend itself. There is no contradiction between saying that Israel has a right to defend itself and saying that Israel’s actions in the current invasion of Gaza are excessive, wrong-headed and inhumane. We can say that killing thousands of civilians by bombing is not a proper way for Israel to defend itself. In fact, it may in the long run be counterproductive.

Second, we can condemn Hamas’s raid of October 7 and also say that Israel should not be killing so many innocent civilians. We can say that Hamas’s raid that killed more than a thousand people was wrong and also that Israel’s response, which is killing thousands of people, is wrong. In addition, we can say that Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank have contributed to the violence without absolving Hamas of responsibility for the attack of October 7, which they planned and carried out. There is plenty of blame to go around. All parties must share the responsibility for what has occurred.

Third, we can understand that Israel’s excessive response it is exactly what Hamas's raid on October 7 was intended to produce. Hamas predicted Israel’s reaction correctly and brought suffering on the residents of Gaza in order to win a big propaganda victory. Israel fell into the trap that Hamas had laid. Again, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Fourth, we can avoid extremist slogans. The suffering of the people of Gaza is awful and completely unacceptable, but the bombing is not equivalent to genocide, and opposition to Israel’s bombing campaign is not the equivalent of antisemitism.

Fifth, looking beyond the current violence, we must recognize that politically, there is no single Israeli position and no single Palestinian position. There are extremists in Israel who believe that Israel should include all of the land that was supposedly included in the biblical kingdom of David and Solomon. People who hold this belief are a minority in Israel. There are also many Israelis who favor peace through the two-state solution or the one-state solution. Some are now proposing an extraordinarily creative third possibility.

There is also an extremist position among the Palestinians which says that Israel is nothing but a vestige of colonialism and that it has no right to exist at all. That is the official position of Hamas. On the other hand, many Palestinians favor a position that says only that Palestinians have a right to a national state of their own. They would accept a two-state solution, and some would accept a one-state solution. Some are now proposing the creative third possibility mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The two-state solution is the position of the PLO, which governs in the West Bank.

Finally, we must recognize that neither extreme position can ever lead to peace. The extreme positions can only lead to a fight to the death. Only a solution that gives political autonomy to the Palestinians while assuring the continued existence and security of the State of Israel can be a basis for peace. So, we should be careful what we wish for, and we should be careful about the slogans that we use. Let's try to contribute to peace and not to endless conflict.

In the Image of God: thoughts on the Death of Rosalynn Carter

What is the Image of God?

In the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, we read “God created Man in His image.” What can this verse possibly mean to us? Hardly anyone today believes that God has a physical body that looks like our bodies. Even people who profess to take the Bible literally balk at that. Most religious people today do not take any of the biblical creation story literally, much less this apparently absurd claim that we and our neighbors resemble God physically. So, what can this verse mean to us?

We can start to answer this question by asking another one. What do we mean when we speak of “the image of God?” The only image of God that we can know is the image that we have in our minds. We have an “image” of God in our minds although it is not a corporeal image. Our image of God is made up of the qualities that we attribute to him/her. What do we say of God? We say that he/she is just. We say that he/she is merciful. We say that he/she loves us and cares what happens to us. We say that God is a “person” who hears our prayers.

We Can Try to Be as We Imagine God to Be

If our image of God is composed of qualities like justice, mercy, love, caring and listening, then our statement that we are created in his/her image can only mean that we also are just and merciful, that we also care and listen. Unfortunately, we know that often, we lack these qualities. We are frequently unjust and unmerciful. We often do not care about our fellows, and rarely do we really listen to what they say. Nevertheless, we aspire to act according to principles like justice and mercy, and we aspire to care about each other and to listen to each other.

In that aspiration, we can find the meaning of the biblical verse for us. We can take it to mean that we have the potential to live up to our image of God. We can work to realize our potential. We can move ourselves closer to resembling the image that we have of him/her. Our aspiration can be both personal and social. As an individual, I can try to act justly and mercifully as much as I can. I can think about the sufferings of others and do what I can to alleviate them. I can focus on listening to what they say and even to what they do not say openly. We can also work together to make our society as just and merciful as we can. We can make our institutions responsive to people’s needs. We can build institutions that hear the cries of our people. We can make a society that resembles our image of God.

Believers and Non-Believers Alike

From this point of view, the biblical verse can mean the same thing to those who do not believe in a personal God as it does to those who do believe. Believers and non-believers alike can strive to live up to an ideal of humane conduct. We can all strive to be the people that we aspire to be and to build the society that we aspire to live in. This is not a task that we can complete. We can never be perfect people or create a perfect society, but we can aspire to go forward in that direction.

Rosalynn Carter Worked to Realize the Image of God in Her Life

Rosalynn Carter built her life around that aspiration. She and her husband worked to bring themselves and our society as close as possible to the image of God, and they achieved more than most of us. Let remember her for her heroic struggle, and may we, too, strive to realize the image of God in our lives.

How Can We Provide More Affordable, Workforce Housing in the Fox Valley?

 Housing Crisis in the Fox Valley

We have a terrible housing crisis all over our country. Affordable, workforce housing is scarce and expensive. Many hardworking people are burdened by the excessive cost of housing when they can afford it at all. Affordable, workforce housing is also scarce where I live in Wisconsin’s Fox Valley, even though housing in Wisconsin is less expensive than in some other states. 

Federal guidelines recommend that households spend no more than 30% of their incomes on housing. Those that have to spend more than that are considered “cost burdened” because housing takes up such a large part of their income that they struggle to pay for other things like food or clothing, and they struggle to save anything.  According to a study published in 2019, nearly 20% of Appleton households and 23% of Green Bay households were considered cost burdened, and the situation has only gotten worse since then. 

An article in the Post-Crescent discussed the reasons why affordable housing is scarce in our community.

Paulsen [a professor of urban planning in Madison] said a good rule of thumb to determine how much a household should spend on a conventional mortgage is to multiply its income by three. So, to afford one of McHugh's cheapest and smallest homes, at $264,900, a household would need to earn around $88,000 a year. [McHugh is a builder in the Fox Valley.] 

The "sweet spot" for workforce housing in the Appleton area would be homes between $180,000 and $225,000, Paulsen said. All you have to do is look at the listings to realize there is virtually nothing in that price range," Paulsen said. "And if it is available, it goes really quickly....

It's also nearly impossible to build a new home within that price range….

This is Wrong and It Hurts Us All

This is wrong. It is unjust. Hardworking people who live in our community should not be struggling just to afford places to live. Buying a house is part of the American Dream. Buying a house is a step in a family's struggle to build wealth. A lack of decent affordable places to live gives the lie to the American Dream and feeds the feeling that many people have that our system is rigged against them. 

That is not all. The suffering that is being inflicted on our working people is also hurting the Fox Valley as a whole because the lack of affordable, workforce housing makes our communities less attractive as places to work and to establish businesses.

We Don’t Want to Lose Our Economic Advantage

We in the Fox Valley should think about ways to solve our housing problem because our low cost of living has in recent years been one of our main strengths in the competition to attract jobs and workers. If we want our communities to grow and prosper, we should look for ways to keep our cost of living low. One of the things we can do is to make sure that we have plenty of affordable, workforce housing, and in order to do that effectively, we should first understand the reasons why affordable housing has become so scarce and so expensive. Affordable housing has become scarce and expensive because we face a reduced supply of housing and an increased demand for it at the same time.

Why the Supply of Housing is Low

The reasons for the high cost of housing fall into two groups: market-based causes and non-market-based causes.

Market-Based Causes

The low supply originated in the crash of 2008. Because of the crash, the average number of houses built per year dropped drastically and has not yet fully recovered. The pandemic exacerbated the problem because the combination of low interest rates and quarantine requirements led lots of people to buy new homes, thus taking them off the market.

The inflation of recent years exacerbated the problem still further by raising the cost of building materials. In addition, many baby boomers have decided to continue to live in their homes rather than selling them to downsize into apartments or moving into assisted living.

Finally, many houses have been bought by investment groups. They often can pay cash and can afford to pay slightly higher prices than individuals. So, the investment groups have an advantage in the market, and their investment programs have limited the supply of housing available to individuals.

Non-Market-Based Causes

The housing market is not an entirely free market. It is heavily affected by government actions including zoning laws, building regulations and the rules governing government programs like veterans’ programs or the FHA that provide inexpensive mortgages. The housing market is also affected by rules and covenants designed by developers for the subdivisions they develop. Developers may specify that houses must have a minimum size in square feet or that certain kinds of building materials must be used. Such restrictions raise the cost of building houses. In addition, developers may specify a certain minimum lot size that limits the number of houses that can be built in a subdivision.

The Rental Market

Finally, we should note that the high cost and low supply of housing for sale has put pressure on the rental market, too. People who cannot buy places to live must rent them, and so, the scarcity of affordable housing for sale has driven up rents all over the United States. Moreover, all the things that have limited the supply of housing for sale have also limited the supply of rental housing.

Why the Demand for Housing is High

All of the limitations on the supply of housing have crashed into the demand created by the millennial generation’s reaching their prime home-buying years. The millennial generation is the largest since the baby-boom, and their desire to buy houses has created a tremendous demand just when the supply has been limited by the factors mentioned above.

Approaches to Solutions

In order to make available more of the housing that we need, the actions of governments must increase the supply of affordable, workforce housing on the market. The most direct approach would be to build public housing, but that would be expensive, and it would take a long time. Fortunately, there are other approaches that rely on creating incentives for private builders and on reducing or modifying existing regulations.

 State and local governments are well positioned to take action to increase the supply of housing. Some of the actions suggested below would be actions of local governments, and some would be actions of our state government. In addition, the state may act to facilitate local solutions. The list of solutions suggested here is not intended to be exhaustive. I hope that the ideas presented will stimulate our leaders to think creatively about solutions.

Incentivize construction of affordable new homes

Various levels of government can provide incentives for the construction of affordable housing by ingenious use of the tax system. A city or a school district could for example offer property tax rebates for to developers or builders of houses that are built on small lots or are built as manufactured houses. In addition, loans could be made available at attractive interest rates to builders of workforce housing or to buyers of such houses. In setting up such programs, we should be careful to avoid the errors that were made by the FHA that made such inexpensive financing unavailable to black people and contributed to the gap in rates of home ownership between black people and white people today.

A city could also invest in “housing parks” just as it now invests in industrial parks, and it could invite builders to build affordable, workforce housing in the parks. A housing park would be a subdivision that is deliberately planned to provide affordable, workforce housing. A city would in effect become the developer of the housing park subdivision and would invite builders to purchase lots and build houses just as would be done in a privately developed subdivision. The city could issue bonds to finance the purchase of the land, and the bonds would be paid off from the sale of the lots and from the property taxes that the new houses would generate.

Lift condo lending restrictions

Condos are less expensive than free-standing houses, but the rules governing the financing of condos are particularly cumbersome. The rules could be simplified, and that would create a bigger supply of condos. A city could also encourage the building of condos in our housing parks by setting aside land for them. Moreover, if the city were the "sponsor," (developer), the financing would be easier.

Focus on manufactured housing

Manufactured housing is much cheaper than housing constructed by traditional methods. The production of manufactured housing has fallen considerably since the nineteen-nineties, and if it were revived, houses could be produced much more cheaply.

Improve financing for existing homes

Today, a bank will generally lend money for the purchase of an existing house only on the basis of its current value, but a person may wish to buy a house and rehabilitate it. If a loan could be arranged to cover the cost of the rehabilitation as well as the existing value, that would make it easier for people who want to put in “sweat equity” to buy houses and fix them up. The effect would be to increase the supply of affordable housing in our community.

Lift or Modify Zoning Restrictions and Development Covenants

Zoning restrictions effectively prevent affordable housing from being built in many neighborhoods, and changing the restrictions is difficult because of NIMBYism. Nevertheless, we should explore loosening our zoning restrictions on a case-by-case basis in order to increase the supply of affordable housing.

In the development of new subdivisions, we should discourage building covenants that make the construction of affordable housing difficult or impossible.

To Fight for Social Justice, We Must Stay Together

 Remember What Our Goal Is

We Democrats should remind ourselves what our most important goal is: it is to make our society here in the United States more just and equitable. We promote policies that redistribute income from the upper class to the rest of the people, as we have done in the past. We created Social Security, Medicare and the G.I. Bill. We created Head Start and Food Stamps. In the future, if we hold together, we will be able to create a decent health care system; we will be able to have affordable childcare and affordable housing; and we will be able to have a system of post-secondary education that does not leave people with crushing debts.

In order to achieve these and other elements of a just society, we have to stay together. We have to overcome our tendency to split over issues that are not at the core of our mission. The current conflict in the Democratic Party over the war in Gaza is an example. Members of the Democratic Party trade accusations of racism. Some say that that Israel’s policies are colonialist and racist, while others say that critics of Israel are antisemites. Each side effectively says that the other side is racist.

We Will Always Have Differences of Opinion

This is understandable to a degree. Palestinians like Rashida Tlaib naturally feel sympathy for Palestinians in Palestine, and in addition, she has many Palestinians in her district. Similarly, Jews in the United States naturally feel sympathy for Jews in Israel, and politicians from districts with large, Jewish populations will reflect that sympathy. The Democratic Party has always been diverse, and its members will never agree on all issues. We certainly disagree deeply over issues connected with the conflict between Israel and Hamas and with American policy toward Israel.  

If We Want Social Justice, We Must Stay Together

In dealing with our disagreements, we should remember that those issues are not part of our core mission. Our struggle is for a more just and equitable society here at home, and we should not risk losing that fight over an issue that has little relevance to it. Unfortunately, it appears that elections may be decided over attitudes toward the war, and as a result, we may lose a chance to promote social justice in our country. We will lose the chance because voters will desert the Democratic Party.

Some voters will desert the Democratic Party because of what they see as a racist and neocolonialist policy toward Israel. Other voters will desert the party because of what they see as the antisemitism of the left. Both groups will weaken Pres. Biden’s chance of being re-elected as well as the chance of creating a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. Moreover, the latest polls tell us that if we want to reelect our president or secure a Democratic majority in Congress next year, we need more than ever to stay together. Since social justice can be advanced only by Democratic majorities, the dispute over the war in Gaza will reduce the chances of making our society more equitable.

If We Want to Save Our Democracy, We Must Stay Together

That is not all. The Republican Party is currently dominated by people who have only contempt for our democracy. They tried to overthrow our last presidential election. They are trying to fasten on us the views of a fanatical, religious minority. They have used gerrymandering to maintain control of state governments, and they have elected an extreme white Christian nationalist as speaker of the house. We cannot allow them to regain the White House.

If we want to be effective in politics, we must choose our fights. We must prioritize our goals. We will never have a political party in which we all agree on all issues, but if we want to be able to make our country more just, we have to keep our party together.  So, we have to remember what we really care about. We are the party of social justice, and driving Jews out of the Democratic Party will hurt the chances for social justice in our country. So will driving away Palestinians and our party’s left wing.

If We Want Peace, We Must Stay Together

We need to think about how we talk about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. 

Those who support Israel can do so without accusing anyone who criticizes Israel of being antisemitic or of glorifying terrorism. Israel's supporters can avoid comparing Hamas's raid to the Holocaust.  They must accept that many people all over the world - including many Jews and many Israelis - agree that Israel and its policies bear some responsibility for the recurring violence of which the current war is only the latest example. Israel's supporters can mourn for the dead on both sides. They can condemn Hamas's terrorism while also condemning Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza. In both cases, innocent people have been killed. Israel's friends can - as many Israelis do - support the Palestinians' demand for national autonomy while resisting any demand for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Those who support the Palestinian cause can do so without claiming that Israel's very existence is nothing more than an expression of white racism or European colonialism. They can avoid the hyperbole of genocide. They can condemn Israel's bombing of Gaza without glorifying Hamas's attack. They can mourn for the dead on both sides. They can support the Palestinian demand for national autonomy without insisting on the destruction of the State of Israel. Either the two-state solution or the one-state solution offers a framework for supporting the Palestinian cause. So, if we want to move toward peace and keep our party together, we must talk about real solutions of these kinds and not waste time vilifying each other. Playing the blame game is not a road to peace.

Remember what we care about! Keep our party together to win in 2024, to promote social justice in our country and to further the cause of peace in the Middle East!