Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 206

How to heal from the toxic triangulation of narcissists

(Credit: Pressmaster/Shutterstock)

Survivors of intimate relationships with malignant narcissists are often put through the psychological wringer. This is not surprising, as they have been chronically mistreated, demeaned and diminished by character-disordered individuals who are masters of interpersonal exploitation and who show severe deficiencies in their ability to empathize.  Dr. George Simon asserts that grandiose, malignant narcissists feel entitled to abuse and exploit empathic individuals for their own gain because they truly believe in the delusion of their own superiority.

Abusive narcissists are contemptuous, haughty, condescending and cruel beyond words. They are also insatiable attention-seekers, constantly looking for validation from the outside world to bolster their grandiose egos.

We’ve all heard the saying, “Never trust the date that is rude to the waiter,” but what about the partner who is overly flirtatious with the waitress, each and every time? Survivors of intimate relationships with narcissists can attest to the insatiable attention-seeking that a narcissistic abuser exhibits as he or she tries to gain narcissistic supply (ex. attention, praise, admiration, sex, status, etc.) from anyone and everyone they meet.

Toxic triangulation – what is it?

This leads us to talk about one of the common ways malignant narcissists demean their victims and retain narcissistic supply: triangulation. Triangulationin the context of narcissistic abuse is the act of bringing another person or a group of people into the dynamic of a relationship or interaction to belittle the victim and make the victim “vie” for the attention of the narcissist.

This method is often used to create love triangles among the people that the narcissistic abuser depends on for his or her daily “fix” of attention. Triangulation is one of the most insidious, heartbreaking tools malignant narcissists use to manipulate their former partners, their current partners, their harem members as well as their new sources of supply.

Narcissists enjoy using triangulation as a mind game that enables them to gain a sense of power and control over multiple people simultaneously.  It confirms to them their own grandiosity – after all, aren’t they superior if they have all these people competing for their approval and validation? They certainly think so.

The ways narcissists triangulate include but are certainly not limited to: flirting with others in front of their partners, emotional and physical infidelity, as well as comparing their partners to others as a way to manufacture insecurities in them. They may also report back falsehoods about what one person is saying about another, in order to pit their victims against each other so that neither one of them approaches the other about the abuse taking place.

This form of triangulation can enables victims to doubt the reality of the abuse (ex. “My ex never had this problem with me!”) and serves to make the victim feel unworthy and doubtful of their own experiences. As survivors who have met the ex-partners of their narcissistic abusers and have had honest conversations with them can testify, these claims are far from the truth. You will find that malignant narcissists deplete and drain each and every one of their victims, who all have similar horror stories about the relationship.

Triangulation also has the added “reward” of allowing narcissists access to resources from each and every victim – whether that resource be wealth, status or simply the delicious compassion of an unsuspecting empath. The need for narcissistic supply can be almost gratifyingly sadistic – a way to punish victims for seeking to be independent agents and to keep them reliant on the narcissist’s approval.

You may be wondering: why would anyone fall into this trap? It’s because triangulation can happen in covert, underhanded ways meant to subtly make victims question themselves. The narcissist’s false mask helps to reinforce his or her charming presence, which lures both potential victims as well previous partners into a horrific abuse cycle filled with love-bombing idealization, cruel and callous devaluation and a comfort-punishment dynamic that creates trauma bonding between victim and predator.

What survivors must understand is that triangulation is not an indication of anyone’s worth or desirability. Nor are the narcissist’s new victims immune to encountering this tactic. It is ammunition and leverage to devalue former victims to new partners (ex. “My ex was so crazy!”) or re-idealize old partners while devaluing new ones (ex. “My last girlfriend/boyfriend got my jokes, why can’t you?”). It is also used to annihilate a former partner’s sense of self by flaunting the new source of supply shortly after a discard.

This is something narcissists are prone to doing publicly post-breakup, especially if you discarded them first. It is done in order to regain power over your emotions, hoover you back into the abuse cycle or provoke you into breaking No Contact.

How to heal from triangulation

There are many excellent resources in the survivor community about the methods of triangulation and its effects. What is lacking are more tips on how to best address the wounding that can result from triangulation and how to begin healing from it. Rejection on its own is hurtful enough, but manipulative, deliberately damaging comparisons set up by an emotional terrorist is quite another affair.

This can be a complex and daunting undertaking, as narcissists not only trigger old wounds, they also manufacture new ones – creating what I like to call “simultaneous wounding.”  It is important that in resisting triangulation, one minimizes as much contact as possible with the narcissistic abuser (even in a co-parenting situation where Low Contact is more appropriate). This entails blocking the abuser on all social media platforms, cutting off contact with the abuser’s harem members to ensure peace of mind as well as taking any steps you can to legally protect yourself from potential stalking and harassment after the break-up.

Healing from the effects of toxic triangulation is not an easy task, but gaining self-mastery, self-confidence and learning how to self-validate is essential to the recovery journey.  You may also require professional support to address any symptoms of trauma in addition to these methods, as well as any other traditional or alternative healing modalities that can assist you in the healing journey.

Here are three powerful ways survivors of abuse can begin to heal from the impact of toxic triangulation and rise in their authentic, glorious selves:

1. Know that you are irreplaceable and learn exactly why.

Toxic partners work hard to instill in us a belief that we can be easily replaced with another source of supply. This is why survivors of narcissistic abuse can be so devastated after they’ve been abused, devalued, discarded and not too soon after, seemingly replaced by a shiny new target. They reminisce about the ways their narcissistic partners treated them in the idealization phase, wondering if the new person in the abuser’s life is being treated better.

We all know logically that narcissists put each and every partner through this cycle of abuse regardless of who that person is. The fantasy relationship they display on Facebook or in public spaces is an illusion – you know that for a fact because they concocted the same fantasy with you, posting happy images on social media or bragging about you to their friends even when they began abusing you behind closed doors.

The abuser’s lack of empathy and sense of entitlement carries forward in every relationship – even the person they eventually seem to ‘settle down’ with (and let’s all say a collective prayer for this person). Yet on a subconscious level, we may still be plagued by victim-shaming ideas cultivated by the blameshifting, projection and gaslighting that we endured throughout the relationship.

Our abusers, after all, have brainwashed and conditioned us over time into believing that we were the problem, and this is an ingrained belief system that needs to be addressed at its core in order for healing to take place.

It is this belief that arises not only during toxic triangulation in the relationship, but after the ending of it. Not only do trauma bonds with the narcissist need to be severed, our cognitive distortions need to be replaced with healthier, more realistic beliefs about the toxic nature of the narcissistic ex-partner, the reality of the abuse we experienced as well as the integrity of our identity that the abuser attempted to erode, erase and diminish.

That’s where the power of self-appreciation and self-validation come in. Combating triangulation requires knowing that you are truly irreplaceable and why. I am sure you’ve heard it before, but the fact of the matter is, your particular “package” cannot be replicated. The dynamic combination of your unique inner and outer beauty, success, talents, skills, can never be found in another.

Remember also that narcissists see their victims as objects, not as individual beings, making them unlikely to even appreciate the complexity of the various identities they work hard to erase. Additionally, you as a person can never be ‘copied.’

It is interesting to note that narcissistic abusers may also triangulate their victims with targets that are “surprising” to say the least – people that victims did not realize the narcissist would ever have an interest in due to the narcissist’s so-called “preferences.” This can get us wondering whether the narcissist even liked our “type.” The truth is – the narcissist’s preferences quickly go out the window because they are overridden by the need for supply. It is just further evidence that narcissists don’t discriminate when they need sources of supply after the ending of a significant relationship…they’ll gain attention, praise, adulation and validation from whoever offers it to them.

The fact that the abuser has seemingly ‘replaced’ you only means that they have replaced you with who they see as yet another object to cater to their needs. They do not see their new sources of supply as human beings nor do they truly appreciate the intricacies of who they are beyond a shallow representation.

The narcissistic abuser is so self-absorbed that they rarely ‘know’ the true personalities of their victims – only the aspects that can be used to serve them and their image. They may know that their partner Sally is a talented, good-looking musician, but they don’t truly ‘know’ Sally as a person. You’ll discover that even after a long-term relationship, asking a narcissist what they liked about their ex-partner will elicit only baffled looks. Even asking a narcissist what they like about you while in the idealization phase will only result in shallow responses. That’s because throughout the abuse cycle, the narcissistic abuser focuses on the traits of the victim that could be used to prop up the narcissist’s ego – not on the deeper qualities that defined who they were. Therefore, it is a waste of time to ever compare yourself to a narcissist’s old or new sources of supply or their harem members.

This can be difficult to accept when the narcissist is pulling out all stops to create a happy public image of his or her new or old relationship – but remember that appreciating what makes you who you are can act as an antidote to their poisonous efforts to diminish you.

How to stop idealizing the new source of supply 

When a narcissistic abuser moves onto a new target, survivors may begin to ‘idealize’ the target! They may begin to compare themselves unfavorably with the new source of supply, nullifying who they are in the process. They forget that they can never truly be replaced – with anyone. Sure, narcissistic Brad can date new target Melissa who is attractive and sporty, but they can’t get you. Not only are you attractive, you may also be intellectual, have a successful career, a passion for helping others, a quirky sense of humor, and a penchant for making the best dirty jokes. You could be a head-turner on the dance floor, be financially stable, deeply spiritual and have an active lifestyle. What are the cool and interesting things you’re forgetting about yourself? There are so many incredible things about you and your life that you tend to dismiss or minimize because you’re so busy focusing on the new victim.

You have all sorts of quirky facets to your identity that fit together in a scrumptious way that frankly, no one could mirror even if they tried. Maybe I am drawn to Cory with the six-pack and smooth pick-up lines, but at the end of the day it might be Zach with the sweet smile, who is not only smooth but also emotionally validating, empathic, mature beyond his years and has a deep voice that would probably make me melt in the long run.

Attractiveness is not a one-dimensional thing: it is a kaleidoscope of factors. It is not just one or two qualities that define us and make us desirable to people. It is a whole spectrum of nuanced attributes and larger-than-life traits that are stirred to make the magical potion that is your essence.

Everything from your intelligence, passions, hobbies, interests to the twinkle in your eye – beautiful qualities and attributes that anyone who is not a narcissist will be sure to cherish about you. So ask yourself: what is the potent cocktail of qualities that make you extra delicious and irreplaceable?

I am serious – there is something absolutely yummy about your particular mind, body and spirit – about your soul. There are parts of us – sometimes even the very ones we’d rather hide from society – that make us unique in ways people wouldn’t expect. Maybe the way you laugh is captivating; there might be something about your energy that is magnetic or your strong stride that catches the eye of everyone in the room. People pick up on those things about you because they’re seeing you with fresh eyes – and now it’s time for you to value these things in yourself too.

Remember, this rule of people being multifaceted applies to your abuser too, but in a way that gives survivors the advantage in moving forward. The once appealing and charming narcissist gets pretty boring in the long run when we factor in the attributes of their true selves – their flat affect, their inability to be happy for others, their cruelty, their pathological envy and a number of other undesirable traits. Who are they to compare or triangulate your badass self to anyone? No one.

That is why it helps, after we’ve addressed any wounds left behind by blameshifting, to cultivate and reinforce our own strengths rather than needlessly emphasizing any perceived weaknesses, flaws or deficiencies that the abuser has pushed us to internalize. It is a waste of your beautiful, divine self to diminish or nullify your qualities just because of the petty and immature games that narcissists play. I find that when survivors of narcissistic abuse begin to compare themselves to new targets or old ones, they begin to feed right into the narcissist’s desire to see their survivors sabotage themselves. It’s emotional rape and murder without a trace – and it’s done by your own hand!

Here are some ideas on how to embrace our irreplaceability and celebrate ourselves:

Make an epic “love list” and refer to it daily. This will get you in the habit of waking up in the morning with an attitude of being grateful for all that you are and have, rather than feeling lacking in any way.

What sort of miracles in your life, in your personality and in your abilities could you be missing out on as you waste time comparing yourself to another person? This is all about moving forward with the determination to refocus on what you do well and to celebrate the most attractive and desirable qualities about yourself. Every day, honor the qualities, traits and attributes that you are proud of – even if the narcissist put them down.

What successes did they downplay? Reminisce lovingly about them, knowing that the reason they were diminished in the first place were because they evoked the narcissist’s pathological envy. What intellectual, spiritual, emotional and physical attributes do you find people most notice about you and are captivated by? Your abuser probably tried to idealize you with them, only to later devalue them so that you wouldn’t feel as confident about yourself or your ability to get a better partner. Now it’s your turn to see these qualities again with fresh eyes. What do you see within yourself that you know makes you special and unique? Make an entire list if you have to, about the things you like and love about yourself and your life. Also make another list for your goals, dreams and anything you want to enhance in your life and brainstorm the steps to do so (such as your existing financial success or good health).

Tackle things that you need to breed more confidence in head-on. Use whatever the narcissist diminished you in as motivation or fuel to celebrate, improve or enhance loving that specific part of yourself.

If you have insecurities about your appearance, do some heavy-duty mirror workeach morning and night before going to sleep. Find joy in the various characteristics that make you beautiful and breed acceptance for any perceived flaws. What you might see as a flaw, another person might see as a treasured part of you. If you find this exercise difficult, start with staring into your own eyes in the mirror and saying, “I love you and I care about you, and goddamnit, I am going to fight for you. You are THAT worth it.” If you struggle with harmful messages about your body, do some yoga to increase appreciation for what your body is capable of rather than engaging in judgments about what it looks like. You will find that when you focus more on appreciating and honoring your body, you’ll also begin to treat it more mindfully and everything else you want will fall into place naturally.

According to research, yoga is also helpful for releasing trauma from the body – it’s a win-win! You may also want to engage in daily exercise to release endorphins and increase an overall sense of joy and well-being – meeting your fitness goals will just be the icing on the (gluten-free?) cake.  If your narcissistic abuser insulted your intuition or intelligence, get mindful and attend a meditation workshop to reconnect with your sacred inner guidance or pursue any academic goals you put on the back burner – ones that reconnect you with your brilliance. Those are just some ideas for how to use the bullying messages of your abuser to get you moving in a positive direction.

Don’t hold back on celebrating yourself – even if the voices of society, your abuser or your own inner critic seems to interfere.

If you normally shy away from complimenting yourself, it’s time to heap on some healthy self-appreciation and self-praise. If you’re one to belittle or judge everything you do or say, it’s time to take a step back and observe the inner critic without engaging the negative self-talk or feeding into it. You may think that I am asking you to get somewhat “narcissistic” in the process of loving yourself – but don’t worry, this is not about being cocky, shallow or self-aggrandizing like the narcissist is prone to being. It’s about appreciating yourself more fully and increasing your sense of self-efficacy, power and agency. It’s about recognizing your own desirability (inside and out) and foregoing the dark voices of your abusers and bullies saying otherwise. It’s about owning your strength and your ability to validate who you really are, not what the abuser tried to make you out to be. If the voice of your abuser arises and tries to squash your burgeoning confidence, learn how to distinguish that voice from those who truly love and care about you. Check in with yourself and say explicitly, “That’s not what I truly think and feel. That’s what the abuser tried to make me believe about myself.”

Do something to ‘interrupt’ the pattern of negative self-talk and get yourself back into the habit of nourishing yourself with empowering affirmations.

Think of hypercritical feedback from the narcissist as criticism from an angry, jealous toddler – it is not valid nor has it been given to you with the best intentions. It is a pathological defense mechanism and has very little to do with your worth or value. Realize that feedback from grounded, emotionally stable individuals as well as your own inner voice are the anchors and true testaments to your character and potential.This is all about getting the focus off of the narcissist and onto the magic that is within you.

Pull in some healthy external feedback when you need to and distinguish it from the harsh words of your abuser.  

These exercises are all about what you enjoy in yourself, but don’t be afraid to also pull in positive feedback from healthier past partners, friends, family members, co-workers and acquaintances about what they cherish and positively regard about you as well. Keep a running document of any and all compliments you’ve ever received in your life that you can refer to whenever you’re feeling especially low or find yourself getting into a space of self-doubt.

2. Eradicate subconscious wounding that says you’re not enough and cultivate new seeds of self-worth.

Many (but not all) survivors who have been in unhealthy, abusive relationships in adulthood also come from unhealthy family dynamics. Childhood is where many survivors first learn to dim their own light.

Survivors of childhood abuse by narcissistic parents may have been pitted against a sibling or a group of siblings growing up. Your parents may have tried to “bury” your gifts because they were abusive narcissists and wanted to see you fail. They knew your potential, but they worked hard to stifle it to meet their own selfish agendas.

That being said, there are a variety of circumstances that can lead to a child growing up believing that he or she is not meant to shine. Maybe you always had a more athletic brother or a “prettier” sister (at least from society’s perspective). Perhaps you had a best friend that tended to outshine you in social circles. It’s possible you were bullied or were made to feel invisible by toxic teachers who paid more attention to their favorite students. You may have also endured complex trauma and were the victim of all of these scenarios and more.

Whatever your situation was growing up, even if it was a healthy and happy childhood where you were nourished and supported, there may still be beliefs lingering about not being good enough – whether it is from the influence of society, culture or childhood programming. Identifying these experiences and the associated beliefs that came with them can go a long way in tackling any wounding that is being reinforced when triangulation is used as a method to provoke or further diminish you.

After you’ve identified the ways in which you have been brought down in the past, ask yourself the following questions and explore:

In what ways can I embrace my visibility? For example, is there a dream you’ve been holding off on pursuing due to self-doubt or sabotage from your abusive partner? Now is the time to start working on or rebuilding that dream to make it come to life, bigger and brighter than ever – it represents an authentic desire you’re meant to fulfill.

What parts of myself and what gifts have I resisted showcasing as a way to hide myself the way I’ve been taught to hide? We were taught to minimize our talents and desirable traits due to the pathological envy of the narcissist and their put-downs, as well as any childhood programming. Perhaps you’re an incredible artist and your abuser told you negative things about your potential for achieving your dreams because it took the spotlight off of them. Now it’s time to embrace those again and remember the gifts that made us who we truly were before the abusive relationship.

What ways has being invisible protected me from what I’ve been taught to fear (such as criticism) and how can I cultivate the type of confidence that allows me to overcome those fears? Childhood abuse survivors can learn to fear success of any kind due to being punished for daring to succeed by their their abusive caretakers. Similarly, survivors of narcissistic abuse in adulthood can be taught that with success comes punishment via the callous put-downs of their intimate partners whenever they were daring to achieve something that enabled them to become independent of the narcissist. You may have developed an extreme fear of ‘displaying’ who you are as a person and the things that make you truly special. Beneath this fear is an underlying need to protect yourself.

Perhaps your five year-old self still fears being noticed by others because your abusive mother taught you weren’t worthy of being acknowledged or instilled a deep fear in you about the dangers of being too pretty or smart. Or maybe your 23-year-old self is still reeling from that abusive ex who told you that you were too ‘damaged’ to find anyone better – this is a common fear these toxic types try to convince their partners of in order to hold them back from pursuing healthier relationships.

Suppressing or acting on these fears might have been a go-to coping mechanism for you, but now it’s time to unravel these fears and invite curiousity about what they are protecting you from as well as what they’re preventing you from obtaining. These lingering fears may come with protective intentions, but they are ultimately holding you back from what is meant to flourish within you.

How can I rise above the people who tried to keep me behind the curtain,when I really deserved my chance at the spotlight too? If you find yourself fearing criticism or envy from others as a result of outshining them, remember that everyone deserves recognition – and that there’s plenty of it to go around. Unlike predatory narcissists, survivors of abuse know deep down that they don’t ever have to rob someone else of their light in order to be seen.

We can celebrate the accomplishments of others as well as our own – in fact, we take special joy in it. So why not extend that same courtesy of being happy for others to ourselves? We don’t have to be made to feel ashamed or guilty about being proud of who we are. What are more ways you can allow yourself to be in the spotlight and truly enjoy yourself? For example, your abuser may have pushed you to be quiet in social groups whenever you were with them so you wouldn’t get attention from anyone else – now is the perfect time to relearn how to speak out and show off your personality.

Here’s a truth-bomb for the people-pleasers out there: you’re allowed to take up space and own that space without apologies. You’re allowed to speak your voice. You’re allowed to be beautiful (or handsome) inside and out, brilliant, worthy, valuable, seen and heard. You’re allowed to be successful and be proud of yourself in a healthy way. You’re allowed to accept compliments. You’re allowed to compliment yourself. You’re allowed to set boundaries and say “no” when you mean no and say “yes” to the things your heart and soul say “hell yes” to. You’re allowed to realize that the narcissistic abuser who put you through this mess is just another incredibly flawed (and dysfunctional) human being who has no say on your worth or abilities. You’re allowed to see the new source of supply as also another flawed human being who is not worth any of your time, energy or competition.

Yep, you heard me. You never have to compete with anyone – and a healthy partner would never want anyone who they truly love and cherish to feel like they’re competing with anybody anyway. Narcissists want us to compete for their love and attention but what we’re pulled in to fight for is ultimately meaningless, as narcissists don’t even have the capacity to love anyone in a healthy manner.

Let the new source of supply get the consolatory prize: the abusive narcissist who will make them compete with others too – while you move onto bigger and better things. Your biggest prize is your new life of freedom and a path back to your true, authentic self – and, if you’re looking for it, an open space for true, authentic love to enter your life – the kind with empathy, compassion and respect. The kind that is so deliciously appreciative of everything that makes you so beautiful and worthy.

3. Minimize unnecessary comparisons and reprogram negative self-talk.

One of the most damaging lies we can learn from narcissistic parents or partners is that we have to compete with others in order to prove our worth. Whether it be the golden child or the new source of supply, victims of narcissistic abuse are made to feel deficient and worthless by the toxic, destructive conditioning of the relationship. They begin to compare themselves to others as a form of self-sabotage, continuing the abuse even after the relationship has ended.

If we spent our lives comparing ourselves to every person we came across, we would drive ourselves certifiably insane. Similarly, the last thing we want to be doing on our journey to healing is to make unnecessary comparisons to someone a toxic person has triangulated us with.

Narcissistic abusers are masters of triangulating us with people who may be very different from us – this is done intentionally to provoke a sense of unease and self-questioning about qualities we may “lack.” Yet what you have to remember is that down the line, your narcissistic ex-partner will start to compare their new supply to you – talking nonsense about how their ex (you) did this or that and suddenly putting you back on the pedestal.

They don’t discriminate on who they criticize and for what – they’re looking to feed off of the emotional reactions they get with all of their sources of supply and they will continue the same cycle of triangulation with their new partners as well.

The truth is that we are not lacking in any shape, way or form. We are “full” of the very things we need. We are absolutely sufficient in what we have now, because within that unique brand of quirks, flaws, strengths – is exactly who we are and who we need to be. We are already whole and we need to work on the negative self-talk and inner critic that may pounce to detract from our own wholeness.

There are many ways to reprogram this negative voice in your head. Some ideas might be:

Engaging in a daily habit of positive affirmations customized to your unique needs and triggers. This is especially helpful when your abuser’s voice comes up. You may want to record these affirmations in your own voice and play them back (or have a trusted, loving friend do these for you). If you have severe anxiety over hardcore affirmations, start small. Maybe you don’t start with “I am beautiful,” but begin with “Everyone has beauty and I have beauty in me too.” instead. Do whatever it takes to make the affirmation believable to you before moving onto bigger and better confirmations of your value.
A weekly meditation practice (best to do this on a day you are most vulnerable to cravings to break No Contact) to help you to  listen and observe your train of thoughts rather than become increasingly reactive to them. Mindfully approaching these cravings or ruminations can help to ease the ‘addictive’ pull we often develop to keeping tabs on an abusive ex. This addiction is formed by the trauma bond and needs time, space, effort and practice in order to heal.
Emotional Freedom Technique, EMDR and/or hypnotherapy to clear negative thought patterns and target subconscious beliefs from the trauma that we may not even be aware of that are holding us back.

Breaking the triangle and integrating wholeness.

You might be catching on that this part of the journey is not about the love triangle itself but what the triangle represents, the core wounds it reveals and learning how to navigate the pathway to deeper, richer self-love. Don’t get me wrong – triangulation hurts no matter what sort of wounding you may have, because no matter what insecurities you have, triangulation is still abuse. It is a form of devaluation from a toxic partner that no one should ever have to go through. Narcissistic abuse erodes our identity, our self-esteem and threatens to destroy the dreams we’re meant to fulfill. As survivors heal, triangulation comes up as a common way they’ve been dehumanized and traumatized.

However, as you begin to work on core wounds, self-sabotaging beliefs and any issues with self-confidence in conjunction with No Contact, you’ll find that your emotional resonance with the narcissist’s ploys is not as heightened as before. You’re able to move on a bit more quickly rather than tethering yourself to comparisons or creating new ones in your mind. On some level, even subconsciously, we feel trapped to remain within the toxic triangle because we have forgotten to honor our wholeness and we’re still attached to the abuser through traumatic bonding.

Regardless of whichever context you might be facing triangulation, it’s important to remember and honor that wholeness. Comparing ourselves is a dishonor to the very things that make us who we are. If you have a need to constantly compare yourself to the people your abuser pitted you against, why not compare yourself to who you used to be in the abusive relationship or to a healthy role model that you aspire to be more like?

Now that you’ve paved the path to freedom, you’re probably stronger, more resilient, and more determined to succeed. You’ve grown a great deal since the abuse. You’ve survived the worst moments of your life and are now on your way to thriving. Don’t allow the narcissist’s attempts to make you feel less than detract you from the independence you’ve worked so hard to achieve. Post-breakup triangulation is deliberately staged to get you off of your journey to freedom and right back into the narcissist’s trap. Instead, “reverse triangulate” the narcissist with a new support network, a new flourishing life and a new sense of confidence that births your revolution and victory after abuse.

Fox Business host declares war on Trump’s tax plan: “I’m disgusted with our government right now”

(Credit: AP)

Donald Trump’s tax plan is historically unpopular. Nevertheless, Republicans are on the precipice of passing the first major restructuring of the American tax code in thirty years thanks to one-party control of Congress and a relative lack of public outrage. The president will likely end his first year in office with a major tax cut for corporations as his only domestic achievement — and at least one host on his favorite television channel is not impressed.

“Yes, I love the idea of lower corporate taxes,” Fox Business Network host Trish Regan said of the Republican plan on her show last week, “but I really do not like what they’re doing on the individual side.” The normally pro-Trump pundit who regularly guest-hosts on Fox News explained that savings that businesses will see would be offset by individual taxpayers. “My concern here is it’s going to hurt the individual. And so, effectively, individuals are carrying the water for these corporations — they get that great tax cut on the corporate side, but people are not gonna get it on the individual side.”

The Republican plan cuts the corporate tax rate nearly in half. In order to pay for the permanent 21 percent corporate tax rate without increasing the deficit after 10 years, per Senate rules, Republicans allowed the tax cuts on individuals to expire.

Noting that while campaigning the president promised a tax cut for the working and middle-class Americans who supported him, Regan blasted the bill. “I don’t think it’s gonna be much of a Christmas present, it’s more like getting coal in your stocking because your tax bill is gonna go up.”

President Trump promised a HUGE tax cut for Christmas. This bill is good for CORPORATIONS, but for individuals, this is more like an ugly piece of coal! C’mon, you guys can do better! pic.twitter.com/PRCgHYUleB

— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) December 12, 2017

She continued her pointed assault against the bill on Monday, as the last reluctant Republicans in the Senate lined up in support of the final legislation. (Republicans leaders say they are confident they will be able to get the bill passed in both chambers and on Trump’s desk by Wednesday.)

“The president keeps touting this as the biggest tax cut ever,” Regan said. “And it’s also great for a lot of fat cat private equity investors, and there is something wrong with that.”

Despite his impassioned campaign pledge to get rid of the “carried interest” loophole that allows wealthy private equity fund managers to claim a lower capital gains rate on much of their income from investments, Trump’s tax bill does nothing of the sort.

“The president promised to fix this, remember?” Regan posed to her Fox Business viewers.

Regan then went off on Trump’s Finance Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who explained to her in a Dec. 10 interview that the “carried interest” loophole was not eliminated as promised because “it is a complicated issue. It’s not that much money.”

An astounded Regan then asked a question that would normally be unspeakable on Trump-era Fox stations: “I’m beginning to wonder if our country is ungovernable?”

How is it fair that a private equity investor has a LOWER tax bracket than a NYC Cop?! This is just WRONG! Wasn’t the President supposed to CLOSE these special interest loopholes? Seems like our country is becoming ungovernable. #taxreform#TrishIntel pic.twitter.com/EZ6hzOb2l8

— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) December 18, 2017

Sarah Palin’s son charged for alleged attack on his father

Track Palin (Credit: Getty/Justin Sullivan)

Track Palin, the oldest son of former Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, was recently arrested at his family home in Wasilla on burglary and assault charges. According to a sworn affidavit obtained by the Anchorage Daily News, Palin’s 28-year-old son “repeatedly hit” Todd Palin, his father.

Sarah Palin called the police on Saturday, December 16, at 8:30pm, and said that Track Palin was “”freaking out and was on some type of medication.” From the report in the Anchorage Daily News:

Track Palin came to the house to confront his father over a truck he wanted to pick up, according to the affidavit. Todd Palin told his son not to come because he’d been drinking and taking pain medication.

“Track told him he was (going to) come anyway to beat his ass,” [reporting officer Adam] LaPointe wrote.

Todd Palin told the officer he got his pistol to “protect his family” and met his son with the gun when he came to the door, according to the affidavit.

Track Palin broke a window and came through it, and put his father on the ground, the report states. He began hitting him on the head.

Todd Palin escaped and left the house. He suffered injuries to his face and head, the officer wrote. He was bleeding from several cuts on his head and had liquid coming from his ear.

This isn’t Track Palin’s first domestic violence charge at the family home. In August 2016, Palin entered into a plea agreement after punching a woman at the same house in Wasilla.

Some of Palin’s detractors might be prone to a sense of schadenfreude at the news, as such an event seems to exemplify conservative hypocrisy. While it’s tempting to see the irony in the family values party violating its self-imposed precepts, Track Palin’s issues are part of a larger, disturbing trend of domestic violence that touches all classes and political sides, and which disproportionately affects veterans (as perpetrators) and women (as victims).

As an Iraq war veteran, Track Palin was tried in Anchorage Veterans Court following his first arrest for punching his girlfriend. Sarah Palin commented at the time that her son “[came] back a bit different” from combat. “They come back hardened,” she added.

A U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs study reported that “the prevalence of violence among individuals with PTSD is 7.5% in the US population and 19.5% in post-9/11 Veterans, suggest[ing] that the association between PTSD and violence is especially strong in this Veteran cohort.”

Annually, 10 million women and men are “physically abused by an intimate partner” in the U.S. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, an advocacy group, says that “1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men” will be “victims of [some form of] physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime.”

Trump vs. Trump: New national security speech contradicts national security strategy

(Credit: Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s speech on Monday about national security has been met with a decidedly mixed response.

“Optimism has surged. Confidence has returned. With this new confidence, we are also bringing back clarity to our thinking. We are reasserting these fundamental truths: A nation without borders is not a nation. A nation that does not protect prosperity at home cannot protect its interests abroad,” Trump said in his speech. “A nation that is not prepared to win a war is a nation not capable of preventing a war. A nation that is not proud of its history cannot be confident in its future, and a nation that is not certain of its values cannot summon the will to defend them.”

Many aspects of Trump’s speech, and the national security document it outlined (the National Security Strategy), seemed to contradict the president’s own policies.

At one point the document singled out Russia and China for “attempting to erode American security and prosperity,” even though Trump has spent much of his presidency cozying up to Russia, including attempting to lift sanctions imposed by President Barack Obama and calling Russian President Vladimir Putin to thank him for saying kind words about Trump’s economic policies. While the speech echoed these claims, arguing that Russia and China “seek to challenge American influence, values, and wealth,” Trump appeared eager to offset that criticism when he added this anecdote:

Yesterday I received a call from President Putin of Russia thanking our country for the intelligence that our CIA was able to provide them concerning a major terrorist attack planned in St. Petersburg, where many people, perhaps in the thousands, could have been killed. They were able to apprehend these terrorists before the event, with no loss of life. And that’s a great thing, and the way it’s supposed to work.  That is the way it’s supposed to work.

As CNN’s Jim Acosta noted, the National Security Strategy document mentioned Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election, which Trump has continued to deny.

“Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies,” the document pointed out. Trump’s speech, however, made no similar mention.

The National Security Strategy document also claimed that America “must upgrade our diplomatic capabilities to compete in the current environment,” even though Trump has left a number of key State Department posts unstaffed. The president has also had a notoriously poor relationship with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, whom he has repeatedly embarrassed and who arrived noticeably late to the president’s address after hosting the French foreign minister, who publicly criticized Trump’s foreign policy as “a position of retreat.”

Trump’s speech also drew criticism from a wide array of foreign policy pundits.

Former U.S. ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns, noted the glaring disconnect between Trump’s words on Monday and his actions during his first year in office:

Contradiction in Trump #NationalSecurityStrategy: his policy of last 12 months a radical departure from every President since WWII. Trump weak on NATO, Russia, trade, climate, diplomacy. U.S. declining as global leader. These actions more revealing than a strategy document.

— Nicholas Burns (@RNicholasBurns) December 18, 2017

The other obvious contradiction in President Trump’s #NationalSecurityStrategy: he needs a strong State Department to implement it. Instead, State and the Foreign Service are being weakened and often sidelined.

— Nicholas Burns (@RNicholasBurns) December 18, 2017

Yet another contradiction in Trump #NationalSecurityStrategy: in nearly every part of the world, foreign leaders believe the U.S. is weakening as the global leader. That is how America First looks to the rest of the world.

— Nicholas Burns (@RNicholasBurns) December 18, 2017

Major contradiction in Trump #NationalSecurityStrategy on Russia—it is a competitor. So, why is he not defending us against Russia’s interference in our election?

— Nicholas Burns (@RNicholasBurns) December 18, 2017

As did Barack Obama’s former national security advisor, Ben Rhodes:

Trump now praising the benefits of partnership with Putin. This is what the strategy says: "Russia aims to weaken US influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners," their nukes are "the most significant existential threat to the United States"

— Andrew Beatty (@AndrewBeatty) December 18, 2017

As is often the case on foreign policy, Trump is at odds with the views within the government. Foreign governments will put more stock in Trump's words than strategy documents. https://t.co/BZcpw39Vfd

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) December 18, 2017

2. And yes, I agree that economic security is national security. But then why are we risking that with a tax bill that adds trillions to the debt – much of which we owe foreign nations we're competing with! This National Security Strategy doesn't help us meet challenges abroad

— Senator Bob Menendez (@SenatorMenendez) December 18, 2017

18 mins in and we get the first mention of the NSS.

— Tom Wright (@thomaswright08) December 18, 2017

He hardly spoke about Russia. One passing mention as a competitor immediately followed by how much he wants partnership. NSS takes a very different tack

— Tom Wright (@thomaswright08) December 18, 2017

This sounds like the foreign policy equivalent of American carnage.

— Katty Kay (@KattyKayBBC) December 18, 2017

Not all of the reactions to Trump’s speech were negative.

In an editorial for Fox News, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich praised it as a rebuke to the post-Cold War foreign policies that “built their strategic efforts around a system of global multilateralism defined by lawyers, diplomats, and elite media.”

He added, “President Trump’s national security speech today should be read by every American who is concerned about national safety (which is the goal of national security).”

There was also this tweet by David Reaboi of Security Studies Group.

Trump’s speech today showed that he’s very much in line with tradition of conservative foreign policy, from Goldwater to Reagan. It’s the Bush folks who were outliers.

— David Reaboi (@davereaboi) December 18, 2017

 

 

Taxing the rich to help the poor? What the Bible says isn’t what the GOP says

Paul Ryan (Credit: AP/Susan Walsh)

The new tax reform bill has led to an intense debate over whether it would help or hurt the poor. Tax reform in general raises critical issues about whether the government should redistribute income and promote equality in the first place.

Jews and Christians look to the Bible for guidance about these questions. And while the Bible is clear about aiding the poor, it does not provide easy answers about taxing the rich. But even so, over the centuries biblical principles have provided an understanding on how to help the needy.

The Hebrew Bible and the poor

The Hebrew Bible has extensive regulations that require the wealthy to set aside for the poor a portion of the crops that they grow.

The Bible’s Book of Leviticus states that the needy have a right to the “leftovers” of the harvest. Farmers are also prohibited from reaping the corners of their fields so that the poor can access and use for their own food the crops grown there.

Hebrew Bible.

Darren Larson, CC BY-NC-ND

In Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Bible, there is the requirement that every three years, 10 percent of a person’s produce should be given to “foreigners, the fatherless and widows.”

Helping the poor is a way of “paying rent” to God, who is understood to actually own all property and who provides the rain and sun needed to grow crops. In fact, every seventh year, during the sabbatical year, all debts are forgiven and everything that grows in the land is made available freely to all people. Then, in the great jubilee, celebrated every 50 years, property returns to its original owner. This means that, in the biblical model, no one can permanently hold onto something that finally belongs to God.

Christians and taxes

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Jesus thus joins respect for the poor with respect for God. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus also states “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” which is often interpreted as requiring Christians to pay taxes.

Throughout Christian history, taxation has been considered an essential government responsibility.

The Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin drew upon Psalm 72 to argue that a “righteous” government helps the poor.

In 16th-century England, “poor laws” were passed to aid “the deserving poor and unemployed.” The “deserving poor” were children, the old and the sick. By contrast, the “undeserving poor” were beggars and criminals and they were usually put in prison. These laws also shaped early American approaches to social welfare.

The common good

Over the last two centuries, new economic realities have raised new challenges in applying biblical principles to economic life. Approaches not foreseen in biblical times emerged in an attempt to respond to new situations.

The Salvation Army bucket.

Elvert Barnes, CC BY

In the 19th century, organizations like the Salvation Army believed that Christians should go out of the churches and into the streets to care for the destitute. During this period, the United States also saw the rise of the social gospel movement that emphasized biblical ideals of justice and equality. Poverty was considered a social problem that required a comprehensive social – and governmental – response.

The idea that government has an important role to play in human flourishing was made by Pope Leo XIII in his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum. In it, the pope argued that governments should promote “the common good.” Catholicism defines the “common good” as the “conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”

While human fulfillment is not just about material comfort, the Catholic Church has always maintained that citizens should have access to food, housing and health care. As the Catholic Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church makes clear, taxation is necessary because government should “harmonize” society in a just way.

And when it comes to taxes, no one should pay more or less than they are able. As Pope John XXIII wrote in 1961, taxation must “be proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing.”

In other words, believing that helping the poor is simply an individual or private responsibility ignores the scope and complexity of the world we live in.

Mercy, not the market

Human life has become more interconnected. In today’s globalized economy, decisions made in the heartland of China impact the American Midwest. But even with this deepening interdependence, by some measures, inequality has risen worldwide. In the United States alone, the top 1 percent possess an increasingly larger share of national income.

What social policy will do the most good?

Fibonacci Blue, CC BY

When it comes to helping the poor in these current times, some argue that cutting taxes on individuals and corporations will stimulate economic growth and create jobs – called the “trickle-down effect,” in which money flows from those at the top of the social pyramid down to lower levels.

Pope Francis, however, argues that “trickle-down” economics places a “crude and naive trust in those wielding economic power.” In the pope’s view, an ethics of mercy, not the market, should shape society.

But given the Jewish and Christian commitment to the poor, the question is perhaps a factual one: What social policy does the most good?

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus taught:

“Give, and you will receive. Your gift will return to you in full.”

At the very least, this means that people should never be afraid to offer up what they have in order to help those in need.

Mathew Schmalz, Associate Professor of Religion, College of the Holy Cross

More college financial aid is going to the rich

(Credit: Getty/baona)

Maya Portillo started life solidly in the middle class. Both her parents were college graduates, they sent her to a Montessori school, they took family vacations and they owned a house in Tucson, Arizona, filled with the books she loved to read.

Then, when she was 10, Portillo’s father left, the house was foreclosed on and the recession hit. Her mother was laid off, fell into debt and took Portillo and her two sisters to live a hand-to-mouth existence with their grandparents in Indiana.

“It could have happened to anyone,” said Portillo, who took two jobs after school to pitch in while trying to maintain her grades. “I can’t even begin to describe how hard it was.” She choked up. “It’s really hard to talk about, but when you have to help put food on the table when you’re in high school, it does something to you.”

Portillo recounted this story in a quiet conference room on the pristine hilltop campus of Cornell University, from which she was about to graduate with a major in industrial labor relations and minors in education and equality studies.

Her long path from comfort to poverty and an against-the-odds Ivy League degree gave her firsthand exposure to how even the smartest low-income students often succeed despite, rather than because of, programs widely assumed to help them go to college.

This is happening as tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded and privately provided financial aid, along with money universities and colleges dole out directly, flows to their higher-income classmates.

“There is a very seriously warped view among many Americans, and particularly more affluent Americans, about where the money is actually going,” said Richard Reeves, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution and author of “Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust.”

“They say, look, there’s always other support going to poorer kids,” Reeves said. “Well, there isn’t. There actually isn’t. But the ignorance about where the money is actually going and who benefits from it, that ignorance is really an obstacle to reform around what is, in fact, a reverse distribution.”

It’s a little-known reality that reflects – and, because higher education is a principal route to the middle class, widens – the American income divide. And at the same time that the fight over issues including health care and changes in tax law has reignited the national debate over income inequality, financial aid disparities are getting worse, driven by politics, the pursuit of prestige and policies that have been shifting resources away from students with financial need.

The result? “We’re not helping the right people go to college as much as we should,” said Ron Ehrenberg, a Cornell economist and director of the university’s Higher Education Research Institute.

At least 86,000 more low-income students per year are qualified to attend the most selective universities and colleges than enroll, according to a study by the Georgetown University Center for Education and the Workforce. On standardized admissions tests, these students score as well as or better than those who do get that privilege.

It’s not because selective institutions can’t afford to help low-income students, the Georgetown study said. The 69 most prestigious universities boast endowments averaging $1.2 billion and posted typical annual budget surpluses of $139 million from 2012 to 2015, the most recent year for which the figures are available.

Cornell has a $6.8 billion endowment and took in $390 million a year more than it spent during that time, the study said. Yet federal data show that 15 percent of its students are low-income, based on whether they qualify for a federal Pell Grant. Nationally, 33 percent of all students are low-income by this measure, the College Board reports.

Children of parents in the top 1 percent of earnings are 77 times more likely to go to an Ivy League college than those whose parents are in the bottom 20 percent, a National Bureau of Education Research study found. “Polishing the privileged,” one policymaker calls this.

But it’s not just Ivy League or even private institutions where the percentages of less well-off students are low. Some taxpayer-supported public universities enroll very small proportions of them. At the University of Virginia, for example, 12 percent of students come from families with incomes low enough to qualify for Pell Grants, federal data show.

It’s not because there aren’t plenty of low-income students who qualify, research by the Institute for Higher Education Policy found. At Pennsylvania State University’s main campus, for example, 15 percent of students are low-income, but the study showed that twice that proportion would meet admissions requirements, meaning Penn State could graduate 900 more lower-income students per year.

If such a change were made by all the universities and colleges that now take fewer lower-income students than they could, the report concluded, 57,500 more low-income students per year would be earning degrees.

“When you look at the way that higher education is financed, subsidized and organized in the United States, your heart sinks just a bit further,” Reeves said. “It takes the inequalities given to it and makes them worse.”

Even low-income students with the highest scores on 10th-grade standardized tests are more than three times less likely to go to top colleges than higher-income students, according to the Education Trust. More than a fifth of those high-achieving low-income students never go to college, while nearly all of their wealthier counterparts do.

In some cases, that’s because low-income prospects are discouraged by the cost. It’s a legitimate worry. Even though – as institutions argue – low-income students may be eligible for financial aid they’re not aware of, that money seldom covers the full price of their educations or enough of it that they could afford the rest. Portillo, for example, got comparatively generous help but still had to pay $3,500 a year she didn’t have, plus other expenses, such as mandatory health insurance.

“For someone like me, $3,500 is everything,” she said. “It’s a lot of money.”

So she borrowed $21,000 over the course of her education, which she’ll have to repay out of her salary working at a New York City charter school for low-income students.

“Oof,” she said, thinking about the day her loans come due. “I’m not coming out of here debt-free, as they kind of market themselves.”

Students who don’t need the money, meanwhile, keep getting more of it. At private universities, students from families with annual earnings of $155,000-plus receive an average of $5,800 more per year in financial aid than a federal formula says they need to pay tuition; at public universities, they get $1,810 more than they need, according to the College Board.

College is expensive even for the wealthiest of families, of course, and even more so if they have children close to each other in age or live in places with high costs of living, Ehrenberg said. But those are families whose kids would “absolutely” go to college without such help, he said.

This system has evolved because, with enrollment in decline, colleges and universities are vying for a shrinking supply of students – especially for students whose parents can pay at least some of the tuition, whom they lure by offering discounts and financial aid.

Cornell sophomore Aleks Stajkovic benefited from that strategy. He got financial aid he said he didn’t really need. “I know I’m on a bunch of scholarships and stuff,” he said, studying in the atrium of a grand century-old building on the university’s stately arts quadrangle. “It’s just like a supplement.”

He would have been able to afford Cornell without it, Stajkovic said. “For sure. I definitely would have. And that’s the sad thing – there’s kids that need that.”

All of this means that, in spite of promises from policymakers, politicians and colleges themselves to help the least-wealthy students, the net price of a higher education after discounts and financial aid is rising much faster for them than for the wealthiest ones. While higher-income students still pay more overall, federal data show, since 2012, the net price for the poorest students at Cornell has increased four and a half times faster than for the richest.

Cornell wouldn’t talk about these issues. A spokeswoman said no one at the university was available to discuss them at any time over a three-week period.

A mile away at smaller Ithaca College, however – which has one-twentieth as big of an endowment as Cornell but enrolls a larger proportion of low-income undergraduates – Student Financial Services Director Lisa Hoskey said all higher education institutions have to deal with the complicated calculus of attracting enough families that can pay to keep their campuses going.

“That balance is always tricky,” said Hoskey, the daughter of a factory worker who depended on financial aid herself to go to college. “I know people don’t often think that there’s a bottom line, but there is. And so do we help more people with less money or do we help less people with more money?”

She said: “If I had my way, if we could meet need, I would absolutely love to do that. We can’t.”

Wealthier families now have come to expect financial aid, and they negotiate for more – something lower-income ones without college-going experience may not know they can do – said Hoskey, on whose office wall hang thank-you notes from students she’s helped.

“Most people will tell you that financial aid is a privilege for those who earn it – until it becomes their own child, and then it’s a right,” she said. Parents who understand the mystifying process “try to maximize the benefits that they can receive. And I think some people are more knowledgeable about how to do that.”

Portillo gets that. “It’s like a business, right?” she said. “I understand where the university is coming from. At the same time, it’s difficult, as somebody who is low-income,” to pay for college without more help.

Colleges’ shifting of some of their financial aid to higher-income students who could kick in toward salaries, facilities and other things means taxpayer-supported government policies are largely left to support low-income ones. But those policies, too, disproportionately help the wealthy, often through hard-to-see tax subsidies.

“These programs do not get at basic public policy issues, which is that if you’re a bright kid coming from a relatively low-income family, your chances of enrolling in and eventually completing college are much, much lower than a less-talented student coming from a wealthy family,” Ehrenberg said.

It starts with savings. People who set up college savings accounts, called 529 plans, get $2 billion a year worth of federal tax deductions – projected by the Treasury Department to double to $4 billion a year by 2026. Yet the department says almost all of these benefits go to upper-income families that would send their kids to college even without them. Only 1 in 5 families earning under $35,000 a year even knows about 529 plans, a survey by the investment firm Edward Jones found. States forgo at least an additional $265 million in their own tax breaks for holders of 529 plans, according to the Brookings Institution.

Once they pay for college, Americans are eligible for federal tuition tax breaks. But those breaks also disproportionately benefit higher-income students and have grown to exceed the amount spent annually on Pell Grants for lower-income ones. The tax deductions cost the federal government $35 billion a year in forgone revenue, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. That’s 13 times more than in 1990, even when adjusted for inflation.

More than a fifth of the money provided under the principal deduction, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, goes to families earning between $100,000 and $180,000 per year, the Congressional Research Service found. It also found that 93 percent of recipients would have gone to college without it.

Other funding for students is also unequally applied. Portillo earned some cash toward her expenses by getting a work-study job on campus, part of a nearly $1 billion federal financial aid program that pays students for jobs such as shelving library books and busing tables. But because of a more than 50-year-old formula under which work-study money is distributed, it skews to more prestigious private universities with higher-income students.

These schools enroll 14 percent of undergraduates but get 38 percent of work-study money, while community colleges – which take almost half of all students, many of them low-income – get 20 percent, according to the Center for Analysis of Postsecondary Education and Employment.

A student at a private university from a family in the top quarter of income is more likely to get work-study money than a student at a community college from the bottom quarter.

“Lots of higher education policies are built in a way that would win support from middle- and even upper-income taxpayers, and they were not really thought about as, ‘Will this really increase the number of people going to college?’ ” Ehrenberg said. “If I were a social planner, we would be using our resources to help support the people who would not be able to go to college.”

The Trump administration has proposed cutting work-study spending nearly in half.

Employer tuition assistance and private scholarships from Rotary clubs and chambers of commerce, too, benefit wealthier people more than poorer ones, who often don’t know about the aid or whose schools don’t have enough college counselors to help them get it. There is more than $17 billion available annually from such sources, the College Board reports; more than 10 percent goes to families earning $106,000 and up, and about 60 percent goes to those with incomes above $65,000, the U.S. Department of Education calculates.

States also provide more than $10 billion in financial aid to students, according to the College Board. But as they try to keep top students from moving away, the proportion of that money being given out based on measures other than need has risen from zero, in the early 1980s, to nearly a quarter of state financial aid today.

Experts say that even “free college” in states including New York – where it eventually will be extended for state schools to children of families with earnings of up to $125,000 – is likely to benefit wealthier students more than lower-income ones. That’s because it kicks in only after students already have exhausted all of their other financial aid. Students from higher-earning families who don’t qualify for things such as federal Pell Grants will end up getting bigger breaks than lower-income students who do.

In Oregon, which has made community college free, students from families in the top 40 percent of income got 60 percent of the free-tuition money, the state’s Higher Education Coordinating Commission found. Oregon officials have since have changed the eligibility requirements, disqualifying the wealthiest families from the program.

Unsurprisingly, given these trends, the proportion of low-income people getting degrees is declining while the proportion of higher-income ones continues to go up. Students from higher-income families today are nearly nine times more likely to earn bachelor’s degrees by the time they’re 24 than students from lower-income ones, up from about seven times more likely in 1970, according to the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.

Those low-income students who do make it into college are much more likely to enroll at for-profit universities, where graduation rates are the worst in higher education, or thinly stretched regional public ones. At community colleges, which spend less per student than many public primary and secondary schools and where the odds of graduating are also comparatively low, about 4 in 10 of the students are low-income, according to the American Association of Community Colleges.

The policies perpetuating this aren’t likely to change in the current political climate, experts said.

“The system is in danger of becoming trapped in a kind of horrible anti-egalitarian equilibrium,” Reeves said. “I see that getting worse instead of better. The only hope, I think, is if the institutions themselves and the leaders of those institutions – who I think at some level are committed to the ideals of more opportunity – can find a way to alter the equilibrium themselves.”

As hard as it was for her to afford, Portillo hugely values her Cornell degree.

“I feel so lucky, because I know 10 other kids just like me who struggled the same with low socioeconomic status and couldn’t get that spot because there aren’t enough spots for people like us,” she said quietly. “That’s not based on how hard they work. It’s based on how much money they have. And that is heartbreaking.”

A Trumpian bonanza: We’ve never seen as much special ops as we do now

(Credit: AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)

“We don’t know exactly where we’re at in the world, militarily, and what we’re doing,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in October. That was in the wake of the combat deaths of four members of the Special Operations forces in the West African nation of Niger. Graham and other senators expressed shock about the deployment, but the global sweep of America’s most elite forces is, at best, an open secret.

Earlier this year before that same Senate committee — though Graham was not in attendance — General Raymond Thomas, the chief of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), offered some clues about the planetwide reach of America’s most elite troops. “We operate and fight in every corner of the world,” he boasted.  “Rather than a mere ‘break-glass-in-case-of-war’ force, we are now proactively engaged across the ‘battle space’ of the Geographic Combatant Commands… providing key integrating and enabling capabilities to support their campaigns and operations.”

In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command.  That’s about 75% of the nations on the planet and represents a jump from the 138 countries that saw such deployments in 2016 under the Obama administration.  It’s also a jump of nearly 150% from the last days of George W. Bush’s White House.  This record-setting number of deployments comes as American commandos are battling a plethora of terror groups in quasi-wars that stretch from Africa and the Middle East to Asia.

“Most Americans would be amazed to learn that U.S. Special Operations Forces have been deployed to three quarters of the nations on the planet,” observes William Hartung, the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy.  “There is little or no transparency as to what they are doing in these countries and whether their efforts are promoting security or provoking further tension and conflict.”

Growth Opportunity

America’s elite troops were deployed to 149 nations in 2017, according to U.S. Special Operations Command.  The map above displays the locations of 132 of those countries; 129 locations (in blue) were supplied by U.S. Special Operations Command; 3 locations (in red) — Syria, Yemen and Somalia — were derived from open-source information.

Photo Credit: Nick Turse

“Since 9/11, we expanded the size of our force by almost 75% in order to take on mission-sets that are likely to endure,” SOCOM’s Thomas told the Senate Armed Services Committee in May.  Since 2001, from the pace of operations to their geographic sweep, the activities of U.S. Special Operations forces (SOF) have, in fact, grown in every conceivable way.  On any given day, about 8,000 special operators — from a command numbering roughly 70,000 — are deployed in approximately 80 countries.

“The increase in the use of Special Forces since 9/11 was part of what was then referred to as the Global War on Terror as a way to keep the United States active militarily in areas beyond its two main wars, Iraq and Afghanistan,” Hartung told TomDispatch.  “The even heavier reliance on Special Forces during the Obama years was part of a strategy of what I think of as ‘politically sustainable warfare,’ in which the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to a few key theaters of war was replaced by a ‘lighter footprint’ in more places, using drones, arms sales and training, and Special Forces.”

The Trump White House has attackedBarack Obama’s legacy on nearly all fronts.  It has undercut, renounced, or reversed actions of his ranging from trade pacts to financial and environmental regulations to rules that shielded transgender employees from workplace discrimination.  When it comes to Special Operations forces, however, the Trump administration has embraced their use in the style of the former president, while upping the ante even further.  President Trump has also provided military commanders greater authority to launch attacks in quasi-war zones like Yemen and Somalia.  According to Micah Zenko, a national security expert and Whitehead Senior Fellow at the think tank Chatham House, those forces conducted five times as many lethal counterterrorism missions in such non-battlefield countries in the Trump administration’s first six months in office as they did during Obama’s final six months.

A Wide World of War

U.S. commandos specialize in 12 core skills, from “unconventional warfare” (helping to stoke insurgencies and regime change) to “foreign internal defense” (supporting allies’ efforts to guard themselves against terrorism, insurgencies, and coups). Counterterrorism — fighting what SOCOM calls violent extremist organizations or VEOs — is, however, the specialty America’s commandos have become best known for in the post-9/11 era.

In the spring of 2002, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, SOCOM chief General Charles Holland touted efforts to “improve SOF capabilities to prosecute unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense programs to better support friends and allies. The value of these programs, demonstrated in the Afghanistan campaign,” he said, “can be particularly useful in stabilizing countries and regions vulnerable to terrorist infiltration.”

Over the last decade and a half, however, there’s been little evidence America’s commandos have excelled at “stabilizing countries and regions vulnerable to terrorist infiltration.”  This was reflected in General Thomas’s May testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The threat posed by VEOs remains the highest priority for USSOCOM in both focus and effort,” he explained.

However, unlike Holland who highlighted only one country — Afghanistan — where special operators were battling militants in 2002, Thomas listed a panoply of terrorist hot spots bedeviling America’s commandos a decade and a half later.  “Special Operations Forces,” he said, “are the main effort, or major supporting effort for U.S. VEO-focused operations in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, across the Sahel of Africa, the Philippines, and Central/South America — essentially, everywhere Al Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are to be found.”

Officially, there are about 5,300 U.S. troops in Iraq.  (The real figure is thought to be higher.)  Significant numbers of them are special operators training and advising Iraqi government forces and Kurdish troops.  Elite U.S. forces have also played a crucial role in Iraq’s recent offensive against the militants of the Islamic State, providing artillery and airpower, including SOCOM’s AC-130W Stinger II gunships with 105mm cannons that allow them to serve as flying howitzers.  In that campaign, Special Operations forces were “thrust into a new role of coordinating fire support,” wrote Linda Robinson, a senior international policy analyst with the RAND Corporation who spent seven weeks in Iraq, Syria, and neighboring countries earlier this year. “This fire support is even more important to the Syrian Democratic Forces, a far more lightly armed irregular force which constitutes the major ground force fighting ISIS in Syria.”

Special Operations forces have, in fact, played a key role in the war effort in Syria, too.  While American commandos have been killed in battle there, Kurdish and Arab proxies — known as the Syrian Democratic Forces — have done the lion’s share of the fighting and dying to take back much of the territory once held by the Islamic State.  SOCOM’s Thomas spoke about this in surprisingly frank terms at a security conference in Aspen, Colorado, this summer.  “We’re right now inside the capital of [ISIS’s] caliphate at Raqqa [Syria].  We’ll have that back soon with our proxies, a surrogate force of 50,000 people that are working for us and doing our bidding,” he said.  “So two and a half years of fighting this fight with our surrogates, they’ve lost thousands, we’ve only lost two service members. Two is too many, but it’s, you know, a relief that we haven’t had the kind of losses that we’ve had elsewhere.”

This year, U.S. special operators were killed in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and the Sahelian nations of Niger and Mali (although reports indicate that a Green Beret who died in that country was likely strangled by U.S. Navy SEALs).  In Libya, SEALs recently kidnapped a suspect in the 2012 attacks in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.  In the Philippines, U.S. Special Forces joined the months-long battle to recapture Marawi City after it was taken by Islamist militants earlier this year.

And even this growing list of counterterror hotspots is only a fraction of the story.  In Africa, the countries singled out by Thomas — Somalia, Libya, and those in the Sahel — are just a handful of the nations to which American commandos were deployed in 2017. As recently reported at Vice News, U.S. Special Operations forces were active in at least 33 nations across the continent, with troops heavily concentrated in and around countries now home to a growing number of what the Pentagon’s Africa Center for Strategic Studies calls “active militant Islamist groups.”  While Defense Department spokeswoman Major Audricia Harris would not provide details on the range of operations being carried out by the elite forces, it’s known that they run the gamut from conducting security assessments at U.S. embassies to combat operations.

Data provided by SOCOM also reveals a special ops presence in 33 European countries this year.  “Outside of Russia and Belarus we train with virtually every country in Europe either bilaterally or through various multinational events,” Major Michael Weisman, a spokesman for U.S. Special Operations Command Europe, told “TomDispatch.”

For the past two years, in fact, the U.S. has maintained a Special Operations contingent in almost every nation on Russia’s western border.  “[W]e’ve had persistent presence in every country — every NATO country and others on the border with Russia doing phenomenal things with our allies, helping them prepare for their threats,” said SOCOM’s Thomas, mentioning the Baltic states as well as Romania, Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia by name.  These activities represent, in the words of General Charles Cleveland, chief of U.S. Army Special Operations Command from 2012 to 2015 and now the senior mentor to the Army War College, “undeclared campaigns” by commandos. Weisman, however, balked at that particular language.  “U.S. Special Operations forces have been deployed persistently and at the invitation of our allies in the Baltic States and Poland since 2014 as part of the broader U.S. European Command and Department of Defense European Deterrence Initiative,” he told TomDispatch.  “The persistent presence of U.S. SOF alongside our Allies sends a clear message of U.S. commitment to our allies and the defense of our NATO Alliance.”

Asia is also a crucial region for America’s elite forces.  In addition to Iran and Russia, SOCOM’s Thomas singled out China and North Korea as nations that are “becoming more aggressive in challenging U.S. interests and partners through the use of asymmetric means that often fall below the threshold of conventional conflict.”  He went on to say that the “ability of our special operators to conduct low-visibility special warfare operations in politically sensitive environments make them uniquely suited to counter the malign activities of our adversaries in this domain.”

U.S.-North Korean saber rattling has brought increased attention to Special Forces Detachment Korea (SFDK), the longest serving U.S. Special Forces unit in the world.  It would, of course, be called into action should a war ever break out on the peninsula.  In such a conflict, U.S. and South Korean elite forces would unite under the umbrella of the Combined Unconventional Warfare Task Force.  In March, commandos — including, according to some reports, members of the Army’s Delta Force and the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 — took part in Foal Eagle, a training exercise, alongside conventional U.S. forces and their South Korean counterparts.

U.S. special operators also were involved in training exercises and operations elsewhere across Asia and the Pacific.  In June, in Okinawa, Japan, for example, airmen from the 17th Special Operations Squadron (17th SOS) carried out their annual (and oddly spelled) “Day of the Jakal,” the launch of five Air Force Special Operations MC-130J Commando II aircraft to practice, according to a military news release, “airdrops, aircraft landings, and rapid infiltration and exfiltration of equipment.”  According to Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Dube of the 17th SOS, “It shows how we can meet the emerging mission sets for both SOCKOR [Special Operations Command Korea] and SOCPAC [Special Operations Command Pacific] out here in the Pacific theater.”

At about the same time, members of the Air Force’s 353rd Special Operations Group carried out Teak Jet, a joint combined exchange training, or JCET, mission meant to improve military coordination between U.S. and Japanese forces.  In June and July, intelligence analysts from the Air Force’s 353rd Special Operations Group took part in Talisman Saber, a biennial military training exercise conducted in various locations across Australia.

More for War

The steady rise in the number of elite operators, missions, and foreign deployments since 9/11 appears in no danger of ending, despite years of worries by think-tank experts and special ops supporters about the effects of such a high operations tempo on these troops.  “Most SOF units are employed to their sustainable limit,” General Thomas said earlier this year. “Despite growing demand for SOF, we must prioritize the sourcing of these demands as we face a rapidly changing security environment.”  Yet the number of deployments still grew to a record 149 nations in 2017.  (During the Obama years, deployments reached 147 in 2015.)

At a recent conference on special operations held in Washington, D.C., influential members of the Senate and House armed services committees acknowledged that there were growing strains on the force. “I do worry about overuse of SOF,” said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Republican.  One solution offered by both Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Republican Senator Joni Ernst, a combat veteran who served in Iraq, was to bulk up Special Operations Command yet more.  “We have to increase numbers and resources,” Reed insisted.

This desire to expand Special Operations further comes at a moment when senators like Lindsey Graham continue to acknowledge how remarkably clueless they are about where those elite forces are deployed and what exactly they are doing in far-flung corners of the globe.  Experts point out just how dangerous further expansion could be, given the proliferation of terror groups and battle zones since 9/11 and the dangers of unforeseen blowback as a result of low-profile special ops missions.

“Almost by definition, the dizzying number of deployments undertaken by U.S. Special Operations forces in recent years would be hard to track.  But few in Congress seem to be even making the effort,” said William Hartung. “This is a colossal mistake if one is concerned about reining in the globe-spanning U.S. military strategy of the post-9/11 era, which has caused more harm than good and done little to curb terrorism.”

However, with special ops deployments rising above Bush and Obama administration levels to record-setting heights and the Trump administration embracing the use of commandos in quasi-wars in places like Somalia and Yemen, there appears to be little interest in the White House or on Capitol Hill in reining in the geographic scope and sweep of America’s most secretive troops.  And the results, say experts, may be dire.  “While the retreat from large ‘boots on the ground’ wars like the Bush administration’s intervention in Iraq is welcome,” said Hartung, “the proliferation of Special Operations forces is a dangerous alternative, given the prospects of getting the United States further embroiled in complex overseas conflicts.”

Think you know what your kids are doing online? Think again

(Credit: Getty/sturti)

When parents say that they know what their teens are doing online, are they kidding themselves? According to a survey by Common Sense Media and SurveyMonkey, parents can track, follow, and check in with their teens — and still be out of touch with reality. The disconnect may come from the time-honored tension between parents’ impulse to protect their kids and teens’ desire for independence. When parents hear horror stories about what kids put on Snapchat and other social media platforms, they double down on their efforts to be more involved. But to teens, this feels intrusive, and they find ways to tiptoe around the issues or appease their parents. To better understand if parents and teens are on the same page about teens’ online behaviors, check out the key findings from the survey:

Parents feel they know what teens are doing online, but teens don’t think so: More than half of parents with teenagers age 14 to 17 say they are “extremely” or “very aware” of what their kids are doing online; just 30 percent of teens say their parents are “extremely” or “very aware” of what they’re doing online.

Parents are tracking their teens more than teens know: 26 percent of parents say they use a tracking or monitoring device or service to learn what their teens are doing online, while only 15 percent of kids think their parents do so.

Teens are more on the level than their parents give them credit for: 34 percent of parents believe their teen has hidden online accounts, but only 27 percent of teens say they do.

Parents are most nervous about Snapchat: Snapchat is the app parents are most concerned about (29 percent), much more than Facebook (16 percent). Only 6 percent of parents are nervous about Instagram. Some parents aren’t nervous at all about the apps their teens use; Twenty percent say that “no apps and websites are concerning.”

Older parents are less aware of what their teens are doing online: Younger parents are more likely to say that they are more aware of what their teens are doing online. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of parents age 18 to 34 say they are “extremely” or “very aware” of what their teens are doing online; under half of parents 55 and older say the same.

Facebook and Twitter aren’t cool: More than three-quarters of teens use Instagram and Snapchat, but just half use Facebook and fewer use Twitter.

Parents follow their kids on Facebook, but not much on other platforms: A large majority of teens who use Facebook are friends with their parents on the platform. Fewer of those who use Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter follow or are friends with their parents on those platforms.

Given that kids will almost certainly be doing things online that their parents won’t know about, it’s important to talk early and often about being safe online. Just because a teen behaves one way on Facebook does not mean they behave the same way on Intagram or Snapchat, platforms where parents are less likely to be. There are also partial technical solutions to keeping kids safe, like setting up parental controls and checking device privacy settings, but they’re not foolproof.

If you want to get a better grasp on what your kids are doing, just ask! Have your teen take you on a tour of their platforms so they can show you their privacy settings and give you examples of how social media makes them feel. Even surly teens may be happy to assume the role of an expert and do what they can to ease your fears. And if it doesn’t, it’s at least an opportunity to open a conversation about what can be done better.

Methodology

This Common Sense Media/SurveyMonkey online poll was conducted Sept. 20 – Oct. 12, 2017, among a national sample of 884 teens age 14 to 17 and 3,282 parents of teens. Respondents for this survey were selected from the nearly 3 million people who take surveys on the SurveyMonkey platform each day. The modeled error estimate for this survey is plus or minus 2 percentage points for all adults, 2.5 percentage points for parents of teens, and 3.5 percentage points for teens. Data have been weighted to reflect the demographic composition of the United States in terms of age, race, sex, education, and geography using the Census Bureau’s American Community.

The 3 states best positioned to legalize marijuana in 2018

(Credit: Getty/Juanmonino)

Election Day 2016 was a big day for marijuana. Voters in California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada all supported successful legalization initiatives, doubling the number of states to have done so since 2012 and more than quadrupling the percentage of the national population that now lives in legal marijuana states.

Marijuana momentum was high, national polling kept seeing support go up and up, and 2017 was expected to see even more states jump on the weed bandwagon. That didn’t happen.

There are two main reasons 2017 was a dud for pot legalization: First, it’s an off-off-year election year, and there were no legalization initiatives on the ballot. Second, it’s tough to get a marijuana legalization bill through a state legislature and signed by a governor. In fact, it’s so tough it hasn’t happened yet.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen next year. Several states where legislative efforts were stalled last year are poised to get over the top in the coming legislative sessions, and it looks like a legalization initiative will be on the ballot in at least one state—maybe more.

There are other states where legalization is getting serious attention, such as Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island, but they all have governors who are not interested in going down that path, and that means a successful legalization bill faces the higher hurdle of winning with veto-proof majorities. Similarly, there are other states where legalization initiatives are afoot, such as Arizona, North Dakota and Ohio, but none of those have even completed signature gathering, and all would face an uphill fight. Still, we could be pleasantly surprised.

Barring pleasant surprises, here are the three states that have the best shot at legalizing pot in 2018.

1. Michigan

Michigan voters shouldn’t have to wait on the state legislature to act because it looks very likely that a legalization initiative will qualify for the ballot next year. The Michigan Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol has already completed a petition campaign and handed in more than 365,000 raw signatureslast month for its legalization initiative. It hasn’t officially qualified for the ballot yet, but it only needs 250,000 valid voter signatures to do so, meaning it has a rather substantial cushion.

If the measure makes the ballot, it should win. There is the little matter of actually campaigning to pass the initiative, which should require a million or two dollars for TV ad buys and other get-out-the-vote efforts, but with the Marijuana Policy Project on board and some deep-pocketed local interests as well, the money should be there.

The voters already are there: Polling has shown majority support for legalization for several years now, always trending up, and most recently hitting 58% in a May Marketing Resource Group poll.

2. New Jersey

Outgoing Gov. Chris Christie (R) was a huge obstacle to passage of marijuana legalization, but he’s on his way out the door, and his replacement, Gov.-Elect Phil Murphy (D), has vowed to legalize marijuana within 100 days of taking office next month.

Legislators anticipating Christie’s exit filed legalization bills earlier this year, Senate Bill 3195 and companion measure Assembly Bill 4872. State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D) has also made promises, vowing to pass the bill within the first three months of the Murphy administration, and hearings are set for both houses between January and March.

But it’s not a done deal. There is some opposition in the legislature, and marijuana legalization foes will certainly mobilize to defeat it at the statehouse. It will also be the first time the legislature seriously considers legalization. Still, legalization has some key political players backing it. Other legislators might want to listen to their constituents: A September Quinnipiac poll had support for legalization at 59%.

3. Vermont

A marijuana legalization bill actually passed the legislature last year—a national first—only to be vetoed by Gov. Phil Scott (D) over concerns around drugged driving and youth use. Legislators then amended the bill to assuage Scott’s concerns and managed to get the amended bill through the Senate, only to see House Republicans refuse to let it come to a vote during the truncated summer session.

But that measure, House Bill 511, will still be alive in the second year of the biennial session, and Gov. Scott has said he is still willing to sign the bill. House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D) is also on board, and the rump Republicans won’t be able to block action next year.

Johnson said she will be ready for a vote in early January and expects the bill to pass then. Vermont would then become the first state to free the weed through the legislative process.

Trump’s right about one thing: The Senate should end its 60-vote majority

(Credit: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

As the dramatic and traumatic first year of the Trump presidency nears the finish line, with major legislative struggles over tax legislation and the budget, it is easy to overlook other important political events.

One such development is essential to both the tax reform package, which would be Trump’s only significant legislative achievement to date, and the less noted but spectacular success the president has had with judicial nominations.

In both cases success has depended on procedures created to negate the Senate filibuster, which is better thought of as minority obstruction.

The question now is, should the Senate move even further toward being a legislative body characterized by majority rule rather than minority obstruction?

Many Democrats, including me, might resist anything that helps President Donald Trump and his GOP congressional majority. Yet as a scholar of the Senate and advocate of responsible government, I believe the end of the 60-vote Senate would nonetheless be a good thing for the country — and conform to what the founders intended.

Limited nuclear warfare in the Senate

On Nov. 21, 2013 the Senate, under Democratic control, decided by a 52-48 vote that the “vote on cloture under Rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote.”

These few and perhaps obscure words embodied the most important change in Senate standing rules — or, to be precise, in their interpretation — since at least 1975.

Rule XXII is the Senate rule that defines cloture — a motion to bring debate to a close — and requires a supermajority of at least 60 votes on most matters under consideration. The 60-vote threshold is what empowers filibusters or minority obstruction and can prevent a final vote on legislation. The 2013 decision eliminated that barrier for nearly all nominations to the executive and judicial branches. This allowed Democrats to confirm a significant number of nominations after cloture was invoked with a simple majority vote.

Just over three years later, on April 6, 2017, the Senate, under GOP control and with exclusively Republican support, voted by the same margin to apply the same interpretation to nominations to the Supreme Court. The immediate result, of course, was the easy confirmation of Neil Gorsuch.

What this means

These decisions are significant for four reasons.

First, an entire category of Senate business, its constitutional duty to give “advice and consent” on presidential nominations, was protected from obstruction by the minority.

Second, only a few years apart, a majority from each party voted to categorically restrict the filibuster.

Third, in each case the Democratic or Republican majority employed the same controversial method — often referred to as the “nuclear option” or “constitutional option” — to make these significant changes in a standing rule of the Senate.

Instead of amending the wording of the standing rule, the majority called for a parliamentary interpretation and ruling, which requires only a simple majority vote to sustain or overturn.

Finally, this change will likely endure now that it has been sustained by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

Fast-tracking past the filibuster

Use of the so-called nuclear option was spectacular, controversial and did bring significant change to the Senate. Yet these moves have also been complemented by a different type of limitation on minority obstruction.

Over several decades, Congress has forged and used dozens of legislative “carve-outs” or — to use congressional scholar Molly Reynold’s term — “majoritarian exceptions” that protect specific categories of legislation from minority obstruction in the Senate.

Every legislative carve-out features a time limit on consideration that applies to both chambers. This quashes minority obstruction in the Senate because a simple majority vote will be held at the end of the time restriction. The term “fast-track” is often associated with these provisions that expedite congressional consideration. These include such specifics as approval of trade agreements and the military base closure process. In each case, lawmakers used a “fast-track” procedure to prevent obstruction.

Looming large in this category is the increased use of budget reconciliation for major legislation, such as the final work on passage of the Affordable Care Act, the 2017 attempt to repeal that law and the current Republican tax legislation.

Restoring the Senate’s important but limited role

The 60-vote Senate remains powerful but circumscribed. This threshold for ending debate still applies to most legislation. This includes appropriations bills and most laws in areas such as military policy, the environment or civil rights.

Still, the combination of the legislative carve-outs with the entire category of nominations nevertheless constitutes a serious diminution of supermajority politics.

Following the second nuclear option in 2017, many senators and observers asked whether the Senate might be heading toward the elimination of supermajority cloture entirely. “Let us go no further on this path,” said Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

A letter signed by a bipartisan group of 61 Senators implored the majority and minority leaders to help them preserve 60 votes for most legislation. Sen. Lindsay Graham, who voted for the 2017 nuclear option, warned that if the Senate does away with the requirement, “that will be the end of the Senate.”

While most senators showed little appetite for further curtailment of supermajority cloture, President Donald Trump was ready to go all the way. Trump has more than once tweeted, with characteristic imprecision, his support for an end to all 60-vote thresholds in the Senate, the first time a president has taken such a stance.

Finish what it started

In this rare instance, I agree with the president.

By creating these restrictions, the Senate has repeatedly recognized that the 60-vote threshold is often dysfunctional and that the costs to effective governance are too high.

The norms that support the supermajority Senate are eroding. And from a constitutional perspective, that’s just fine. Contrary to Graham’s all too common sentiment, a supermajority threshold is not what defines the Senate.

As political scientists and historians have noted over and over again, supermajority cloture is not part of and cannot be derived from the Constitution or any original understanding of the Senate. Elements such as equal representation by the states, six-year terms and a higher age requirement are what distinguish the Senate’s style of deliberation and decision-making from the House.

In fact, although it may seem like the 60-vote filibuster has been with us forever, it’s actually only been around since 1917.

Moreover, the protection of minority interests, often cited as a justification for the filibuster, is a product of the system as a whole — the separate branches, the checks, federalism — not the self-appointed duty of the Senate.

To finish what it started, the Senate could change its rules to allow a simple majority to close debate on any bill, nomination or other matter, while also guaranteeing a minimum period of debate, which would allow the minority position to be voiced and debated.

In so doing the Senate would end its undemocratic pretensions and resume its prescribed and limited role in the system of checks and balances. That would be a good thing no matter which party controls the Senate and regardless of who is, or will be, president.

Daniel Wirls, Professor of Politics, University of California, Santa Cruz