To those of you who have been faithful followers for some time. I am moving this blog to Substack. The new blog/newsletter is Reflections of a Sociologist and is available at https://reflectionsofasociologist.substack.com/.
The archives of Sociological Stew will continue to be available here, but are also available on Substack as well. You can subscribe (always FREE) to Reflections of a Sociologist on substack and receive the posts as e-mail news letters.
I was just watching an episode of The Company You Keep, a new drama on ABC television in 2023, in which the main character, a conman, says that everyone is motivated by three things: money, power, and respect. I think that over simplifies it. I believe that fear and love are also great motivators for many people, for some being understood and accepted for who they are (which is I suppose related to "respect") is a motivator, and for a few faith might be a motivator. Mulling about this discussion of motivation turned my thoughts to Tricia Cotham and what motivates her.
Tricia Cotham, in case there is anyone out there living under a rock, is a 44 year old woman who ran as a Democrat for the North Carolina House of Representatives in 2022 and won, only to announce earlier this month (April 4, 2023) that she is formally switching her party from Democratic Party to Republican Party. The switch of her one vote gives the Republican party veto proof majorities in both houses, something they have long desired in dealing with North Carolina's governor, a Democrat. Democrats in her district, in North Carolina and across the nation are outraged that a candidate who presented herself as a liberal Democrat, squarely in favor of abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, higher minimum wages, health care as a right, and other major liberal issues, has switched sides and is now supporting Republican legislation to restrict those rights.
So what was Tricia Cotham's motivation for this move. Her explanation at her press conference in early April was "bullying" by Democrats. To be honest, this doesn't pass the basic "smell test" or BS meter. This is a woman who spent ten years in the North Carolina legislature previously, from 2007 to the end of 2016, during which time both her words and her actions, the legislation she sponsored and that which she voted for, placed her clearly on the liberal side. Her 2022 campaign materials, her website, her campaign speeches all repeated the themes that she had supported during her previous years in politics. It is ridiculous to think that less than two months of so called "bullying" could offset an entire lifetime of political positions. Keep in mind also that while her official announcement of party change came April 4, there were actually indicators (on Instagram and other social media) that she was joining the GOP as early as February, and that in January at the beginning of the session, the Republican Speaker of the NC House, had given her chair of a major committee, something not normally given to members of the minority party. Then there is her voting record this year. There are a few votes in which she aligned with Democrats, but there are also votes where she aligned with Republicans.
If we want to find Cotham's motivation, I think we have to ignore her facile complaints about bullying in the few months of this year, and look instead into the six years between her leaving North Carolina politics (end of 2016) and her return in 2022. There are several things that show up in the public record that might give us some clues.
First there's why she left politics in 2016. In 2015, Tricia Cotham made an official announcement that she was not going to seek re-election to the North Carolina House in 2016. The reasons that she gave in her press conference were that her oldest child (5 at the time) was entering school the next year and that she wanted to spend more time with her family. However, some months later we learned that really wasn't the reason, as she instead launched a campaign for U. S. House of Representatives in 2016. That bid died in the Democratic primary in 2016 when she came in a poor 3rd behind Democratic incumbent Alma Adams. So she left North Caroline politics.
Two things that public sources tell us about Tricia Cotham in the six years between 2016 and 2022 are that she and her husband divorced and that she was became very ill with COVID19. During her tenure in office the first time, Tricia Cotham married Jerry Meek a lawyer who was chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party, a position he had to resign due to her holding office. Meek is the father of their two boys. An article about the two of them emphasizes that an important part of their bond was their passion for politics and involvement with the North Carolina Democratic Party.
In February 2022, before she had filed as a candidate, Tricia Cotham gave an interview with WSOC-TV about her struggles as a long-haul COVID 19 victim. In the interview Cotham was described as a "prominent former Mecklenburg County lawmaker". Cotham was suffering from her third time battling COVID (having gotten sick again in January 2022) despite having been fully vaccinated and boosted. She described herself as in "a lot of pain. My lungs hurt. I'm mentally drained." In the interview she stressed the long term damage of blood clots and damage to her lungs, and how difficult daily life was. Her purpose in giving the interview was to stress the dangers of COVID and the reality of the long term damage that the disease could do. There are in fact, a number of interviews that Cotham gave in February and March of 2023. Somewhere between the first one and those in later March, she had filed to run again for the N C House. In one interview, in very early March, she specifically referred to "receiving a call asking her to run" and how that call had that request had helped her in her recovery by giving her a purpose and a focus again. As March progresses, however, her answers on why she decided to run again, mention conversations with friends and family, but making the decision on her own, as a way of giving her life meaning again. There have been numerous indicators since the 2023 session began that COVID continues to make daily life difficult for Cotham, and she has missed a number of votes (a few crucial to maintaining Vetoes) because of COVID related medical appointments.
So thinking about motivation again, it is probably not power that drives Cotham. The district in which she ran and won, is strongly Democratic. She is highly unlikely to win another term, even as an incumbent. So she did not do this to further her political career. She is most likely aware that the change in party has probably made her a one term representative. But I also suspect that she realized fairly quickly that long term COVID was impairing her ability to do the job of representative - she may have even realized that before she was sworn in, because campaigning is not an easy job. The big question is did she know that before she even started the campaign: did she go into it knowing that she was going to switch parties, and that this was a short term gig? When did she change and what motivated her?
The New York Times, as part of their long series about Donald Trump's finances have done an excellent analysis of the ways in which he has used the presidency to enrich himself and his friends in Trump's Swamp published Saturday October 10, 2020. This use of the term "swamp" in connection to politics and Washington, D. C. has been around for some time. In this view the swamp is the hoards of lobbyists from industries looking to gain some favor for their company or industry, looking to increase the profits of business.
However, I have come to the conclusion over the past four years that Trump supporters (I started to say people on the right, but I'm not at all sure that's the same thing anymore), have an entirely different definition of the word "corruption" and an extremely different idea of what constitutes "the swamp" than what I or the New York Times or probably most Americans would hold.
The idea of a "swamp" that needs to be drained and the concept of a "deep state" seem to be intertwined by Trump supporters. Trump supporters see the problem being the vast army of highly educated, specially trained, knowledgeable, experienced, mostly politically neutral, bureaucratic professionals that fill the ranks of public service. This entrenched bureaucracy made up of experts has long been a bulwark against radical change (of any kind in any direction). Principles of formal rationality, a mass of laws and regulations, provide inertia against radical change.
Trump supporters see this inertia against change problematic and want it gone. They see something wrong about people having a life long professional career in a government agency, whether they are scientists, data analysts, economists, law enforcement, social workers, postal workers, or anything else. This great pool of talent that actually staffs and makes government work is the "swamp" to Trump supporters. This is what they see as "corrupt," not the manipulation of government decision-making to increase private profit of individuals, businesses or corporations. As long as those individuals, businesses or corporations get some of their money from other non-governmental sources, this seems to be okay with Trump supporters. The manipulation of government decisions for private gain is viewed positively by Trump supporters, this is how they think government is suppose to work. It is the scientists and engineers, the park rangers, accountants, social workers, lawyers and many other public servants that they consider to be inappropriately sucking at the federal teat.
This idea that the principles of formal rationality, a mass of laws and regulations, provide inertia against radical change, has been long enshrined in critical Marxist theory analysis of the state (James O'Connor for example in The Corporation and the State: Essays in the Theory of Capitalism and Imperialism, 1973), with the additional observation that over the past 150 years this bureaucracy has been built, rule by rule, procedure by procedure to protect the long term accumulation of capital by the ownership class and the long term legitimation of the entire state structure (through programs that help mitigate the worst excesses of capitalism), even when it frustrates the short term whims of right or left.
Thus the idea of a "deep state" (although not that term) that is a bulwark against radical change in government is not new, and integral to a Marxist or critical theory approach to the State. Moreover, it has been viewed as problematic because it makes difficult rapid, radical change that would expand rights, increase diversity, reduce inequality, or other issues dear to those on the left. The only thing that is really new now is that this recognition of the deep state and view of it as problematic has been taken up by those on the radical right who wish to drastically reduce rights, decrease diversity, increase inequality, etc.
The pump in our dishwasher died weeks before we realized what happened, what alerted me finally was noticing white hard water stains on the kickboards of our cabinets, where small, but daily overflows had been soaking in. Once we realized it on February 4th, we turned off the water and power to it and began hand washing.
We had the plumbers come to diagnose whether we had leaky pipes or leaky dishwasher, and they verified our suspicion that the pump had failed. I did some research on-line, decided on some highly recommended models and we went that weekend (February 12th) to Lowe’s to buy a new one.
We did not realize the extent to which the pandemic had changed the way Lowe’s operated. We’ve bought appliances there before (most recently a new stove in 2021), where within a day or two a Lowe’s truck and Lowe’s employees would show up to install the purchased item, for little or no additional cost. Now Lowe’s contracts with a 3rd party installation company (which turns out to not be an installation company but a company that then hires 4th party local businesses/workers to do the actual installation).
It was a week before we heard from the installation company, and then another two weeks before they could come and make the measurements (why they had to do this and could not trust us on the measurements I don’t know). The (4th party) installer (a nice feller) told us for the installation contract (and payment), which Lowe's never did. So I called them and discovered that because of an illness/accident the young man who sold us the dishwasher was out on leave, and no one really knew what was going on with our order. It took 24 hours to find someone who could get access to all the documents and write up our installation contract, which added another $150 on to the original cost of the appliance (only 15% of the original cost but still unexpected).
We had to wait again for the installment company to contact us with an appointment to actually install. The first appointment we were given was March 15 (at this point we had been without a dishwasher since February 4). The day they were suppose to show up we got a call to reschedule, because the local (4th party) installer had one truck and it was broken, so they rescheduled for today March 21.
First thing this morning the young man who was suppose to do the install called us from Lowe’s to tell us that the store had somehow misplaced/sold/lost/never gotten (??) our dishwasher and he had nothing to bring to install. He said the appliance department at Lowe’s would reorder the dishwasher and let him know when it came in and then we would get another appointment to install.
This afternoon, someone from Lowe's installation department called us. Now this is one of the things that really annoys me in all this. Lowe's has a department called "Installations" but they don't actually DO installations any more. They just contract with 3rd parties to do them. I realize that this has to do with protecting their workers from COVID or other things, and that it does provide jobs for small local businesses. But, often those small local businesses are overwhelmed with more than they can handle, and they don't get all the money paid by people, because Lowe's takes their cut first. And workers in small businesses don't have the same benefits or rights or opportunities that Lowe's workers do.
The Lowe's installation department worker was very apologetic and promised to provide us with information within two business days about what happened to our dishwasher and when they would get one for us. But, in all likelihood, given how busy the (4th party) installer is, things will be pushed at least two more weeks! Which means that we might end up with them wanting to install the same week that my husband has surgery.
There was no ill intent or willful stalling involved here. Some of the problems arose because a key worker got ill, or a key piece of equipment (truck) broke down. These are things that happen. What is problematic is that current business practices involve skimping on redundancy in labor and equipment, there are few if any backstops. Ground between the demand by stockholders/owners for more profit and the demands of consumers for cheaper goods and services, the costs of doing business are pared to the quick. So it is not surprising that it takes one persons illness or one truck breaking down, to cause the hold structure to come to a stand still. This is an illustration of the essential contradictions of capitalism.
In recent weeks I have been thinking a lot about why we as a society are so reluctant to seriously fight to eliminate carbon emissions. I am an environmental voter. I look for and vote for candidates that take environmental science seriously, who appear to understand climate change, and understand that the only real solution is to dramatically cut emissions of green house gasses, and that our carbon economy. As an individual I purchased well insulated housing, use energy efficient heat pump, keep my thermostat at 67 degrees (60 at night) in the winter and wear extra layers. We bought Priuses more than ten years ago, and before that sought out the most fuel efficient cars possible. I recycle, reduce, reuse. Never replace items (including electronics) until they completely give out. As both and individual and a citizen, I try to be environmentally conscious about all my decisions.
But...you knew there was a but coming! But, I love having 60 degree weather the first week in January. I love that our winters here in eastern Kentucky are overall so much warmer and milder than they were twenty-five years ago. Yes, I absolutely know all the reasons why this is problematic. I understand how extremely mild weather in January, creates problems for plant life cycles, and how plant cycles can get out of sync with animal life cycles of hibernation, migration, mating and new generations. But I love it. My nearly 72 year old, arthritic joints love it.
I also know that we are not only getting warmer winters, we are getting hotter summers (which I don't like quite so much). Moreover, we are getting much frequent weather extremes, including the horrific flooding event that devastated eastern Kentucky in July 2022. I know all this. I know that the long term problems are going to be even worse. That the underpinnings of modern agriculture and modern society are threatened by climate change. Yet I still love these mild winters, I find myself cheering when I see that the NOAA three month climate predictions show high chance of warmer than usual weather this Jan/Feb/March. It also shows higher chance of precipitation, but as long as it's not snow...
All this suggests to me that the crusade against climate change has a significant problem, because I can hardly be the only person who intellectually grasps the problems of climate change, yet still on a personal day to day business enjoy its fruits especially in winter time. Which means that there are many of us, regardless of well we understand the problems created by climate change, might balk about making real sacrifices in the comfort and convenience afforded by a fossil fuel economy that are really needed in order to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
