Think About It with Michael Leppert

I started writing my column in the spring of 2014, and oh how things have changed since then! Barack Obama was president, and Mike Pence was the governor of Indiana. There were already Republican supermajorities in both chambers of the Indiana General Assembly, and those legislative maps have since been updated and fortified to protect that offensive imbalance for the foreseeable future here. Of course, that assumes Hoosier voters will keep voting red, no matter what that ultimately means. The Republican brand of 2014 would be unrecognizable to a new Republican in 2025. Ronald Reagan is no longer a hero. Richard Nixon is no longer an embarrassment. And Antonin Scalia is unknown to most modern GOP voters. "12 Years a Slave" and "Dallas Buyers Club" cleaned up at the Oscars that year, both of which were stories of historic heroism in response to horrible periods of American history. Those hit movies make me wonder what the great stories about this moment will be, decades or even centuries from now. Early next year, I will publish my second novel, "The Edge of Motherland." The setting is early 2020 in Indianapolis, and the story details an unusual friendship that begins just as the pandemic is locking down the city and the country. The actual historic events, and their impact on people during the first half of that year were remarkable all by themselves, and the book documents plenty of them. But the reason for writing it is to document how the moment felt, and how those feelings inspired a reevaluation of what "home" means. It's not a book about politics or government. Eleven years ago, I was a contract lobbyist, primarily working for clients who needed assistance communicating and advocating to state government. I had been consulting in the private sector for a dozen years following a career of similar length as a state employee and agency executive. Government, and the politics that steered it, was what I spent my professional life studying and working to impact. My résumé would indicate I was an expert in a niche market that was financially rewarding. But I was losing interest in it. Writing this column helped keep it interesting for me back then and for many years since. I have now published more than 600 columns, and almost 500 of them have been specifically about politics and government. When I look back at the body of work, most would agree, some more than others, that on these topics, I've written enough. So, I am going to stop writing about politics in my weekly columns.    Before I go though, I want to leave a few parting thoughts.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

It was a lovely September morning in Indianapolis in 2018. We had been living in our new townhouse downtown for about a year, relocating from a house just two blocks up the street. I was still a consultant back then and this was still my offseason. So, I had casually risen and slow-walked my way through my morning routine, making my way to the shower around 10:30 am. When I got out, the crime rate in my house had skyrocketed. A burglar was downstairs stealing my laptop, backpack and wallet. Last week, the FBI released its Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) summary for 2024. It's an annual report commonly used to understand the "crime rate." The good news in this report, as has been the trend for the last three decades, is that crime in America continues to slow. However, much of America doesn't seem to know it or doesn't want to admit it.  Feeling like crime is on the rise justifies doing dramatic things like mobilizing the military in cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. when there is no actual justification. It's not really about actual crime. It's the crime drama that is in play here. It would be convenient to give credit to some politician, political party, or civic group for the sharp declines in violent and property crimes since the early 90s. But the reduction is too big and has been trending for too many political cycles to support such a claim. Besides, in 2025, much of the public would rather pretend that crime, in general, is rampant, a scourge that must be given the highest priority to eradicate. Yes, it is my belief that much of America would actually prefer to believe that crime is a growing problem, not a shrinking one. Pew Research published an update to its extensive study on the issue last year. The most shocking part of the study is how disconnected the public's perception is from the reality of actual crime rates. For example, between 1993 and 2022, violent crime has decreased by 49%. By half! But when asked, the perception that crime is up "in the last year" has continued to rise from 47% in 2000, to 77% in 2023. As crime rates have shrunk, the perception of its growth has risen. And almost as sharply. Why is that? One contributing factor is how crime is reported.

To me, "1984" was originally a rock album, the last studio collection of songs by the original members of Van Halen. It was July 7, 1984, when the 16-year-old version of me earned his way to a spot right in front of Eddie Van Halen's place on the stage at Roberts Stadium in Evansville for the biggest tour of the year. Back then, we fought for those spots on the arena floor. The album was named after George Orwell's classic book, even though there is no artistic connection between the book's "Ministry of Truth" and songs like "Hot for Teacher." Back then though, even after learning more about the book and growing out of Van Halen, both seemed like nothing more than inconsequential examples of make-believe. That was a different time. Last Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly jobs report—as has been typically done on the first Friday of every month. The first bit of bad news in this report was the 73,000 jobs added in July, significantly lower than the forecasted 109,000. But that initial bad news got worse. What is commonly done in the monthly jobs report are revisions to prior monthly reports after data is more accurate and complete. The BLS revised the May and June reports downward by 250,000 jobs, the largest revision outside of the COVID era, since 1979.  As reported by the BBC, "It is not unusual for the BLS to amend jobs figures as more data comes to light, however. During Joe Biden's presidency, statistics for 12 months over 2023-4 were retroactively revised downward by 818,000 jobs." Importantly, the article also stated, "Though this month's changes were much larger than usual, analysts said the updates were consistent with other data showing slowdown." It's not great news. When I saw the numbers, I wasn't surprised at all. I also wasn't giddy about how they might make President Donald Trump's obviously questionable economic strategies look as perilous as I think they will be. I remember saying out loud to the report, "Well, yea." Trump apparently thought the report should say something different and was also apparently so enraged by this bad news that later that day, he fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer. She was appointed as the commissioner in January of 2024 and was confirmed by the Senate on an 86-8 vote. Then-Senator and current Vice President J.D. Vance voted yes. Then-Senator and current Secretary of State Marco Rubio voted yes. Her impeccable qualifications were reported extensively by Fortune on Sunday.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. X @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

On Monday night, I sat in my recliner writing my third novel. I'm about halfway done with it, and my editor is expecting that first half by the end of the week so she can do a midpoint "assessment" of the story. She worked on my last book, and I know how she operates. The first question she will contemplate is whether or not the story is grabbing the audience quickly. That's on my mind this week, though I'm 40,000 words into this soon-to-be classic already. As I was pecking away on my laptop, my wife was on the couch reading. She hadn't made a sound in a while, and without my notorious pounding on the keys, the living room would have been silent. Until she unexpectedly burst into tears. "I didn't see that coming!" she announced while asking me to get her some tissues. Bursting into tears, or laughing out loud, or even descending into an extended stretch of quiet contemplation are what people often seek when they read. It's the joy of thinking. That's what reading for pleasure is. People are reading less than they once did. I write "they" because I'm reading more than I ever have. And my wife grew up a reader and it's clear she will always be one.  The recent news of our education challenges in Indiana is telling a different story. First, Casey Smith reported for the Indiana Capital Chronicle last week, "Indiana's college-going rate drops again, dipping to 51.7%." This descent scares me for my home state. Not just because I am a college teacher and my craft appears to be losing popularity, but because I believe that the prosperity of all people depends on their ongoing commitment to learning. Any learning. All learning. The culture wars instigated by Indiana's political leaders on the state's public and private institutions of higher education will only deepen this specific decline. As a teacher and writer, I wonder what Hoosiers really want for themselves. Behaviorally speaking, apparently destroying "wokeness" and "owning the libs" are more important than learning. There's no question those things are cheaper. But only in the moment. Prioritizing those repulsive behaviors will end up being wildly expensive. Smith reported, "Indiana's college-going rate has dropped more than any other state tracked by the National Center for Education Statistics over the past 15 years. Previously, Indiana reached a college-going rate of 65%." What do our leaders believe the outcome of this collapse will be five years from now? How about ten?   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

Last week, GOP U.S. Rep. Maria Salazar of Florida, filed "The Dignity Act of 2025," a bipartisan immigration reform package that would provide legal status for certain undocumented immigrants. She filed similar legislation in 2023, but the political climate has changed wildly since way back then. Unsurprisingly, the economic demand for migrant labor has not. Donald Trump is now in the White House and the mass deportation initiative he promised is being implemented at breakneck speed. The masked raids by a growing masked army known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, are happening in unpredictable places all over the country. The impact of the sweeps, however, is as predictable as the sunrise. What else has changed in politics? U.S. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Indiana, recaptured Indiana's 3rd Congressional District seat after Republican Jim Banks vacated the seat to run for the U.S. Senate. Stutzman is one of 10 GOP House members to sign onto the Dignity Act 2025, and that is no small gesture. In normal times, of which these are certainly not, Stutzman's co-sponsorship of legislation designed to protect the agricultural economy that dominates his district would make perfect sense. And make no mistake about it, the legislation is a far cry from what immigration hard liners could legitimately pan as an amnesty policy. As reported by the Indianapolis Star, the bill "would provide legal status to undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years, so long as they pass a criminal background check, pay a $7,000 fine across seven years and begin paying taxes. The bill would allow people with this status to stay indefinitely, though they would be ineligible for federal benefits." Documenting living in the U.S. for five years by an undocumented immigrant would seem to be the first challenge. The second challenge is the "fine." Is it really a fine? It seems more like an installment program for the purchasing of legal status. I can hear the sales pitch now: "For the low, low price of $1000 a year, you can live out your days as a farm worker in peace and prosperity." ICE will be able to sort all of that out during their masked kidnappings, I'm sure.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

Last week, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced there will be no release of the "Jeffrey Epstein files." It's hard to predict when people will have finally had enough. The tolerance level of undesirable traits and behaviors from other humans will vary from person to person of course. And in today's world of unexplainable group think, a rational understanding of group tolerance is often fleeting. This is not a column that will provide some new theories about what's in the elusive Epstein files. No, I will never have confidence that the entire truth of that monster's life will be known. I didn't before he died, and with each passing moment since his death, the whole truth has drifted further and further from us. But we did know enough about him, and his disgusting existence, long ago, to know who not to trust with giving us the facts. Epstein had been friends with Donald Trump. They socialized together. They traveled together. They womanized together. Anyone paying attention already knew all of this. Trump and his minions were never going to be the truth tellers in this or any other saga. But particularly this one. So, I never understood why Trump's supporters sought "transparency" regarding the U.S. Department of Justice's infamous "Epstein Files." Did they seek confirmation of what was already widely known? It can't be that. No, there was seemingly some menu of conspiracy theories floating around in their ecosystem that would cause the stench of Epstein and his sex trafficking operation to stick to others. It always seemed like an elaborate fantasy of MAGA world that if someone from the other side was as dirty and as guilty as Trump, it would make all of his badness tolerable somehow. But again, what is it that causes that kind of devotion, that kind of naivete?   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

Oh, to have existed in a period of time named the "Renaissance," a French word that means "rebirth." As explained by Brittanica, "it was primarily a time of the revival of Classical learning and wisdom after a long period of cultural decline and stagnation." The recently enacted biennial budget crafted by the Indiana General Assembly is hostile toward learning in favor of stagnation. The Commission for Higher Education announced last week that six of the state's public universities are suspending or consolidating more than 400 academic degree programs to comply with the new budget. "The cuts are intended to help students focus on more in-demand fields and to comply early with the new state budget, which now sets minimum enrollment and completion thresholds for all degree programs offered at public institutions," as reported by Casey Smith of the Indiana Capital Chronicle. Absurdité. Sorry, that's another French word that means "nonsense." Look at the list of programs on the chopping block. Some highlights include undergraduate foreign language programs at Indiana University; graduate programs in literature at Purdue; international business at Ball State; and graduate programs in history and political science at Indiana State. These cuts aren't going to help students do anything. It is a decision to teach fewer things, to offer less to young Hoosiers, and importantly, it is a move toward "cultural decline and stagnation."   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

Every semester, the students in my business writing class are divided up into teams and are assigned a real-life challenge from a company looking to elevate its performance in any number of ways. It's an opportunity to research the complexities of a market, to create an entrepreneurial solution and to effectively communicate all of it to the company looking to grow. And it's an opportunity for me. I get to teach them the value of feedback. The worst ideas I've seen in my career come from organizations that spend too much time only talking to each other. The habit skews logic and rationality and creates blind spots allowing for fantastical outcomes that ultimately prevent actual success. So, let's talk about this lesson plan in the context of "The One Big Beautiful Bill Act," or "OBBBA." First, the name itself. What likely started as a spasm straight from the mouth of President Donald Trump has become the dumbest title of landmark legislation in history. It communicates nothing of what the legislation actually does, good or bad, and sounds unserious, sarcastic and irritating in its vagueness. On Tuesday while researching the latest in the U.S. Senate, I spotted the first commercials for Trump's new men's cologne and women's perfume on social media. I, of course, thought it was a hoax at first, but confirmed it's reality. The scents, called "Fight, Fight, Fight" and "Victory 45-47" must feature a refreshing aroma; sweet, soothing and subtle with a sort of locker room-esque approachability. After that brief rancid distraction, I went back to looking for the talking points from those who support Trump's legislation. I came across the promotion of "OBBBA," on the White House webpage. This document is truly stunning in its silliness. Please look at it. It honestly looks like an ad for the smelly cologne, or possibly an ad for a pride-swallowing memoir about the smelly cologne. But I'm a professional, so I scrolled past that embarrassing half page to get to the words part of this debate. There are endorsements rolling by on a ticker under an oversized header, "Backed by American Industry." This list is actually pretty short: Verizon, Comcast, Dell, 3M, Delta and Uber. Hmm. Uber? The company that finally turned its first annual profit in 2023 is supporting OBBBA because of the bill's elimination of taxes on tips. But that elimination doesn't appear to apply to Uber drivers in its current form. This endeavor is so gimmicky, even those who support the idea in theory often overlook its limited impact. The Economic Policy Institute's February piece is a valuable source on the issue.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.    

I spent last weekend in New York, as I try to do once a year, for the primary purpose of seeing the latest hot show or two on Broadway. I'd love to say I am expert at picking the best shows, but the truth is, if a show has gotten my attention in the heartland, it's a safe bet. "Maybe Happy Ending" first caught my eye with its list of Tony nominations, so I bought the tickets. After my purchase, the show won six, including Best Musical. While I was in the city, the political ads were relentless on TV and on many of the digital billboards in Times Square. Tuesday was the Democratic primary election for mayor of the city—a contest that lately has, if nothing else, been a source of entertainment for the rest of the country. This time around, however, the contest is enraging. Former New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, has been leading in the polls to win. Victory will bring him a new job, and as some suggest, redemption. Cuomo resigned from office in August of 2021, during his third term as governor. The state legislature was preparing to impeach him at the time. New York's attorney general had released the results of an investigation that found Cuomo had sexually harassed at least 11 women. He had created a work environment "rife with fear and intimidation." Where are these women now? Our culture doesn't ask this question or consider the answer deeply enough. The public is being asked to forgive or forget how the politician's abhorrent behavior forever changed their victim's life trajectories. If we collectively put this question up front, where it belongs, we would be less susceptible to reenlisting for the ridiculous: That these perpetrators are worthy of their victims' trust or ours ever again. Cuomo's career in public service should have ended permanently four years ago. His resignation was the end of his defense and likely provided some level of closure to those he harmed. I doubt the ending was happy for the victims, but that "Maybe Happy Ending" was better than the fantasy that the abhorrent behavior never occurred. Cuomo's attempt at "redemption" is an exercise in pretending.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

A quarter century ago, as a young bureaucrat, I had a disagreement with my bosses. Energy commodities markets were going through an historic price spike, and my agency set the final rates customers would pay. I wanted rates to mirror the market to send "price signals" to consumers and provoke a reduction in consumption. The bosses wanted to spread costs over a long period to mitigate "rate shock." They feared the infinitely possible responses that could come from an angry public. The bosses won, as bosses usually do, and we kept rates flat, and the public remained calm. Governing has changed since then. Last Thursday, June 12th, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-California, was forcibly removed from a news conference being conducted by the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem. He was ultimately tackled and handcuffed before being released. Why? He wanted to ask Noem some questions, and there were no questions to ask her that she would have been able to easily answer, so her security detail overreacted early. Where? In Los Angeles, where Padilla is arguably far more important than Noem. This wasn't a mistake on Noem's part or on her security detail's part. It was purposeful theater. While Padilla was being restrained unnecessarily, Noem was saying this according to NBC News: "We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country," referring to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. The Trump Administration is declaring war on state and local government in California. Or was Noem just trying to see what the reaction to that possibility would be? On Friday, June 13th, Israel began firing missiles into Iran. As reported by Reuters, "The air war between Iran and Israel - which began on Friday when Israel attacked Iran with air strikes - has raised alarms in a region that had already been on edge since the start of Israel's military assault on Gaza in October 2023." Israel claims the bombing was necessary to preempt Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Yes, this issue had been addressed during the Obama Administration when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed, specifically to prevent it. President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement during his first term and failed to craft a new nuclear deal with Iran to replace it. Now we have a replacement: war. The U.S. has been working to avoid this conflict since the Reagan Administration.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

I am working on publishing a new book this year. So, I'm spending time with other writers, readers, editors and consultants to make sure the finished product is as good as it can be. While online the other day, an editor wrote: "The purpose of fiction is to ask the audience questions to consider; the purpose of non-fiction, is to give them answers." I assumed that was a famous quote, because it's so wonderful, but I can't find its originator for attribution. "Who said that?" is a question in need of an answer. I don't ever seem to run out of questions, and neither does humanity. Answers, on the other hand, are scarce and precious. We should treat them that way. As reported by the Indianapolis Star on June 5th, "Purdue University announced it will no longer help distribute its student newspaper on campus — one of a handful (of) decisions distancing itself from the independent student publication." The Purdue Exponent has been a vital news publication during my 30-year career in the Indiana media space. The student newspaper is 135-years-old and has been invaluable to students, the Purdue community and to the state for the entirety of that time. This decision by Purdue follows similar moves made by Indiana University in 2024 directed toward its student newspaper, the Indiana Daily Student. A particularly curious part of the Purdue announcement is the instruction that the newspaper "should" omit the use of "Purdue" in its name moving forward, even though the publication has the name trademarked until 2029. Expansive explanations for this kind of hostility toward the paper have not been provided yet, but questions about that specifically are things we all should ponder. On June 8th, Lauren Tomasi, a correspondent for 9News of Australia was shot by a rubber bullet while covering the Los Angeles protests. The video of the incident can be seen here. On the same day in LA, British photojournalist, Nick Stern was also struck by "non-lethal" rounds fired by law enforcement. He said in an interview with The Guardian, "I'm walking around taking photos…walking across the road when I felt a mighty pain in my leg. I put my hand down and felt a lump kind of sticking out the back of my leg." He is currently recovering from surgery that was necessary to treat his injury.  Questions abound. Here, in the once shiny city on the hill known as America, our institutions of authority are turning on our nation's "Fourth Estate."   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

I love June in Indianapolis. School's out for me. The gardens, flowers and lawns around town are blooming and greening with optimism. And the city is quiet as it recovers from its traditionally hectic month of May. As my favorite performer, David Ryan Harris, sang in concert many years ago, this time of year transforms "slow like the breezes of springtime melt into summer's grace."  As a dad, I am treated well in June. As a golfer, Indiana's greens rarely run smoother. As a proud downtown dweller, my neighbors never love each other better. And that last one is all because of Indy Pride. Indy Pride is celebrating thirty years as an organization in 2025. Its founding preceded President Bill Clinton's declaration of June as Pride Month in 1999. Yes, there are organizations all over America holding events during this wonderful month. I've had comparative conversations with people from other cities countless times. They usually go like this: "Our Pride is the best because…" An opening that often leads to an interruption of, "No, ours is better because…" The truth is all of them are special, and while I love mine the most, Indiana is not all that different from the rest of America. Cities and towns all over the state also have events of their own. From Fort Wayne to Spencer, from Greenwood to River City Pride in Warrick County, Hoosiers celebrate the LGBTQ community, and importantly, our collective love of it this month. That is why it so truly evil that Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith hates it so much. I recognize Beckwith's hatefulness. It grows from ignorance, and his relentless commitment to it. On May 30th, he posted "PRIDE MONTH ALERT: The Rainbow Beast is Coming For Your Kids" on his Micah Beckwith for Indiana Facebook page. The kooky post is largely lifted from the story posted on an equally kooky website called "The Dissenter." It's difficult to editorialize on the lunatic rantings of, again, the sitting lieutenant governor of the State of Indiana. It's akin to arguing with an idiot; there's not much to be gained in the exercise. But as humanity begins the loving and celebratory month of June, it is important to bring attention to a primary reason why Pride exists. It is the ignorance, the lunacy, and the hatefulness from the smallest of people, like Beckwith, that should motivate those of us who love Pride's celebrations to stay focused on its absolute necessity.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

In the 1983 classic film, "Trading Places," Louis Winthorpe III and Billy Ray Valentine are victims of a scientific experiment that is thrust upon them by the elite bosses of a Philadelphia commodities brokerage. Winthorpe is a young, snobby broker at the firm, with all the right credentials and upbringing. He is comprehensively replaced by Valentine, a streetwise but uneducated nobody. The amateur sociological experiment aimed to prove that environment is more predictive than genetics in determining personal success or failure. After the switch, Winthorpe spots Valentine wearing the clothes he once owned, specifically his Harvard tie. Only the cream of the crop, the elites among the elite are worthy of wearing the school's crest. An enraged Winthorpe exclaims, "Like oh sure, he went to Harvard!"  I used to repeat the line out loud anytime I saw Harvard gear being worn by anyone, anywhere--especially to friends who actually did go to school there. It used to be fun. In 2025, Donald Trump is trying to destroy arguably our most reputable institution of higher education based on his "claims that Harvard has failed to stamp out antisemitism on campus," as reported by NPR's Steve Inskeep, in the Morning Edition on Tuesday. It's nonsense of course. Pretend for a moment that a specific ground zero of all American antisemitism actually existed. Where would that place be? I might look at the places flying Nazi or Confederate flags. I might look at the places where historic hostilities toward minorities of any kind thrive. I might look where hate crimes are being committed and civil rights are under threat. Trump has chosen to look at Harvard, a university with a Jewish population among undergraduates of approximately 26%, according to Hillel International. That's where the MAGA crowd believes antisemitism needs thwarted. More importantly, they believe the make-believe crisis is worthy of annihilating one of the world's most respected institutions to solve it.  Again, it's all nonsense. No one actually believes any of this. However, Trump's supporters love destroying things. The destruction of our global reputation, the U.S. Capitol, the rule of law, etc. are proof of that. Damn the consequences, they primarily enjoy burning stuff down.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

Bureaucracy is a word that is often used as an excuse. It is the bogeyman that serves as the source of mysterious and insurmountable odds preventing government from delivering the obvious good and right things to its people. Why are the streets in Indianapolis so horrible? Why is school funding seemingly always distributed unfairly? Eventually, the answers to those questions lead to the faceless phantom, known as bureaucracy. However, sometimes that phantom is identified, making accountability possible for whatever ails us. That's when we point at an actual person, the sinister "bureaucrat." On May 7th, Whitney Downard reported for the Indiana Capital Chronicle, "'A giant leap backwards': Indiana opts out of summer program for hungry schoolchildren." She reported that in 2024, Hoosier families who qualify for food benefits and reduced-price school meals got a summertime boost: $120 per child monthly for food while schools were closed. It provided that assistance to 669,000 children. What made it news earlier this month is that Indiana's participation last year, won't be repeated this year. The reason? You guessed it, bureaucracy. Downard asked "three state entities" about the withdrawal from the SUN Bucks program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the important question: why? At that time, no reasoning was provided. I was hopeful more reporting would follow, and on May 16th, it did. Rachel Fradette reported for WFYI that in a statement from Indiana's Family and Social Services Administration, that "clear direction" was needed from state leadership last year for the program to be rolled out in a timely manner. "Upon taking office, this administration quickly submitted a waiver application to the Food and Nutrition Service to explore all possible avenues for launching the program this summer…However, our review revealed that the gaps in prior preparations prevented implementation in time for Summer 2025." That's the classic blaming of bureaucracy. But there's a face here, and that face is Governor Mike Braun. Could this Trump loyalist have made a phone call to the White House? Yes. Did he?   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

In the opening scene of the film, "The Hate U Give," a father is having The Talk with his two young children. It is a common discussion Black families have in America to prepare for the inevitable contact with law enforcement they will face, and how to stay safe in those situations. It is a sad necessity, but a necessity all the same. The movie was based on the 2017 award-winning novel by Angie Thomas. It was inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement, though plenty of important things have happened in real life since then. In The Talk, the father is instructing his kids how to be submissive when confronted by an armed aggressor with governmental authority. That submissiveness communicates to the authority the intent to be compliant and peaceful and is designed to lower the temperature of the moment. The goal is to survive the moment and then worry about justice through due process later. It's good advice. At least it used to be. Before 2025, the advice from The Talk made some assumptions. Primarily, that those claiming to be the police were exactly that. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, has apparently made mask-wearing part of the standard attire when detaining people. Sometimes they are in military style clothing, and sometimes they are in plain clothes, an inconsistency that makes them even less trustworthy. The agents are often armed with semi-automatic rifles adding to the fear factor of the costumes being worn when capturing their targets. When I first noticed it earlier this year, I was surprised and curious. With each passing video, my initial concern has evolved into outrage. It is disturbing how this approach to law enforcement has quickly become the norm at the Department of Homeland Security, the governing department of ICE. We cannot stand for this practice to spread to other law enforcement agencies, or for it to continue with DHS. And The Talk won't work for this.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

In "Mother Night," Kurt Vonnegut wrote: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." I might add: "And for how long." I was invited to join a small group of students last week to celebrate the completion of their undergraduate degrees. We first met four years ago, and I remember the moment vividly. It was my first day as a full-time instructor at an elite business school and they were freshmen in their first week of classes.  Heading into the fourth lecture of that first day, I wasn't convinced I had made the right decision to leave a lucrative private sector career to teach. I didn't know how the technology in the classroom worked. I didn't know I could move the furniture around any way I wanted. I was so consumed with my own ignorance that I hadn't even considered the far more unsettled condition of these young people. They expected me to be brilliant, to be a source of stability in the middle of the chaos of their first week of college. I wasn't brilliant. I was pretending. And I wasn't pretending very well. The first three classes that day were filled with students who were nervously silent. My own nervousness didn't help. But when I entered that last class of the day, the students were talking and laughing with each other like they were old friends, hardly noticing that the evil professor had arrived. One of them made eye contact with me and I asked, "What, did all of you go to high school together?" She looked at me curiously, seemingly wondering if I had forgotten that it was the first day of school, and said, "uh, we just met." That moment changed everything for me. Four years later, the first days of my semesters are wildly different. I am a little evil, but not accidentally. I am a little anxious, but only because I know the fun that lies ahead. I'm more than a little curious about my new students. I'm truly fascinated by them. And that curiosity is everything. I teach speech and writing to students who didn't go to college to learn either. They can all follow instruction on rhetoric and persuasiveness, and they all know what a complete sentence is. Teaching that stuff has become the easy part. The real challenge is helping them find their voice.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

Since the measure was first coined by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, the "First 100 Days" is the standard we exclusively give new presidents "as a symbolic window to set the tone" of their administration. "It represents a kind of political version of a first impression," according to History.com. In 2025 though, the new president isn't really new, the first impression isn't actually the first one, and the symbolic window is less about the tone and more about the zone. That zone is being flooded right now, a strategic mantra of President Donald Trump's on-again, off-again, ex-con adviser, Steve Bannon. Monday, April 28th, was a classic day from this playbook. Two national stories detailed an attack on the Civil Rights Act from two different federal agencies and on two different targets. The stories were written as if the perpetrators of them were independent of one another, operating without a hint of knowledge that both were attacking the same iconic American standard: equal rights. On April 23rd, Trump signed an Executive Order titled, "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy."  As Newsweek reported: "It calls for an evaluation of all pending proceedings under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which was first passed in 1974 and amended in 1976 to prevent lenders from discriminating against women based on marital status." The obvious, rational question this EO provokes is a simple one: why? The EO is attacking the principle of "disparate-impact liability," or "the idea that racism, sexism, or some other form of discrimination can occur without explicit intent." Bluntly, the Trump administration is concerned that the protections against discrimination created by ECOA half a century ago might be resulting in negative consequences for those clearly responsible for the original problem. Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress explains that the Trump team's justification of reviewing the laws this way: "Because that somehow might, in individual cases, cause a white young man to lose out because the criteria has been shifted." Yes, of course. The ridiculous notion of "reverse discrimination" is often described with terms like "meritocracy" by those known for ridiculous notions. And no, an EO cannot repeal a law. But it can direct federal agencies to behave differently, and in this case, the primary enforcement agency of ECOA is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Trump team apparently wants to take the "protection" out of that agency's mission across the board. Specifically in this example, protecting women, any and all women, is being rolled back.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.      

I have often wondered where the phrase "spinning a yarn" came from, and what differentiates the descriptive from the blunter, "making stuff up." This week's absurd spin, courtesy of Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, finally inspired me to do a little search for it. Merriam-Webster theorizes that "it may be connected to the sailor's task of rope making," because of the path of the term's traceable usage through the maritime world. The tedious process of twisting fibers into yarns, yarns into strands, and then strands into rope by hand must have been torturous in the early 1800s, when the term first appeared in print. "It is likely that tales were told by the sailors while making rope, leading to the figurative use 'spinning a yarn' for storytelling." Piles of rope were apparently made in the Indiana Statehouse last week in response to the updated and gloomy revenue forecast. Some mysterious set of circumstances turned the December forecast of $800 million in growth for the next biennium into more than $2 billion of expected losses. Hmm. What changed? As reported by Arika Herron for Axios Indianapolis, "The dismal forecast is driven by slower than expected growth in jobs and wages, stock market declines and the effects of federal policies around tariffs, immigration and spending cuts." Uh, yea. That was as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise. But while the forecast is truly dismal, it is still just a forecast. There is no reason to be certain in it because the source of its dismal nature is uncertainty itself. Reality could be worse. And here's where the fibers-to-yarns process begins. Gov. Braun issued a statement the day the forecast was released. He said: "Today's forecast reflects what we are dealing with in the aftermath of disastrous Bidenflation. There will be some tough times ahead, but the America First economic policies we are pursuing here and in Washington will unleash an economic boom." Wow. In those two prepared sentences, and I emphasize that they were prepared, the Indiana governor is blaming the former president for the problem, acknowledging tough times ahead, and topping it off with baseless economic optimism that the state's own forecasters won't predict. That's an awful lot of rope.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

"Bridge of Spies" is a 2015 movie about an insurance attorney, James Donovan, who finds himself representing a Soviet spy, Rudolph Abel, in a highly publicized espionage trial in 1957. Yes, it's directed by Steven Spielberg, and Tom Hanks stars in it, so, of course, there are Academy Awards involved. And yes, there were dramatic embellishments in the storytelling sprinkled throughout the film with one important exception: The government never betrayed its duty to the U.S. Constitution. Imagine 1950's America. We were at war with the Soviet Union. No one could be more unanimously seen as evil than that ominous enemy and their soldiers. And Rudolph Abel was guilty. Not because J. Edgar Hoover said so, but because he was convicted in a court of law. I have immense pride in the things that make my home what it is. I have traveled abroad and met people where they live, and I have met an abundance of people here, who are not from here. The circumstances of our lives are what fascinates us with one another. And I have always preferred mine to theirs.  Those circumstances changed on Monday. History will date it. Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis instructing the government to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador where he was erroneously deported. SCOTUS specifically instructed the Trump administration to "facilitate and effectuate" the return of Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who had been living in Maryland and has had a work permit since 2019. The Department of Justice had been fighting the lawsuit filed by Garcia's family in response to the deportation, even though it acknowledged it was done in error. The legal wrangling of the government to avoid righting its wrong in this case has been absurd for weeks. However, when the highest court in the land issued its decision last week, the American in me had a brief rush of hope that our constitution would hold. That hope is now gone.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.  

The term "glad handing" appeared in the American vernacular at the beginning of the 20th century, through the phrase, "to give the glad hand," or extend a welcome. But that type of welcome has generally come with a twist, an intention, or an agenda. Merriam-Webster defines the term as "a warm welcome or greeting often prompted by ulterior reasons." It makes sense that the practice is most often attributed to politicians who are working a room. Even with ulterior motives, the practice would feature a pleasantness and happy charisma to audiences, much like an effective Instagram account would today. Not all politicians are great at it, even though most used to at least try to be. Not Sen. Jim Banks, R-Indiana though. No, no. His communication strategy flips glad handing on its head. He doesn't want people, voters, you know, Hoosiers, to see him being insincerely polite or jovial. Not even in a moment of weakness. He's proudest of his public displays of meanness, or what should now be labeled, "mad handing." I'm in the words business, so I'm taking my shot at coining a phrase in hopes of making it into a credible dictionary someday. ABC reported last week about the now infamous and viral video of Banks telling a man on Capitol Hill who identified himself as a recently fired Health and Human Services employee that he "probably deserved it" because "you seem like a clown." The freshman senator is proudly refusing to apologize and is even promoting the video himself as some sort of achievement. Why? I went on a search to try to identify the phenomenon and there actually is some science out there that is helpful. Dr. Mark Travers wrote "When Anger is a Strategy" for Psychology Today in 2022. The article reviewed a study published in the medical journal, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. The sports-based study found that low competitive status is linked with higher aggression. Dr. Macià Buades-Rotger of the University of Barcelona and co-author of the research said, "Put bluntly, losers are more aggressive than winners on average, and that makes sense: If your rival outperforms you, you must resort to aggression to try and stop them." Yes, it makes perfect sense and in so many ways. Not just on the playing field of sports, but in the constant jockeying for fame and favor in right-wing politics. In the Banks example from last week, he didn't have the confidence or courage to defend the haphazard and mass firings that have decimated many vital federal institutions, so he defaulted to aggression. Not by mistake, but by design.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.