Columns

Michigan’s government gives special favors to many private companies. Lawmakers believe they can improve the state economy through selective grants, tax abatements and other bits of favoritism. They can’t.

Michigan’s government gives special favors to many private companies. Lawmakers believe they can improve the state economy through selective grants, tax abatements and other bits of favoritism. They can’t. But one program stands out as being clearly set up to fail: the state’s site preparation program.

It is poorly designed. It ensures taxpayer costs without benefits. It is comparatively worse than the state’s other business subsidy programs.

That’s because it costs money without even being tied to jobs.

The Michigan Economic Development Corporation describes its Strategic Site Readiness Program as a way of creating “a statewide inventory of investment-ready sites to attract and promote investment in Michigan.” But the program sets taxpayers up to get nothing in return for all the spending.

The state awarded the Marshall Area Development Alliance $185.3 million to buy land and prepare it for a Ford plant.

When Ford announced that it was scaling back the project, this part of the state’s subsidy package was not scaled back.

If the company doesn’t produce what it said it would do, then this money is gone. Taxpayers don’t get it back from the company, in part because they never gave it to the company. They gave it to the local development agency.

The money also comes without clawbacks. If the company completely shuts down the proposed factory, the state has no recourse to get its site development dollars back.

That’s baked into the structure of the program. There are upfront costs with little certainty of the promised economic outcomes.

This is a major problem when companies have a poor track record of turning announcements into jobs. Of the state’s refundable tax credit program, only 2.3% of recipients created as many jobs as announced.

Its replacement program doesn’t even require recipients to do anything they would not otherwise do without state money. Yet even with low expectations, only half of the program’s projects meet job announcements. The site selection program ensures that taxpayers spend money on projects that are unlikely to meet expectations and will be unable to recoup that spending.

Other state business subsidy programs are not structured this way. Some state grants are not released until the businesses reach their contractual obligations to create jobs. Another state program gives businesses the income taxes their employees were supposed to give the state. Companies don’t collect anything if there are no employees.

Justifications for site selection money are weak. Administrators say that it will “allow Michigan to compete for, and win, transformational projects that will bring long-term economic opportunity and security to regions and communities across the state.” Projects that receive funding are not required to compete for or win projects — let alone to meet a transformational quality. The rest of the rationale is economic development word salad.

Lawmakers should be careful about spending more on site preparation programs. They have large upfront expenses for uncertain jobs and little way to recover funds that get spent without results.

—————

James M. Hohman is the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

The U.S. presidential election isn’t drawing eyes only at home – Moscow and Kyiv are watching closely, too.

(THE CONVERSATION) — The U.S. presidential election isn’t drawing eyes only at home – Moscow and Kyiv are watching closely, too.

Regardless of who wins in November, there will be significant implications for Ukraine as it continues to resist Russia in a war heading toward a fourth year.

Washington’s continued support is seen by some as no less than an existential issue for Ukraine. Without U.S. arms and aid, it is unlikely that the nation would be able to continue repelling its larger, better-armed neighbor.

During the presidential debate on Sept. 10, 2024, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and Republican contender Donald Trump had a chance to clarify their positions on Ukraine. Trump evaded ABC moderator David Muir’s question regarding the importance of Ukraine’s victory over Russia, twice. Instead, he repeated his long-standing line that he would achieve a negotiated peace quickly – even before taking office as president.

At the same debate, Harris dismissed the idea of Trump negotiating with “a dictator who would eat you for lunch.” She instead emphasized the Biden policy to support Ukraine “as long as it takes” in concert with U.S. allies.

But detail has been light on what either candidate would actually do to support Ukraine and end the war. So, what do we know about each candidate’s approach to Ukraine based on their records?

—————

Trump: A ‘very fair and rapid deal’?

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Trump has repeatedly stated that ending the war is in the U.S.’s best interests and that he can end the war quickly. In fact, Trump is certain that had he remained president after the 2020 election, Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have invaded – an unsubstantiated claim he repeated during the Sept. 10 presidential debate.

Trump has often reiterated that both Putin and Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy respect him, and he would be able to use his “good relationship” with both to bring them to the negotiating table and end the war.

Yet, Trump’s record on his relationships with Zelenskyy and Putin is rather complicated.

Trump’s admiration for Putin is well documented and dates back to his first presidential run in 2016, sparking numerous investigations and reports of collusion. Most recently, Bob Woodward reported that Trump secretly sent COVID-19 tests to Putin in the midst of a pandemic shortage, a claim confirmed by the Kremlin.

Trump’s relationship with Zelenskyy is similarly laden with baggage. A 2019 phone call between the two men, during which Trump pressured Ukraine’s president to open a criminal investigation into Joe Biden, led to Trump’s impeachment. In exchange, Ukraine would have received continued U.S. support for the country’s defense against Russia, which had been waging a proxy war in eastern regions of Ukraine since 2014. During the subsequent hearings in Congress, one of Trump’s aids testified that “Trump did not give a sh*t about Ukraine” and was only interested in his own political gains.

Standing next to Zelenskyy during a meeting at the Trump Tower on Sept. 27, 2024 – their first meeting since Sept. 25, 2019 – Trump said he was sure that both Zelenskyy and Putin are interested in peace and that a “very fair” and “rapid” deal is possible.

When asked what that deal might entail, Trump responded that it’s “too early” to discuss details and that both he and Zelenskyy have “their own ideas.”

While the Republican candidate has not been explicit on the details of negotiations or possible conditions, some of his proxies have voiced proposals. Trump’s vice presidential pick, JD Vance, has laid out a plan that includes potential land concessions on the part of Ukraine and the creation of a demilitarized zone along the battle lines of the Russian-occupied territory of eastern Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Trump’s son Donald Jr. co-authored a piece with former presidential candidate turned Trump ally Robert F Kennedy Jr., arguing that a concession to Russian demands for “Ukrainian neutrality and a halt to NATO’s eastward expansion” were reasonable to avoid a nuclear game of chicken. Although these have not been echoed in Trump’s own statements on Ukraine, both men have the ear of the Republican candidate.

These plans have been criticized as closely resembling those of the Kremlin. Prior to meeting with Trump in New York, Zelenskyy had also criticized Vance’s plan and expressed doubts that Trump and his team really know how to end the war.

—————

Harris: ‘Strategic interest, not charity’

Harris has been harshly critical of Trump’s approach to Ukraine. “They are not proposals for peace,” Harris said in response to suggestions that Ukraine cede territory for peace. “Instead they are proposals for surrender,” she added.

Such views are in line with Harris’ record. As part of the Biden administration, Harris has given vocal support to Ukraine’s fight for political sovereignty and territorial integrity.

At the onset of the full-scale invasion in early 2022, Harris traveled to Europe to help shore up a coalition of European allies to support Ukraine.

As vice president, Harris has repeatedly condemned Russian war crimes in Ukraine. In February 2023, while attending the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany, she announced that the U.S. has determined that Russian actions in Ukraine amounted to “crimes against humanity,” affirming U.S. commitment to the international rule of law.

Along with continued support, the U.S. has provided substantial aid for Ukraine, totaling US$61.3 billion in military aid since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022.

The Biden administration also has said that rising costs and keeping pressure on Russia through sanctions are important mechanisms to keep Moscow accountable. Harris reiterated this need to maintain sanctions and broad coalition support for Ukraine at the Munich Security Conference in February 2024 and again in June at the peace summit organized by Ukraine in Switzerland.

As a presidential candidate, Harris has openly signaled her commitment to supporting Kyiv – not only for Ukraine survival but for the collective security of NATO allies and the U.S. itself. Harris emphasized this point in the September debate, suggesting that Ukraine was not Putin’s final stop and that he has “his eyes on the rest of Europe, starting with Poland.”

Standing next to Zelenskyy in Washington on Sept. 26, 2024, Harris reiterated the point: “The United States supports Ukraine not out of charity, but because it’s in our strategic interest.”

Yet, White House policy on Ukraine has been criticized for being slow and hesitant in supplying weaponry. The U.S. has imposed rules on the use of heavy weaponry against targets inside Russia. Furthermore, the U.S. has so far been reticent on Ukraine’s invitation to join NATO, which is seen as crucial for any lasting peace in Kyiv. How Harris’ White House would differ from Biden’s on these issues is not clear.

—————

Beyond the candidates

Since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022, the U.S. Congress has passed five bills that provide aid to Ukraine, totaling US$175 billion.

However, a six-month delay in aid in early 2024 highlighted growing partisan tension in Congress over continued aid to Ukraine.

The composition of Congress after the November election is another unknown factor in Washington’s support for Ukraine. Zelenskyy met with congressional leaders during his visit to the U.S. in September, but notably absent was Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who in the past has shown reluctance to support continued funding.

For the large part, support for Ukraine remains bipartisan in Congress and among American voters. Yet there is a risk the election could further politicize the issue. And the outcome of November’s vote could determine whether U.S. efforts going forward focus more on pushing for a negotiated deal or on-going support for Ukraine.

If U.S. voters elect Kamala Harris – a Black, Asian American woman – president, it would be historic on multiple levels. This is now a real possibility due to voters’ positively evolving stereotypes of women politicians.

(THE CONVERSATION) — If U.S. voters elect Kamala Harris – a Black, Asian American woman – president, it would be historic on multiple levels. This is now a real possibility due to voters’ positively evolving stereotypes of women politicians.

Stereotypes have long hindered female candidates, casting them as emotional, weak and sensitive. But now our political science research shows that voters in the U.S. increasingly see women leaders as synonymous with political leadership – and as more effective than men politicians.

This transformation reflects a broader change in what voters expect in political leaders. They are now more likely to see a woman candidate as a better “fit” for public office. This might help pave the way for Harris to break through the highest glass ceiling in U.S. politics.

—————

The classic double bind

Gender stereotypes are the assumptions and expectations people have about men and women. They traditionally present an obstacle for women leaders, including in politics.

Among the many barriers to a woman becoming president in the U.S. are voters’ gender stereotypes. Men are generally assumed to have masculine traits such as being ambitious and competitive, while women are assumed to possess feminine traits such as being warm and compassionate. In applying gender stereotypes to politicians, voters end up with very different expectations for men and women candidates.

This presents a classic double bind for women leaders. If they behave like leaders and act dominantly and assertively, they violate expectations of femininity. But if they behave in a stereotypical way, they are not seen as strong leaders.

The double bind extends to politics. It was long the case that stereotypes of men politicians, but not women politicians, aligned with the leadership qualities that voters desire in political leaders. These traits include competence, strong leadership, empathy and integrity. A 2011 study showed that stereotypes of women politicians lacked clarity, meaning people had no clear expectations. Voters also did not see women politicians in alignment with those same four leadership qualities that voters seek.

But by 2021, prominent women political leaders such as Hillary Clinton, Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi had reshaped the landscape for women seeking office by shaping and solidifying public expectations.

—————

More women politicians in the spotlight

More women have assumed political leadership roles in the U.S. over the past decade than in previous decades. The number of women in Congress increased from 90 to 145 between the 111th Congress, which met from 2009 to 2011, to the 117th Congress, which met from 2021 to 2023.

In addition, high-profile women politicians such as Democrats Pelosi and Clinton, as well as Liz Cheney, a Republican, have received considerable attention from both the media and the electorate. Gender stereotypes about women politicians evolved from being ambiguous to becoming both well-defined and positive as voters grew more familiar with them. This has created a political landscape for Harris today that is notably different from the early 2010s.

We are political scientists whose research examines how gender stereotypes affect women’s political underrepresentation. In 2021, we conducted a study of how voters’ gender stereotypes of politicians had evolved over the previous decade. These are the three main lessons:

1. Stereotypes of women politicians are increasingly positive

A decade ago, people did not agree on the traits that defined women politicians. While some people described them as tough, others thought they were weak. Similarly, some reported them as rational, while others saw them as unable to separate feelings from ideas. There were no traits that large groups of people agreed upon to describe women politicians.

But our study shows that voters now hold clear and positive stereotypes of them.

When asked about the traits they associate with women politicians, respondents listed positive traits such as intelligent, rational, analytical, ambitious and moral. At the same time, women politicians are least associated with negative traits such as being weak and spineless.

2. Stereotypes of men politicians have shifted to increased negativity and distrust

Male politicians were previously seen as confident, well educated, charismatic and driven. But there’s bad news for men in politics: This perception has shifted. Our study revealed that stereotypes of male politicians became much more negative over the decade we studied.

Today, male politicians are more commonly viewed as power-hungry, selfish, manipulative and self-interested. They are least associated with traits such as being sympathetic or caring about “people like me.” This indicates that voters have become more negative and distrustful toward male politicians.

3. Women politicians have gained ground on leadership perceptions, surpassing men politicians

In the past, stereotypes of women politicians were incompatible with leadership stereotypes. But our study shows that this mismatch has subsided. In fact, between 2011 and 2021, scores for women politicians increased on all four leadership traits valued by voters: competence, leadership, empathy and integrity.

Men politicians, in contrast, have lost ground on all four leadership traits. Women politicians now surpass men politicians in three out of the four leadership traits: competence, empathy and integrity.
Expectations of men politicians concerning the fourth trait, strong leadership, are now equal to those of female politicians.

—————

Kamala Harris may benefit

Gender stereotypes have long hindered women seeking political office, but more women in prominent leadership positions have fostered positive stereotype change.

Granted, highly visible women leaders such as Pelosi and Clinton excite both admiration and intense dislike. But seeing them and many other examples in their wake has familiarized voters with women holding power in politics. Voters are thus now more likely to view women candidates like Harris as fitting into leadership roles such as the presidency.

With growing distrust in politics, and of male politicians specifically, women political leaders – who are viewed as agents of change – may have an opportunity to restore trust in politics.

The legacy of slavery in America remains a divisive issue, with sharp political divides.

(THE CONVERSATION) — The legacy of slavery in America remains a divisive issue, with sharp political divides.

Some argue that slavery still contributes to modern economic inequalities. Others believe its effects have largely faded.

One way to measure the legacy of slavery is to determine whether the disproportionate riches of slaveholders have been passed down to their present-day descendants.

Connecting the wealth of a slaveholder in the 1860s to today’s economic conditions is not easy. Doing so requires unearthing data for a large number of people on slaveholder ancestry, current wealth and other factors such as age and education.

But in a new study, we tackled this challenge by focusing on one of the few groups of Americans for whom such information exists: members of Congress. We found that legislators who are descendants of slaveholders are significantly wealthier than members of Congress without slaveholder ancestry.

—————

How slavery made the South rich

In 1860, one year before the Civil War, the market value of U.S. slaves was larger than that of all American railroads and factories.

At the time of emancipation in 1863, the estimated value of all enslaved people was roughly US$13 trillion in today’s dollars. The lower Mississippi Valley had more millionaires, all of them slaveholders, than anywhere else in the country.

Some post-Civil War historians have argued that emancipation permanently devastated slave-owning families.

More recently, however, historians discovered that, while the South fell behind the North economically immediately following emancipation, many elite slaveholders recovered financially within one or two generations.

They accomplished this by replacing slavery with sharecropping – a kind of indentured servitude that trapped Black farm workers in debt to white landowners – and enacting discriminatory Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation.

—————

100 descendants of slaveholders

Using genealogist-verified historical data and financial data from annual congressional disclosures, we examined members of the 117th Congress, which was in session from January 2021 to January 2023.

Of its 535 members, 100 were descendants of slaveholders, including Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Legislators whose ancestors were large slaveholders – defined in our study as owning 16 or more slaves– have a current median net worth five times larger than their peers whose ancestors were not slaveholders: $5.6 million vs. $1.1 million. These results remained largely the same after accounting for age, race and education.

Wealth creates many privileges – the means to start a business or pursue higher education. And intergenerational wealth transfers can allow these advantages to persist across generations.

Because members of Congress are a highly select group, our results may not apply to all Americans. However, the findings align with other studies on the transfers of wealth and privilege across generations in the U.S. and Europe.

Wealth, these studies find, often stays within rich families across multiple generations. Mechanisms for holding onto wealth include low estate taxes and access to elite social networks and schools. Easy entry into powerful jobs and political influence also play a part.

—————

Privilege with power

But members of Congress do not just inherit wealth and advantages.

They shape the lives of all Americans. They decide how to allocate federal funds, set tax rates and create regulations.

This power is significant. And for those whose families benefited from slavery, it can perpetuate economic policies that maintain wealth inequality.

Beyond inherited wealth, the legacy of slavery endures in policies enacted by those in power – by legislators who may be less likely to prioritize reforms that challenge the status quo.

COVID-19 relief legislation, for example, helped reduce child poverty by more than 70% while bringing racial inequalities in child poverty to historic lows. Congress failed to renew the program in 2022, plunging 5 million more children into poverty, most of them Black and Latino.

The economic deprivation still experienced by Black Americans is the flip side of the privilege enjoyed by slaveowners’ descendants. The median household wealth of white Americans today is six times higher than that of Black Americans – $285,000 versus $45,000.

Meanwhile, federal agencies that enforce antidiscrimination laws remain underfunded. This limits their ability to address racial disparities.

—————

The path forward

As the enduring economic disparities rooted in slavery become clearer, a growing number of states and municipalities are weighing some form of practical and financial compensation for the descendants of enslaved people.

Yet surveys show that most Americans oppose such reparations for slavery. Similarly, Congress has debated slavery reparations many times but never passed a bill.

There are, however, other ways to improve opportunities for historically disadvantaged populations that could gain bipartisan backing.

A majority of Americans, both conservatives and liberal, support increased funding for environmental hazard screening, which assesses the potential impact of a proposed project. They also favor limits on rent increases, better public school funding and raising taxes on the wealthy.

These measures would help dismantle the structural barriers that perpetuate economic disparities. And the role of Congress here is central.

Members of Congress do not bear personal responsibility for their ancestors’ actions. But they have an opportunity to address both the legacies of past injustices and today’s inequalities.

By doing so, they can help create a future where ancestral history does not determine economic destiny.

In just about any discussion of a poll about the very close presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, you’ll hear the phrase “within the poll’s margin of error.”

By Doug Schwartz
Quinnipiac University

(THE CONVERSATION) — In just about any discussion of a poll about the very close presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, you’ll hear the phrase “within the poll’s margin of error.” Those words signal that it is a tight race with no clear leader, even if one of them has a slightly larger percentage of support, like 48% to 47%.

As the director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, which has been taking the pulse of the public on policy issues and elections for the past 30 years, I’ve noted that people have been paying more attention to this technical term since at least 2016.

In that year, some polls in Florida, for example, indicated that Hillary Clinton was just a couple of percentage points ahead of Trump. Journalists and the public largely – and incorrectly – understood that apparent popular-vote lead to mean Clinton was likely to win.

But those 1 or 2 percentage points were within their polls’ margins of error. And Clinton lost Florida. In a poll about a political race, the margin of error tells readers the likely range of results of an election.

—————

What is a margin of error?

A poll is one or more questions asked of a small group of people and used to gauge the views of a larger group of people. The margin of error is a mathematical calculation of how accurate the poll results are – of how closely the answers given by the small group match the views held by the larger group.

If everyone in the larger group were polled, there would be no margin of error. But it’s complicated, difficult and expensive to contact that many people. The U.S. Census Bureau spent US$13.7 billion over several years in its most recent effort to count every person in the United States every 10 years, and it still wasn’t able to include exactly everyone.

Pollsters don’t have that kind of time – or money – so they use smaller samples of the population. They seek to identify representative samples in which all members of the larger group have a chance to be included in the poll.

—————

The group size is important

The calculation of how close the poll is to the views of the larger population is based on the size of the group that is polled.

For example, a sample of 600 voters will have a larger margin of error – about 4 percentage points – than a sample of 1,000 voters, which has a margin of error of just over 3 percentage points.

The way the sample is chosen also matters: In 1936, the Literary Digest magazine polled people on the presidential election by mailing surveys to telephone owners, car owners and country club members. Everyone in this group was relatively affluent, so they were not representative of the whole U.S. voting population. Calculating a margin of error would have been meaningless because the sample did not capture all segments of the population.

—————

A concrete example

Let’s use an example of how to understand the margin of error. If a poll shows that 47% of the polled group support Candidate A, and the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, that means that the percentage in the population supporting Candidate A is likely to be between 44% (47 minus 3) and 50% (47 plus 3).

One quick note: Most polls report margins of error alongside another technical term, “confidence interval.” In the most rigorous reporting of polls, you might see a sentence near the end that says something like “The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, at a 95% confidence interval.” What all that means is this: Imagine if 100 different random samples of the same size were selected from the larger group, and then asked the same questions in the poll. The 95% confidence interval means that 95% of the time, those other polls’ responses would be within 3 percentage points of the answers reported in this one poll.

—————

Comparing support between candidates

The concept of margin of error gets more complex when looking at the differences in support between two candidates. If a margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, the margin of error on the difference between them is about double – or 6 percentage points, in this example.

That’s because the margin of error here is a combined one, and refers to not just the percentage voting for Candidate A but also to the percentage voting for the other candidate.

To look back at 2016 again, the final Quinnipiac University Poll in Florida before Election Day showed Clinton with 46% support and Trump with 45% support. The margin of error was 3.9 percentage points, which meant Clinton was likely to get between 42.1% and 49.9% of the vote, and Trump was likely to get between 41.1% and 48.9% of the vote.

The actual result was that Trump won Florida with 48.6%, as compared with Clinton’s 47.4%. Those results were within our poll’s margin of error, meaning we were correct to declare it “too close to call” – and we would have been wrong to say Clinton was ahead.

—————

2024 will be a close election

In the current election cycle, many media reports about polls are not including information about the margin of error.

Leaving out that information, or downplaying its significance, may help media outlets provide a quick, simple picture about the state of the race. Technology can seem precise in the modern age of the internet and artificial intelligence.

But polling is not as precise. It is an inexact science. It’s a pollster’s job to capture snapshots of the complexities of human nature at a particular time. People’s minds can change, and new information can arise as the campaigns unfold.

With the presidential election in its final weeks, our polls have been finding a fairly tight and steady race, with most voters telling us their minds are made up. Because the difference between the presidential candidates is within the margin of error in swing states, the election polling in autumn 2024 is telling Americans to hold their breath and make sure they vote, because it is likely to be a squeaker.

Many Americans had probably never heard of Aurora, Colorado, or Springfield, Ohio, before Donald Trump broadcast his false claims about these cities nationwide late in the 2024 presidential campaign.

By Miranda Cady Hallett
University of Dayton

(THE CONVERSATION) — Many Americans had probably never heard of Aurora, Colorado, or Springfield, Ohio, before Donald Trump broadcast his false claims about these cities nationwide late in the 2024 presidential campaign.

First, in September 2024, the Republican presidential nominee claimed in a debate with Kamala Harris that Haitian immigrants in Ohio were stealing and eating other residents’ pets. A month later, at a rally in Aurora, Trump declared that city to be a “war zone” overrun by Venezuelan gangs.

Trump’s false claims went viral, creating chaos for these communities. Reporters rushed in. In Springfield, so did bomb threats.

These stories feel familiar to me as an anthropologist whose work has explored the social dynamics of immigrant destinations in the United States. Springfield and Aurora are only the latest small cities to become sudden flash points in America’s ongoing – and increasingly heated – immigration debate.

—————

Siler City, North Carolina

The small town of Siler City, North Carolina, was used as a backdrop for anti-immigrant political rhetoric a quarter century ago.

In the late 20th century, jobs in Siler City’s local poultry industry became a magnet for Latin American immigrants and their families, leading to rapid demographic change. In 1990, the town was 98% white and African American. By the 2000 census, almost 40% of the town’s 6,000 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino.

This shift caused some racial tension, and in 2000 the notoriously racist politician David Duke headlined an anti-immigrant rally outside City Hall in Siler City.

Duke, who was also a former Louisiana state representative and former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, railed against Latin American immigrants.

“Do you understand that immigration will destroy the foundations of this country?” Duke asked. “When you have more diversity, you end up with more division and more conflict,” he said, warning of “extinction” for white people in the U.S.
Duke also railed against school integration. Thirty-five years after desegregation, this remained a favorite complaint of white supremacists.

Only a handful of people, many of them from out of town, showed up to support Duke’s message, carrying signs like “The Melting Pot is Boiling Over.”

In the short term, Duke’s rally exacerbated polarization in Siler City. It also stoked fear and anxiety among foreign-born residents, some of whom believed the local government had endorsed Duke’s message because the rally took place in front of the town hall.

Looking back, however, many Siler City residents see the David Duke incident as a turning point – toward an improvement in ethnic relations in their town.

After Duke’s rally, local politicians spoke out against the divisiveness and hatred. Within a few months, residents offended by the anti-immigrant rally had organized a unity event and cultural festival.

By the time I visited Siler City in 2008 as a graduate research assistant studying new immigration destinations, many locals noted with pride that white supremacists could gain no foothold in town. They said Duke’s racist rally caused neighbors to stop and think, and decide what side they were on.

Today, Siler City has an immigrant community advisory board, and the government actively works to promote integration and social cohesion among residents.

—————

Lewiston, Maine

A similar story unfolded in the working-class Maine city of Lewiston in 2002 after its mayor wrote a public letter about the city’s rising refugee population.

Just over 1,000 Somali refugees had settled in the city in the preceding year, having been displaced by civil war and drought back home.

“This large number of new arrivals cannot continue without negative results for all,” Mayor Laurier Raymond wrote. “Our city is maxed out financially, physically and emotionally.”

He called on Somali people to “pass the word (that) we have been overwhelmed.”

Raymond’s letter got the attention of organized white supremacist groups, who descended on Lewiston, a former sawmill hub of about 35,000 people. In response, local people formed an ad hoc community organization called “Many and One,” and when the hate group World Church of the Creator rallied in Lewiston on Jan. 11, 2003, only 36 people attended. About 4,000 counter-protesters came out to support the Somali community.

A film crew that had showed up to document the conflict ended up telling the story of Lewistonians sending a message of acceptance and unity.

The temporary stresses on Lewiston were real, but in general locals came down on the side of inclusion and welcome. By 2021, Lewiston had one of the country’s highest per capita populations of Muslim residents, and of Somali-Americans.

Twenty years later, the arrival of Somali families has become part of the story Lewiston tells about its history and identity.

Conservative and anti-immigrant messages continue to resonate in the town. Yet many locals, like author Cynthia Anderson, say they are “moved and inspired” by the resilience of their Somali-American neighbors.

Like most Haitians living in Springfield, Somali people did not choose to leave their country. They were displaced, and many were traumatized – yet they built new lives and contributed to the community.

—————

What can this history tell us now?

While there are key differences between Springfield, Aurora, Siler City and Lewiston, these four places also share many attributes.

These are all economically beleaguered cities with higher crime rates than the U.S. average but lower housing costs and more entry-level jobs in manufacturing. Such places are sometimes called “emerging gateway cities,” because they are appealing to immigrant families seeking opportunity.

Yet the same conditions also make these cities attractive to political figures seeking a stage to blame immigrants for the community’s preexisting economic, social and public safety challenges.

As in Siler City and Lewiston, Springfield and Aurora have mainly rejected false political claims and negative messages about their immigrant residents.

In Springfield, residents have organized rallies and a prayer vigil in solidarity with Haitians, and Ohio’s Republican governor defended the city against Trump’s allegations.

The Republican mayor of Aurora said before Trump’s Oct. 11 visit that he hoped “to show him and the nation that Aurora is a considerably safe city – not a city overrun by Venezuelan gangs.”

The 2024 election has brought tense and polarizing times to these towns. But history suggests that Springfield and Aurora will eventually be home to vibrant and integrated immigrant communities.

Once the vitriol fades, Trump’s incendiary misinformation will likely become just a footnote to the larger story of the country’s 21st-century transformation.