Violence is Trump’s [and the Republican Party’s] Brand

An essay by Ruth Ben-Ghiat

This Substack post on Lucid struck me as spot on, not only in its encapsulation of Trump but also of what the national and local Republican Party has become under Trump’s grip and by his example. 

In former State Representative (Spokane valley, LD-4) and now “Pastor” Matt Shea’s “Biblical Basis for War” he recommended “kill all males”. In this quote from the Spokesman, candidate Jeff Brooks, one of the Christian Nationalist trio trying to take over the Central Valley School Board in the upcoming election, shows his violent colors [the bold is mine]:

“We (challengers) have the same goals, and we’re all trying to basically overturn the board, because if we don’t, it’ll be a civil war,” Brooks said. “It’ll be a constant fight between board members that don’t have the same values that I do.”

The local and national Republican clamoring to keep assault weaponry legal, the calls for punishment and incarceration for the crime of being homeless, it’s all of a piece. Read the post appended below and contemplate how it now applies to the rhetoric of the entire Republican Party.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

[Click here to visit Lucid and sign up to receive the occasional posts.]

Violence is Trump’s Brand

Ruth Ben-Ghiat

September 27, 2023

How unsurprising that former president Donald Trump showed up at a gun store in South Carolina and declared that he wanted to buy a gun, specifically, a customized “Trump 45.” Glock. Since 2015, his political project has centered on cultivating extremists, radicalizing ordinary Americans, and building a civilian army to commit violence in his name.

Since the Fascist years, authoritarians have used propaganda and their personality cults to change the perception of violence among their followers. The goal is to remove hesitations about tolerating or participating in violence against one’s compatriots by presenting that violence as necessary and even morally righteous.

To that end, authoritarians conjure existential threats from an ever-expanding roster of enemies —immigrants, Jews, and leftists among them—-and present violence as the only way to save the people from annihilation and save the nation from utter ruin. “If you don’t fight like hell, you won’t have a country anymore,” Trump raged to the thugs assembled on Jan. 6, before he sent them off to assault the Capitol.

That terrible day made clear Trump’s endgame in cultivating as many individuals as possible and preparing them psychologically to be willing to persecute his enemies. In doing so, Trump wrote a new page of the coup playbook: if you can’t get the military to cooperate with your takeover attempt, you have a civilian army at your disposal.

On Jan. 6, that army included anti-government extremists and hate group adherents but also many ordinary people with no prior history of militancy. These “middle-aged, middle-class insurrectionists,” in Robert A Pape and Kevin Ruby’s words, believed Trump’s lies about winning the 2020 election and justified their violence on moral and patriotic grounds.

Two years later, it is clearer than ever that inciting political violence is Trump’s political project, and his campaign appearances and events must be seen in that light. Trump is a marketer. In previous decades his work of persuasion involved getting people to buy his branded objects: Trump apartments, Trump wine, Trump steaks, Trump water, and more. Now his brand is violence, and his rallies and other events sell that violence, presenting it as the preferred way to resolve differences in society and as the only way to move history forward. The gun shop stop was merely the most obvious of these attempts to expand his corps of armed followers.

Trump water, wine, and steaks displayed at a 2016 campaign event.
Trump examining a Glock named after him in South Carolina, Sept 24, 2023. Doug Mills, New York Times.

Trump’s greatest success has been with GOP politicians, who have made his ideals of violence into party dogma, declaring in 2022 that Jan. 6 was “legitimate political discourse” and brandishing assault rifles in campaign ads as proof of their commitment to violence.

Share

Even an appearance at the Iowa State Fair can be a radicalization opportunity. Rep. Matt Gaetz showed up there to be with Trump and delivered a crucial message. “We are having a great time at the fair. We love standing with you. But we know that only through force do we make any change in a corrupt town like Washington, D.C.,” said Gaetz. That “but” is the point. Stumping at state fairs is politics as usual. Gaetz is saying that is no longer sufficient. Change in America will come not through democratic means —legislation, reform, elections—but through violence. Get ready, he is telling the crowd. We need you.

Trump’s 2024 campaign is making that call to violence far more explicit. The kick-off event in Waco, TX, site of anti-government extremist violence, set the tone. So does the visit to the gun store, coming just after Trump’s suggestion that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, who refused to aid Trump’s coup attempt, should be executed.  

“Perhaps it was always going to come to this. A MAGA hat and a gun,” I wrote in 2021. “Two pathways to the heart of America, two symbols of what the country holds most dear: celebrities and their brands, and the right to bear arms. The MAGA hat draws them in, but the gun keeps them there.”

A Perspective on Christian Nationalism

Why we should worry, pay attention, and vote accordingly

In August, City of Spokane Mayor Nadine Woodward, City of Spokane City Council candidate (District 3, NW) Earl (Earline) Moore, and City of Spokane Valley City Council candidate and chairwoman of Spokane County Moms For Liberty, Jessica Yaeger appeared on stage in downtown Spokane with avowed Christian nationalist Sean Feucht and disgraced former State Representative Matt Shea. The event and the controversy were covered nationally. 

Woodard has since tried hard to deny that she knew with whom she would be on stage and what they stand for, which indicates that either she is so clueless she should not be mayor or that she was courting the endorsement by and associated votes from the Christian nationalist leadership of the SpokaneGOP—and is embarrassed that it came to light. 

Perhaps of greater concern are the number of school board candidates on the ballots that will appear in your mailboxes in a couple of weeks, many of whom are strongly associated with Christian nationalism (more specifics in later posts).

Christian nationalism is one of those many “-isms” that is understood in different ways by different people. Wikipedia provides a useful definition [the bold is mine]:

Christian nationalism is a type of religious nationalism that is affiliated with Christianity, in which the end goal is to achieve an absolute Christian theocracy within a society. It primarily focuses on the internal politics of society, such as legislating civil and criminal laws that reflect their view of Christianity and the role of religion in political and social life.

We should all find that chilling, considering the violent rhetoric coming from the armed, modern day Christian nationalism that is increasingly, since Trump, the backbone of Republicanism. Remember “Pastor” Matt Shea’s “The Biblical Basis for War”. 

David French is an evangelical Christian with deep knowledge of Christianity, a former Republican (prior to Trump), and a lawyer who wrote missives on Substack before he began to write for the New York Times. His prior writing about End Times movements and Evangelical Christianity are interesting theologically, but in the piece copied below he crystallizes the drive of Christian nationalists in a new way, explaining their adherence to Trump and Trump-allied candidates—and their intent on taking control of government at all levels, from school boards to the presidency. Much of what he discusses is happening right here, right now in eastern Washington and North Idaho. If you don’t want your lives run by these people you must pay attention and vote accordingly.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

One Reason the Trump Fever Won’t Break

October 1, 2023

David French

The more I consider the challenge posed by Christian nationalism, the more I think most observers and critics are paying too much attention to the wrong group of Christian nationalists. We mainly think of Christian nationalism as a theology or at least as a philosophy. In reality, the Christian nationalist movement that actually matters is rooted in emotion and ostensibly divine revelation, and it’s that emotional and spiritual movement that so stubbornly clings to Donald Trump.

Three related stories illustrate the challenge.

First, Katherine Stewart wrote a disturbing report for The New Republic about the latest iteration of the ReAwaken America Tour, a radical right-wing road show sponsored by Charisma News, a Pentecostal Christian publication. [ReAwaken America attracted a large crowd in Post Falls in September 2022. See here and here.] The tour has attracted national attentionincluding in The Times, and features a collection of the far right’s most notorious conspiracy theorists and Christian populists.

The rhetoric at these events, which often attract crowds of thousands, is unhinged. There, as Stewart reported, you’ll hear a pastor named Mark Burns declare, “This is a God nation, this is a Jesus nation, and you will never take my God and my gun out of this nation.” You’ll also hear him say, “I have come ready to declare war on Satan and every race-baiting Democrat that tries to destroy our way of life here in the United States of America.” You’ll hear the right-wing radio host Stew Peters call for “Nuremberg Trials 2.0” and death for Anthony Fauci and Hunter Biden. The same speaker taunted the Fulton County, Ga., prosecutor Fani Willis by shouting: “Big Fani. Big fat Fani. Big fat Black Fani Willis.”

Then there’s Thursday’s report in The Times describing how an anti-Trump conservative group with close ties to the Club for Growth is finding that virtually nothing is shaking Trump voters’ confidence in Trump. As the group wrote in a memo to donors, “Every traditional postproduction ad attacking President Trump either backfired or produced no impact on his ballot support and favorability.” Even video evidence of Trump making “liberal” or “stupid” comments failed to shake supporters’ faith in him.

And finally, we cannot forget the astounding finding of a HarrisX poll for The Deseret News, showing that more Republicans see Donald Trump as a “person of faith” than see openly religious figures like Mitt Romney, Tim Scott and Mike Pence, Trump’s own (very evangelical) vice president, that way. It’s an utterly inexplicable result, until you understand the nature of the connection between so many Christian voters and Donald Trump.

In the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection, there was a tremendous surge of interest in Christian nationalism. Christian displays were common in the crowd at the Capitol. Rioters and protesters carried Christian flags, Christian banners and Bibles. They prayed openly, and a Dispatch reporter in the crowd told me that in the late afternoon Christian worship music was blaring from loudspeakers. I started to hear questions I’d never heard before: What is Christian nationalism and how is it different from patriotism?

I’ve long thought that the best single answer to that question comes from a church history professor at Baylor named Thomas Kidd. In the days before Jan. 6, when apocalyptic Christian rhetoric about the 2020 election was building to a fever pitch, Kidd distinguished between intellectual or theological Christian nationalism and emotional Christian nationalism.

The intellectual definition is contentious. There are differences, for example, among Catholic integralism, which specifically seeks to “integrate” Catholic religious authority with the state; Protestant theonomy, which “believes that civil law should follow the example of Israel’s civil and judicial laws under the Mosaic covenant”; and Pentecostalism’s Seven Mountain Mandate, which seeks to place every key political and cultural institution in the United States under Christian control.

But walk into Christian MAGA America and mention any one of those terms, and you’re likely to be greeted with a blank look. “Actual Christian nationalism,” Kidd argues, “is more a visceral reaction than a rationally chosen stance.” He’s right. Essays and books about philosophy and theology are important for determining the ultimate health of the church, but on the ground or in the pews? They’re much less important than emotion, prophecy and spiritualism.

Arguments about the proper role of virtue in the public square, for example, or arguments over the proper balance between order and liberty, are helpless in the face of prophecies, like the declarations from Christian “apostles” that Donald Trump is God’s appointed leader, destined to save the nation from destruction. Sometimes there’s no need for a prophet to deliver the message. Instead, Christians will claim that the Holy Spirit spoke to them directly. As one longtime friend told me, “David, I was with you on opposing Trump until the Holy Spirit told me that God had appointed him to lead.”

Several weeks ago, I wrote about the “rage and joy” of MAGA America. Outsiders see the rage and hatred directed at them and miss that a key part of Trump’s appeal is the joy and fellowship that Trump supporters feel with each other. But there’s one last element that cements that bond with Trump: faith, including a burning sense of certainty that by supporting him, they are instruments of God’s divine plan.

For this reason, I’ve started answering questions about Christian nationalism by saying it’s not serious, but it’s very dangerous. It’s not a serious position to argue that this diverse, secularizing country will shed liberal democracy for Catholic or Protestant religious rule. But it’s exceedingly dangerous and destabilizing when millions of citizens believe that the fate of the church is bound up in the person they believe is the once and future president of the United States.

That’s why the Trump fever won’t break. That’s why even the most biblically based arguments against Trump fall on deaf ears. That’s why the very act of Christian opposition to Trump is often seen as a grave betrayal of Christ himself. In 2024, this nation will wrestle with Christian nationalism once again, but it won’t be the nationalism of ideas. It will be a nationalism rooted more in emotion and mysticism than theology. The fever may not break until the “prophecies” change, and that is a factor that is entirely out of our control.

More on Christianity and nationalism

Opinion | Katherine Stewart

Christian Nationalism Is One of Trump’s Most Powerful Weapons

Jan. 6, 2022

Opinion | David French

Who Truly Threatens the Church?

July 9, 2023

Opinion | Ross Douthat

What Has Trump Cost American Christianity?

May 24, 2023

Opinion | Peter Wehner

Why I Can No Longer Call Myself an Evangelical Republican

Dec. 9, 2017

The Mayor and Martin v. Boise

The perils of applying and interpreting

Background

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (one of the ten amendments ratified December 15, 1791 that comprise the Bill of Rights) reads: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

In 2018 a three judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (CA, OR, WA, ID, MT, AZ, NV, AK and HI) ruled in Martin v. Boise (in 38 pages), that “prosecuting people criminally for sleeping outside on public property when those people have no home or other shelter to go to” is a violation of the Constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment. 

This 2018 ruling in Martin v. Boise seems entirely just in its manifest simplicity. After all, for law enforcement to disturb a person sleeping on a cold night in a city park, a person for whom there exists no shelter alternative, awakening them and forcing them to “move on”, or, worse, entangling them in the legal system by charging them with a crime like “vagrancy” and booking them in jail, is, on its face, “cruel”—if not particularly “unusual” in our society, both currently and historically. However, as with any legal ruling, the devil is in the details. Martin v. Boise can be, and to some degree has been, read to prohibit cities and law enforcement from doing anything at all to protect the rights of others of our citizens whose businesses and social comfort is impinged upon by visible homelessness—unless there exists, on any given night a sheltered place for every unsheltered homeless person to sleep (provided by the city or by private groups). 

Martin v. Boise, in its simplicity, begs for interpretation. As Shawn Vestal puts it:

The Martin ruling leaves open the possibility of targeted limits on camping in certain places or at certain times. But it provides no test or standard for what would be permissible in such exceptions, and cities around the West have been looking for ways to thread that needle.

The Martin v. Boise ruling has spawned legal challenges that have reached the Ninth Circuit, the most prominent of which is Johnson v. Grants Pass(now an “Amended” opinion published on July 5, 2023 that stretches 155 pages). It reveals that among several of the judges who weighed in on that July 5th document with either a “Statement” or a “Dissent” there is much dispute over the legal underpinnings of Martin v. Boise. (Dare I point out that the most scathing of the Dissents come from Trump appointees who were likely vetted by the Federalist Society? Our voting choice of President can have far reaching consequences.)

Presumably encouraged by the July 5th Amended ruling in Johnson v. Grants Passthe City of Grants Pass, Oregon, has since appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in the hope that the Supreme Court will either clarify the ruling and apply it to the rest of the country (beyond the nine states under the Ninth Circuit) or, better, in the opinion of some, completely overturn the original Martin v. Boise ruling

More than 20 other cities, counties, and organizations are piling on to Grants Pass’ request to the Supreme Court to take on Johnson v. Grants Pass (and, by extension, Martin v. Boise)—and that’s where we come in—along with our Mayoral race this November.

The City of Spokane and Mayor Woodward

Last week Mayor Nadine Woodward held a press conference to announce that the “City of Spokane” had signed on Grants Pass’s request to the Supreme Court to review Johnson v. Grants Pass. Tellingly, she was flanked by just one member of the City Council, Jonathan Bingle, along with her two preferred local shelter overseers, Phil Altmeyer of the Union Gospel Mission and Captain David Cain of the Salvation Army (currently managing TRAC the expensive, congregate shelter on Trent near the city limits, in a warehouse leased from Larry Stone). [The entire news conference is available to watch here on YouTube.] From Emry Dinman’s Spokesman article covering the event [the bold is mine]:

“This is critically important to our future,” Mayor Nadine Woodward said at a Friday news conference. “Local jurisdictions need to have more control about how we address homelessness, and we are having to spend more of our resources than we really want on those night-by-night emergency, low-barrier shelters.

This is pure Nadine. This is the Mayor who declared “I think we need to get to the point where we’re working to make homelessness less comfortable…”, the Mayor responsible for the foot-dragging that led to the “warming center” debacle at the Convention Center in January 2022, the Mayor that kicked out more than a hundred homeless people sheltered peacefully at the Cannon Shelter—with no plan to house them, the Mayor who pursued opening the TRAC Shelter only in response to Camp Hope, and the Mayor who spent City resources to fight the cooling/warming tent set up at Camp Hope, cut off water, and threatened to send law enforcement to drive out the Camp’s residents. 

In the press conference video Nadine added:

I should just let you know too that the Ninth Circuit did provide some clarity to the cases that we’re talking about, making a distinction between involuntary and voluntary homeless. So if we have a shelter bed, if we are moving someone off of a sidewalk or a public space or along the river, and we offer them a bed, they are no longer involuntarily homeless. They are choosing not to seek shelter. They are choosing not to seek services, and they are now considered voluntarily homeless. That is a distinction that was just made this week. It have been done purposely to preclude this particular effort [weighing in with Grants Pass], but I just wanted to update you on that as well.

The wording to which Ms. Woodward refers is actually three and a half weeks old. It comes from a one paragraph interim ruling issued September 5th by three judges of the Ninth Circuit in the context of another case, Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco. The actual wording is this:

“a person is not involuntarily homeless if they have declined a specific offer of available shelter or otherwise have access to such shelter or the means to obtain it…”

You can grasp an idea of where this is going in the mind of Mayor Woodward by reading the following quote from an article posted September 26th in the flagship Republican magazine, the National Review (founded in 1955 by none other than William F. Buckley, Jr.) [the bold is mine]:

Last week, in a ruling requiring the city of Phoenix to dismantle a massive downtown homeless camp, a state judge [Blaney, quoted below] in Arizona blasted that line of thinking. The city of Phoenix “erroneously applied” the narrow Martin ruling and allowed the Zone homeless camp to devolve into a public nuisance, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney wrote in an order.

If an individual refuses a shelter bed because she will not be permitted to bring all of her property into the shelter, that individual is not involuntarily homeless. If an individual refuses to go into a shelter because he wants more space than the shelter provides, that individual is not involuntarily homeless. And if an individual refuses to go into a shelter because he wants to live together with his partner, that individual is not involuntarily homeless,” Blaney [a Maricopa County, Arizona, Superior Court Judge] wrote.

The logical inference from Blaney’s statement is that, for example, once law enforcement offers an unsheltered woman a mat somewhere indoors to lie on —even if she is required to lie there bereft of her belongings, her partner, and living with PTSD around enclosed, crowded spaces—and she refuses, then she may be charged with the crime du jour that jurisdiction choses to use to clear public property of the visible homeless. 

The devil is in the details, indeed.

We all want clean streets, streets that do not remind us with every step that the economic policies of our country, especially over the last forty years—have rendered people so poor that they are reduced to living on the streets. 

Yes, I want Martin v. Boise clarified, but once it is I want a Mayor in office in Spokane who knows how to run a city, attract state and federal funds to help its citizens, retain valuable city expertise, and work to clear our streets with a suitable level of empathy and compassion for those being “cleared”. That Mayor is Lisa Brown. Vote for her in November.

Keep to the high ground, 

Jerry

P.S. In the federal court system the Courts of Appeal are one level above the federal District Courts and one level below the Supreme Court. For example, we, in Spokane, are part of the federal Eastern District of Washington, one of 13 Districts that make up the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit includes nine states, CA, OR, WA, ID, MT, AZ, NV, AK and HI. Currently 28 judges serve on the Ninth Circuit, ten of whom were appointed by Trump after vetting by the Federalist Society. A legal case that rises to the level of the Ninth Circuit is usually heard by a “panel” (three of these judges selected randomly from the among the 28), as in the case Martin v. Boise. The Ninth Circuit is the largest in the Courts of Appeal system, hearing appeals from nine states representing 20% of the population of the U.S. (67 million people).

Capitalism, Greed, Sex, and the AR-15

What We Have Let Ourselves Become

For many decades Republicans have extolled the virtues of free market capitalism, deified the “titans of industry”, and railed against any and all regulation. Regulation, after all, restrains the wondrous workings of the free market. This anti-tax, anti-regulation creed is found in every McMorris Rodgers “Weekly Newsletter” that her staff sends out to ply the faithful. 

The story appended below is a reminder of the horrific consequences of unregulated capitalism driven solely by greed to the exclusion of any concept of the common good. It is a tale of money, marketing, and manipulation by a few at the expense of the many.

The story first appeared in the Wall Street Journal, where, one wonders if it may be read by some as an amoral roadmap to riches. Reading it made me want to vomit with rage over the abject greed of men (yes, all of them men) cynically marketing a weapon that is useful for almost nothing but killing fellow humans, marketing to take advantage of a high profit margin–selling the gun by inflating men’s egos with a promise of “re-issuing your man card”—even as the gun, in its ubiquity, is used to maim and murder innocent people. The business schools that trained these capitalist vultures should be shut down until they learn to train their students in the basics of humanity. 

Signed, 

Thoroughly Disgusted

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

The Selling of America’s Most Controversial Gun

Private equity turned the AR-15 into a big profit-maker and a charged symbol in the debate over gun rights and mass shootings.

By Cameron McWhirter and Zusha Elinson Sept. 22, 2023 at 5:42 am ET

In December 2005, five groups of Wall Street investors flew in private jets to Portland, Maine, where they took waiting limousines to a warren of metal buildings that resembled a midsize lumberyard. They had come to Bushmaster Firearms in pursuit of a highly profitable product whose market was growing faster than any other in America’s stagnant gun industry. The product was the AR-15, and red-hot Bushmaster, the nation’s leading manufacturer of the rifle, had decided to auction itself to the highest bidder.

Bushmaster’s owner Dick Dyke had once feared that he could never sell the company because so many people had a negative view of the gun. A few years earlier, Dyke had been forced to resign his post as President George W. Bush’s chief Maine fundraiser after the media found out he made AR-15s for a living. After that, his company was again pilloried when two snipers who terrorized the Washington, D.C. area used a Bushmaster in their attacks.

But by 2005, Dyke’s concerns had evaporated. Sales of the AR-15 were growing faster than any other rifle or shotgun. When Dyke let it be known that he might be interested in selling, potential private-equity buyers rushed up to Maine to see his operations and make a bid for the AR-15 maker. “All of the sudden, they became an amazing thing,” recalled John DeSantis, Bushmaster’s chief executive.

The reason Wall Street investors were drawn to the gun was not only current profits but the potential to make a lot more, given increasing market demand. Dyke’s firm was, in many respects, a classic American business success story: Product sells well, investors come in to expand production and marketing, and sales soar.

But this business success story, which led to a massive increase in AR-15 production and civilian ownership in subsequent years, would have profound consequences for the U.S., affecting how we vote, how we go to social events and how our children attend school. The arrival of private equity in the AR-15 market would turn a once-disdained product into one of the most controversial and well-known icons of America’s culture wars.

By the end of the 2000s, the AR-15 had become a badge of honor for millions of supporters of the Second Amendment. As mass shootings with the rifle increased, it also became a symbol for millions of Americans who saw it as the epitome of violent dysfunction in a gun-obsessed America.

Today, the gun’s image is everywhere—bumper stickers, pins, Internet memes, hats and shirts. Signs with the gun’s silhouette crossed out by a line are carried at massive gun-control rallies across the country. Gun-rights advocates wave flags at their rallies with the AR-15’s image bearing the slogan “Come and Take It.” With more than 20 million of the rifles now in civilian hands, it has come to occupy the center of America’s bitter debate over firearms.

The AR-15 was created for the U.S. military in the 1950s by a little-known gun designer named Eugene Stoner at a small company in Southern California called ArmaLite. The weapon’s revolutionary design made it lightweight and easy to shoot. Stoner devised an ingenious way of using the hot gas from the exploding gunpowder to move parts inside the gun to eject spent casings and load new rounds, eliminating metal parts that had been used in other rifles. He also used modern materials like aluminum and plastic instead of wood and steel. The rifle was easy to manufacture and relatively inexpensive to make compared to traditional rifles.

After much bureaucratic infighting, the gun was adopted by the Pentagon as the military’s standard rifle and renamed the M16. The rifle made for the military could be fired on automatic, meaning a person could shoot a stream of bullets by holding down the trigger, or semiautomatic, meaning a shooter had to pull the trigger for each bullet fired. Civilian AR-15s sold in the U.S. are semiautomatic.

Sales of a civilian version of the AR-15, first marketed to hunters in the early 1960s, were weak for decades. Its martial look and function, its small-caliber bullets and the plastic and aluminum parts were a turn-off for many hunters used to rifles made of polished wood and gleaming steel. Serious problems with the roll-out of the M16 in Vietnam led many veterans of that conflict to dislike the gun. Soldiers died on the battlefield with M16s in their hands because of jamming problems caused by changes made by the military to the gun’s ammunition and other issues. Beyond Doomsday preppers and collectors, most gun-owners weren’t interested.

In 1977, Stoner’s patent expired, opening up competition for Colt, the storied gunmaker that manufactured both military and civilian versions of the rifle. By the 1980s, a handful of smaller gunmakers were making and selling civilian versions of the AR-15.

These companies received strongly negative reactions to the guns when they displayed them at NRA conventions in the 1980s and 1990s. “We’d have NRA members walk by and give us the finger,” said Randy Luth, owner of DPMS Panther Arms, one of the AR-15 makers.

Officials organizing the most important gun industry trade show—the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, or SHOT Show—tried to make it as uncomfortable as possible for AR-15 makers to market their products. “They weren’t members of our club,” said one industry executive.

Cultural and political shifts after the Sept. 11 attacks transformed the gun’s image. Veterans coming back from the wars wanted the civilian version of the M16. American consumers wanted to buy it too, because they saw the soldiers fighting in the Middle East carrying the weapon. The 2004 expiration of the federal assault-weapons ban—which had prohibited the sales of AR-15s on paper, though not in reality—and the passage of legislation to protect gunmakers from lawsuits combined to create a perfect environment for large gunmakers to manufacture, market and sell large quantities of AR-15s.

The same mainstream gunmakers that had ignored the gun for decades jumped headlong into the market. Bill Silver, head of commercial sales at gunmaker SIG Sauer, known for high-end pistols, said he encouraged executives to build their own version of Stoner’s rifle. “I’ll sell as many as you can build,” Silver told them. He believed the gun would be a hit because the tough-looking military-style weapon had what he called the “wannabe factor.”

Dick Dyke’s Bushmaster now became the envy of all gunmakers. As a young man Dyke wanted to be a dancer, but his parents refused to pay for art school, so he studied business instead and embarked on a career of turning around failing companies. In 1976 Dyke purchased the bankrupt Bushmaster for $241,000. By the 1990s, he had turned it into a viable enterprise by selling a semiautomatic version of Stoner’s gun and its parts at a time when few other gunmakers made the weapon. Dyke could get machine shops to churn out parts at a low cost. All his employees had to do was assemble the guns and ship them out.

When John DeSantis, an engineer who had worked for established weapons firms, came to Bushmaster in 1998 he was shocked to learn how much the AR-15 sold for and how little it cost to make. The company had gross margins of around 40%, more than double that of companies making traditional hunting rifles or shotguns, he said. Under DeSantis’s leadership, Bushmaster pushed down the cost of production even further by pressuring suppliers for lower prices. Bushmaster was soon selling a single XM-15—its version of the AR-15—for $750 to $900, when it cost between $250 and $300 to build.

As money flowed in, Dyke became a local hero, paying high wages and donating to philanthropic causes. He also treated himself, driving a Rolls-Royce and drawing a salary of about $1 million a year, according to DeSantis.

Business boomed after 9/11 and the end of the federal assault-weapons ban, and Dyke decided to sell. When the Wall Street investors arrived, DeSantis gave each group of visitors a PowerPoint presentation with charts and graphs showing profits and the company’s growth. In 2004, Bushmaster brought in $46.6 million, with more than $7 million in earnings. By 2005, revenue had reached $60.8 million, with $11.2 million in earnings.

One group of investors caught DeSantis’s attention because they actually knew something about guns. They worked for a Manhattan-based private-equity firm called Cerberus. They told DeSantis that their boss, Stephen Feinberg, liked guns and was interested in buying a gun company. DeSantis had never heard of the man.

Most Americans had never heard of Feinberg or his Manhattan-based private-equity firm, even though the businesses it controlled had more than $30 billion in combined annual sales. Notoriously secretive, Feinberg maintained the trappings of his working-class upbringing as the son of a steel salesman, even as Cerberus grew. He drove trucks and loved to go hunting. In the gun industry, he saw an investment opportunity that other Wall Street tycoons did not.

When Dyke unsealed bids for Bushmaster, Cerberus had offered $76 million—315 times what Dyke had paid for the company. Dyke was thrilled, but Bushmaster’s employees initially were worried about a private equity takeover. DeSantis, who stayed on as chief executive, wondered why Feinberg, a Wall Street giant, wanted to buy Bushmaster. Feinberg’s Cerberus controlled sprawling international operations worth billions. Why did he want little Bushmaster?

DeSantis soon learned that Cerberus’s purchase of Bushmaster was just the first step in its grand plan to shake up and ultimately dominate the gun industry. Feinberg’s point man on the project was George Kollitides II, a Columbia MBA. After the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, Kollitides came up with the idea to invest in private companies aiding the war effort, according to his deposition in later court proceedings. But the military market for guns was smaller than he expected, and he worried about its volatility. No war meant fewer sales.

Instead, Kollitides grew intrigued by the U.S. civilian gun market. “There was a gigantic, thriving commercial market, and there may be an opportunity there,” he recalled thinking. The gun industry at the time was a fractured ecosystem of companies, most making their own type of firearm. Kollitides decided to apply a standard private equity practice: buy up and consolidate.

If the plan worked, the company could sell gun owners every kind of firearm they wanted, including ARs, and bring down the cost of production through scale. Kollitides understood the AR-15 to be important in this mission. The market for the gun had been growing about 8% every year from 1998 to 2005. “As an investor, this would excite me,” he said.

Cerberus’s efforts to build a firearms conglomerate were not the subject of mainstream media coverage, but the gun world buzzed. After buying DPMS Panther, another AR-15 maker, Cerberus’s gun conglomerate became the largest manufacturer of the rifle in America, producing 118,000 ARs in 2007, almost half the number made in the U.S. that year.

The compounded annual growth rate for the long-gun market—hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.—was 5% from 2004 to 2007. The rate for the AR-15 market was 36%. The men running the new gun conglomerate were sure they could sell even more. They launched a camouflage AR-15 model under its Remington brand, hoping to draw hunters to the semiautomatic rifle. They increased credit lines for wholesalers, the middlemen who bought the guns from manufacturers and then sold them to gun shops. “As soon as that opened up, we just went crazy,” DeSantis recalled.

The 2008 presidential election supercharged the AR-15 market. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, took a cautious approach to the gun issue. Obama had learned from watching what happened to his predecessors in 2000 and 2004 that talking about gun control didn’t help Democrats win national elections.

But the Democrat’s moderate stance made no difference to the NRA. The group announced it would spend a record $40 million to defeat him and back Arizona senator John McCain, the Republican nominee. The NRA launched a website, GunBanObama.com, and claimed he would be “the most anti-gun president in American history.” Gun shops taped up NRA posters declaring, “On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!” Dealers at gun shows displayed photos of Obama and advised shoppers to “Get ’em before he does.”

On Nov. 4, 2008, Obama was elected president, and panicked gun owners rushed to buy AR-15s. That November, the FBI conducted more background checks for firearms purchases than in any other month since the modern background-check system was instituted in 1998. AR-15 makers called it “the Barack boom.”

Bushmaster’s workers put in six days a week, from seven in the morning to eight at night, assembling rifles by hand. At least 26 different gun companies made 444,000 AR-15-style rifles for sale in the U.S. in 2008, representing nearly 10% of all guns made in the U.S. that year.

Executives at Feinberg’s gun firm moved to grab an even larger share of the expanding AR-15 market. They changed the company’s name from American Heritage Arms to Freedom Group. They pushed their AR-15s into big-box stores such as Walmart, slashing the prices of their low-end rifles to get them on the shelves of America’s largest retailer. “With Cerberus and them, it’s all about the numbers and volume,” remembered Luth, who was still in charge at DPMS.

Freedom Group also dramatically altered the way that Bushmaster’s AR-15s were marketed. In the past, a typical Bushmaster ad would feature photos of rifles and parts with detailed descriptions of their specifications. In one from 1998, Bushmaster highlighted that its rifles had “Heavy Profile Premium Match Grade Barrels” and “manganese phosphate finish for rust and corrosion protection.” This approach appealed to older hobbyists who owned lots of guns.

But industry executives worried that these older hobbyists were tapped out and believed they needed to market to a new generation of consumers. Freedom Group launched an ad campaign in the glossy pages of Maxim, a magazine popular with young men featuring scantily-clad female models. The ads featured an image of the XM-15 and the words “Consider Your Man Card Reissued.”

Sales of Bushmaster rifles soared. The vast majority were purchased by Americans who used them to go target shooting or varmint hunting. But some ended up in the hands of disturbed loners who wanted to use them for something much more sinister.

On Dec. 14, 2012, a frail 20-year-old beset with mental problems used the Bushmaster purchased by his mother to attack Sandy Hook Elementary School near his home in western Connecticut. He shot and killed 20 first-graders and six educators before killing himself.

The immediate aftermath was akin to the U.S. reaction to 9/11—bafflement, sadness, horror, anger. The funerals for the Sandy Hook Elementary School victims began on a gray day, Dec. 17, when Noah Pozner and Jack Pinto, both six years old, were laid to rest. Six-year-old Ben Wheeler’s funeral was held on Dec. 20 at Trinity Episcopal Church. It was filled to capacity. His father read “The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost.

On that same day, Freedom Group’s board of directors held an emergency meeting by telephone. Kollitides, who had risen to become Freedom Group’s chief executive, thanked the board members for meeting on short notice. He informed them that Cerberus, under pressure from major investors, had decided to consider selling the gun company after the shooting.

Kollitides noted that gun sales continued to be strong after the tragedy and then turned to other matters, including the possible acquisition of a gun-barrel manufacturer. The board still had business to attend to while they awaited a possible sale. Some in the meeting noted that the deal for the barrel maker would increase margins even further on the company’s AR-15s. The board voted to authorize the acquisition. Cerberus would ultimately decide against selling its gun firm as sales of AR-15s soared after Sandy Hook.

“It was an awful, horrific, huge tragedy, but its impact on the long-term capital decisions of the business were not—were not a factor,” Kollitides later said in a deposition. “We were in the business of legally making guns to legally sell to legal gun owners. So there is no other thing to do than wake up and make guns on Monday morning.”

Cameron McWhirter and Zusha Elinson are reporters for The Wall Street Journal. This piece is adapted from their new book, “American Gun: The True Story of the AR-15,” which will be published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux on Sept. 26.

The Lessons of Camp Hope

A Place to Exist

“A Place To Exist” became available on Amazon books on September 19th. (It is not yet listed online at Auntie’s, unfortunately.) I highly recommend that my readers obtain a copy, read it, share it, discuss it, and take it to heart. 

All of us in Spokane who read or watched the news—or drove past or visited Camp Hope while it existed on the block near near Thor and I-90—or listened to the condemnations and legal threats issuing from City of Spokane Mayor Woodward, Chief of Police Meidl or Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich—is aware of the controversy surrounding Camp Hope. For months between December of 2021 to its successful closure in June of 2023 Camp Hope was the largest homeless encampment in the State of Washington—and a lightning rod for controversy over increasingly visible homelessness in Spokane and more broadly in the nation. 

The author of “A Place to Exist”, Maurice Smith, served tirelessly as one of those who helped manage and bring order to Camp Hope. As a gifted writer and video documentarian of homelessness in our Spokane community, Smith is uniquely positioned to tell the story of the Camp and articulate the lessons we should all take away from it. His book provides a view of those experiencing homelessness that is too little expressed in the media. 

As is often the case with books I read, one iconic image from “A Place to Exist” sticks in my mind. By now we have all seen ragged people reduced by circumstances to pushing all their remaining belongings along city streets in a shopping cart, buffeted by exhortations to “move along”. Little had it dawned on me until I read the passage below that the mere possession of a shopping cart, an item so basic to transporting one’s few possessions, could provide the grounds for law enforcement to enmesh such an unfortunate in the endless machinations and entanglements of our legal system. I will never see a person pushing a shopping cart along the street in the same way again.

Painful experience teaches us that, all too often, the interaction between law enforcement and those experiencing homelessness becomes an ongoing game of homeless wack-a-mole, forcing the homeless to move with no effective options while generating new and additional barriers that only complicate their journey out of homelessness. Handing out citations for trespassing, or 3rd degree possession of stolen property (i.e., a shopping cart), or obstructing a sidewalk may send you to Community Court, but the service providers at Community Court don’t have any more services, resources, or housing options available than anyone else does. Using law enforcement as a tool of homeless policy simply isn’t a meaningful solution to homelessness.

In the broad sense, increasing homelessness is a visible manifestation of societal rot we, mostly unwittingly, have brought on ourselves as detailed in Matthew Anderson’s article in RANGE Media that I highlighted in a post last Monday. We must not lose sight of that even as we strive to mitigate the consequences of that rot now expressed in ever increasing numbers of us plunged into poverty and homelessness. “A Place to Exist” goes a long way toward dispelling the stereotypes of the homeless implanted by the endless rhetoric of a political party that fostered the rot and now seeks to demonize the resulting homeless as sub-human, worthy only of being chased away and out of sight.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Camp Hope was preceded by the Cannon Street Shelter. In many ways one leads directly to the other. The story of the Cannon Street Shelter is masterfully told in a fifty minute documentary video also by Maurice Smith entitled, simply, “The Story of the Cannon Street Warming Center”. Click on the underlined title to watch it on YouTube. It is worth your time. 

P.P.S. One last point: The origins of Camp Hope lie in the dismantling of social policies that accelerated with the Republican Party and the Reagan presidency (1980-1988) as detailed in Matthew Anderson’s piece in RANGE Media. The price we now pay in money and in societal strife to try to stem the tide of homelessness that has resulted from that dismantlement is a higher price in time and treasure than we would have paid had we not cast them adrift in the first place.

Woodward, Shea, and the City Council Resolution

The Council’s Statement of Principle

Last Monday evening, September 25th, the City of Spokane City Council voted to formally denounce Mayor Woodward for her August 20th appearance on stage with Matt Shea and Sean Feucht, two preachers of hate and exclusion. The “Let Us Worship” event and the Mayor’s participation in it was covered nationally as a showcase of Christian nationalism in Spokane—a designation the City Council sought to expel by condemning the Mayor’s appearance with Matt Shea.

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0081 as written (and copied in its entirety below) is as much a statement of principle—that the citizens of Spokane and its City Council “pledge to accept and serve all citizens of our community, regardless of race, religion, color, and sexual identity; and will never accept ideologies that promote fear, hatred, violence, and bigotry”—as it is a specific denouncement of the Mayor’s action. Had the Council remained silent it could be accused of lending its approval to Shea’s and Feucht’s doctrine. 

The statement of principle was ignored in the coverage of the Council’s meeting in the Spokesman the next day—and, sadly, few will have (or take) the time to locate and read the Resolution itself. Deplorably, the Spokesman covered the event as a two-sides political controversy between the Council members on the one side and the Mayor and her followers and defenders on the other. 

Predictably, almost as though it were orchestrated from some central messaging authority, Woodward’s defenders played the “persecution of Christians” card—as if Shea’s and Feucht’s twisting of biblical text to support their hateful preaching deserved defense rather than condemnation by all Christians. 

Former Washington State Representative Matt Shea, a self-appointed non-denominational pastor of “On Fire Ministries”, is a credibly accused domestic terrorist. He is a leader in a movement that seeks to establish dominion over all arms of government and rule everyone under law based on his and his allies’ particular interpretation of Christian teaching. He and his allies justify the dominion they seek under the false claim that the United States was established as an exclusively Christian nation and, therefore, should be governed under biblical law and Jesus’ word. If that sounds appealing, the catch, of course, is that it is biblical law and Jesus’ word as filtered by the like of Matt Shea and his followers—including many allies who have again taken over the leadership of the Spokane County Republican Party. How convenient: Government based on the warped interpretation of scripture of a far right religious cult confident in its Bible-based self-righteousness and divine guidance, a cult teaching intolerance of any lifestyle or belief system other than its own. What could go wrong?

It is long past time to understand that Matt Shea and Sean Feucht represent one particularly dangerous strand among the streams of faith the make up the Christian and broader religious communities in eastern Washington and in the nation. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0081 refers to a “letter from a collective of Spokane faith leaders”. Read it here. Many did not see the letter because the Spokesman declined to publish it as a guest opinion, leaving the false impression that most people of faith in eastern Washington stand with the like of Matt Shea.

Mayor Woodward defended herself with repeated apologies for her attendance at the Shea/Feucht event, saying she was not aware Shea would be at the event and she should have better researched it ahead of time. If one believes that then we have as a Mayor someone so clueless that she has unqualified to serve. If, on the other hand, one assumes that she was attempting to curry favor with Matt Shea’s followers (and, by extension, the SpokaneGOP—which declined to endorse her in the mayoral primary in August), hoping she could slide “under the radar”, then she is now lying in an attempt to avoid the blowback. Feucht is clearly happy to raise money off the controversy as reported by Aaron Hedges of Range Media, For his part, Shea, on his August 24th Patriot radio broadcast widely played on the American Christian Network, openly contradicted Woodward’s characterization of her attendance as a last minute opportunity to pray for the victims of wildfires. In his broadcast Shea asserts that Woodward had been invited and accepted before wildfires even started. 

The reaction of Shea’s followers to the City Council resolution in favor of an inclusive, welcoming Spokane were predictable. From the Spokesman articlepublished the day after Monday’s Council Meeting:

Debate stretched late into the night, with dozens in attendance either calling for Woodward to be denounced or criticizing the council members as attacking the mayor’s freedom of religion and Christianity itself. Several called council members a force of evil, religious bigots and compared them to Satan.

If you have any doubt regarding Shea and what he preaches please read “‘I Want to See It Rule’: Matt Shea Unabashedly Promotes Seven Mountains Dominionism and Christian Nationalism”. Watching the video linked in the article is tedious, but instructive. Shea is open about his intentions. Considering that Shea, Bob McCaslin, and Rob Chase have been tireless promoters of the theocratic State of Liberty for years, Shea’s current preaching should surprise no one.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Here is the actual text of the City of Spokane’s City County Resolution as presented for a vote at the City Council meeting on September 25th. It is worth you time to read it. It is copied from the city-council-current-agenda-2023-09-25, starting on the pdf’s document page 427—where it is unlikely to be found, much less read by most Spokanites:

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0081 A Resolution formally denouncing Mayor Nadine Woodward for her actions that associated her with former Washington State Representative and alleged domestic terrorist, Matt Shea, and known anti-LGBTQ extremist Sean Feucht. WHEREAS, Matt Shea represented the 4th legislative district in the Washington House of Representatives from 2009 to 2021; and WHEREAS, an independent investigation commissioned by the Washington State House of Representatives found that “Representative Shea, as a leader in the Patriot Movement, planned, engaged in and promoted a total of three armed conflicts of political violence against the United States Government in three states outside the state of Washington over a three-year period;” and WHEREAS, this independent investigation found that Shea “has also used fear to intimidate those who directly oppose him politically…” and Shea and the Patriot Movement “… rely on radicalization of individuals to the point they are willing to take up arms against the United States to carry out their objectives;” and WHEREAS, Matt Shea has distributed a manifesto titled “Biblical Basis for War” which in part states, “If they do not yield – kill all males;” and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2023, Mayor Nadine Woodward was at a public event accepting the support of Matt Shea; and WHEREAS, video images of the public event show that minutes before calling Mayor Nadine Woodward on stage, Matt Shea listed the problems he believes the country is facing, specifically naming homosexual marriage and transgender issues; and WHEREAS, while thousands of people had to evacuate their homes over the same weekend due to the numerous wildfires in our region, and while our brave first responders worked tirelessly to fight the wildfires, video images of the public event also show Mr. Feucht called for a “fire that would consume Spokane;” and WHEREAS, video images of the public event show that, following her appearance on stage with Shea and Feucht, Mayor Woodward embraced Shea; and WHEREAS, many members of the Spokane community have raised concerns about this public appearance and the implications of Mayor Woodward accepting support from Matt Shea; and WHEREAS, members of the Spokane community have called on elected officials to take responsibility and lead by example and to uphold the values of respect, inclusivity, and compassion; and 2 WHEREAS, the people of Spokane deserve leadership that upholds the highest standards of integrity, empathy, and respect for all, regardless of their background or beliefs; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2023, the Spokane City Council received a letter from a collective of Spokane faith leaders in which they called on the Spokane City Council to hold fast to the separation of church and state, reject attempts to cloak bigotry in religious language, and make clear that civic leaders give no support to the ideology of Christian Nationalism or white supremacy; and WHEREAS, the Spokane City Council does not condone the hateful and dangerous behavior and beliefs espoused by Matt Shea and Sean Feucht, nor does it condone Mayor Woodward’s public appearance with him; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2016, the Spokane City Council passed resolution 2016-0014, which expressed the Council’s desire to sign the International Charter for Compassionate Communities; and WHEREAS, Mayor David Condon signed this charter on February 22, 2016; and WHEREAS, choosing to uphold the principles of compassion is central to a community’s ability to create a caring and inclusive culture and climate; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2023, the Spokane City Council passed ordinance C36403, which adopted as the motto of the City the phrase “In Spokane We All Belong;” and WHEREAS, Mayor Woodward’s public appearance at the event has received negative, national attention in Rolling Stone and The Washington Post; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Spokane City Council formally denounces Mayor Nadine Woodward for her actions that associated her with an alleged domestic terrorist, former Representative Matt Shea, who has participated in the planning of taking arms up against the United States of America, and denounces her preplanned attendance that associates her with known anti-LGBTQ extremist, Sean Feucht, and hateful rhetoric; and BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that the Spokane City Council maintains its collective pledge to accept and serve all citizens of our community, regardless of race, religion, color, and sexual identity; and will never accept ideologies that promote fear, hatred, violence, and bigotry; and BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, consistent with its official motto, it is the aspiration of the City of Spokane to enhance the quality of life and to promote sense of belonging for every single citizen, and that City of Spokane will continue to help make Spokane a better place – where people feel safe, seen, and heard.

Re-Focusing on Homelessness

To Meaningfully Address a Problem One Must First Understand It

Despite nearly four years of Mayor Woodward’s administration policies and money spent it is obvious that Woodward’s signature election issue, (visible) homelessness, is little changed. It is past time to re-focus.

The article by Matthew Anderson, Ph.D., Professor of Urban & Regional Planning at EWU, that I have pasted below from RANGE Media should be required reading for every American. You cannot fix a problem without understanding and addressing its roots. Hint: It is not a fundamental failure of morals—as some would have us believe.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Click on the underlined title below to see additional content from this article, become acquainted with RANGE Media, and consider becoming a paid subscriber to RANGE. The young people at RANGE are doing important work in our community. They deserve our support. 

Our homeless policy is like putting a bandaid on internal bleeding

Spokane — and America — will never fix homelessness until it gets serious about providing housing for all levels of the market.

Editor’s Note: I first started worrying about the connection between housing affordability and homelessness in Spokane in 2017, when many of the young artists we worked with at Terrain began telling us rents were rising so much, they were worried about losing their housing altogether. From the 2019 elections to today, I’ve been deeply frustrated by how little effort our leaders or the media have put into publicly connecting the dots between the twin crises of housing and homelessness, then using that lens to build policy around. We can’t even really bring ourselves to have the conversation. Instead we spend the vast majority of our time and energy on visible homelessness, mental health and drug abuse, which is like putting bandaid after bandaid on an arterial bleed: it might look like it’s helping, but it’s time and labor intensive, and doesn’t solve the underlying problem. Until you repair the artery, the bleeding is going to continue below the surface. Eventually, the patient will bleed out.

When the RANGE team read Matthew Anderson’s recent paper on the reactionary role of private business groups on public homeless policy in Spokane and Portland, we asked if he was interested in using expertise to draw those connections, and hopefully ignite an expansive conversation about alleviating homelessness with truly holistic housing policy. Here’s that piece. It’s long, but this stuff is complicated, and deserves so much more attention than it has been given to date. Give it a read, and share it around — Luke [Baumgarten]

Homelessness has increased dramatically in recent years in Spokane, becoming a major topic of public debate. It was the biggest issue in the 2019 mayor’s race, by far, and it has only become more central as the housing crisis has worsened. 

The number of unsheltered Spokanites in 2017 was 138 according to the Regional Point-In-Time (PIT) Count. By 2023, the figure was 955. The rise in housing prices over the same period has been just as dramatic: In 2016, the median home sales price in Spokane was $172,000. It peaked in 2022 at above $430,000. In the first half of 2017 (when the PIT count was calculated), the average rent in Spokane County was $913, according to the Washington Center for Real Estate Research. Today, it’s $1,314, a 44% increase. 

Over that same period, the average wage in Spokane has grown about 25% (from $22.75 per hour in 2017 to $28.56 in 2022), but the inflation rate over that same period is roughly 22%, nullifying many of those gains. Approximately 31% of Spokanites earn less than $17.50 per hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It’s no wonder that, out of nearly 1,000 Spokane renters surveyed last year, 60% reported having to take out a loan to pay rent.

These figures are in no way unique to Spokane, but reflect a broader national phenomenon. As a professor in urban planning at Eastern Washington University who studies the connection between housing market dynamics and homelessness, I find myself in the odd situation of straddling two very different worlds related to this topic. In many communities like Spokane, the academic knowledge about the drivers and effective management of homelessness — which generally focuses on finding enough affordable housing to keep people off the streets — is starkly disconnected from the public debate — which overwhelmingly focuses on issues like drug use and mental health struggles that tend to show up in visibly unsheltered people. 

While drawing on my own research findings from a study I just co-authored with my students, I hope to bring these two disparate worlds into much closer dialogue in an effort to provide readers with the broader historical context on this topic that I find to be missing in the public consciousness. 

Context of a crisis

Homelessness has been around in the United States since the founding of our country. However, there is a consensus in urban studies scholarship (12) that the surge in homelessness that we are experiencing today can be traced to policy reforms that were implemented in the 1980s by the Reagan Administration. Specifically impactful was the large-scale withdrawal of federal funding from local governments and cuts to social welfare programs (like public housing) and mental health institutions. 

Cities used to rely much more heavily on federal funding to balance their budgets. Under Reagan, this was deemed a form of welfare that needed to be cut to discipline local governments into finding their own sources of tax revenue. Consequently, maintaining public housing was no longer prioritized (nor was anything else that did not generate revenue). This is also the moment when homelessness became linked to mental illness, as those who were previously housed in federally funded mental health institutions were now pushed out onto the streets.

Our country has slowly and methodically whittled away our social safety net and the impacts of this have been extensively examined in urban studies and beyond. Most strikingly, this immediately resulted in homeless epidemics in the most expensive cities in the 1980s, particularly New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, as demonstrated in landmark publications at the time by urban scholars like Michael Dear, Jennifer Wolch, Neil Smith, and Mike Davis. This epidemic has since spread across the country to mark the experience of any metropolitan region where the gap between average wages and housing prices has widened, which has been happening in Spokane since around 2016. 

In a capitalist economy, the unfortunate fact is there is no incentive for the private housing market to invest in housing that is affordable to the lowest wage earners, as every other type of housing promises greater profit margins. Without sufficient public investment in subsidies for low-income housing, some degree of homelessness is inevitable. This is not opinion, but a lesson we have known for well over 100 years, since horrific housing conditions in European and North American cities prompted governments to intervene in the form of public housing and eventually led to the first notable public housing investment in the 1910s and 1920s in Europe. 

Without substantial government involvement, a housing market driven by profit maximization does not serve the least fortunate members of society, an uncontroversial reality reflected in most urban planning textbooks. 

It seems like this is a lesson we have forgotten in the US, as nearly every other industrialized country in the world has a much better track record of using social housing to tackle homelessness. 

When this topic is discussed and debated in the US, it is as if the world ends with the boundaries of the US, which has led to the common impression that homelessness is impossible to solve. 

The experience of subsidized housing in the rest of the industrialized world, though, suggests that public housing is not a failed idea. The failure is in how the US administered it. It is also not a coincidence that homelessness barely exists in countries with robust subsidized housing, social welfare, and tenant rights legislation, such as Denmark, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, and Japan, among many others. 

(Anti)-Homeless Solutions

If defunding our social safety nets has set the stage for this crisis today, this is not to imply that we have spent nothing to address and manage homelessness in the US. Quite the contrary. Funding has instead poured into shelter facilities with myriad service providers on the front lines managing the complex dynamics in play for each unhoused person they are assigned to help. 

However, in the 1990s and 2000s, the general approach taken by elected and prominent business leaders across the US was rooted in criminalization, noting the proliferation of what are often characterized as “anti-homeless” laws (e.g., sit and lie ordinancescamping banspublic park closure times, etc.). The goal was to stereotype and consequently demonize the unhoused in the media as drug-addicted sociopaths unworthy of public assistance, and a means of gaining public support for these laws which, effectively, criminalized the very act of being homeless. 

Not only were the unhoused victimized by an increasingly deregulated housing and labor market, but the spaces they are forced to occupy were now increasingly taken away from them (at least without committing a crime), a visceral reality notably examined by Jeremy Waldron, Nick Blomley and Don Mitchell, among many others. The visibility of homelessness, especially in downtown retail corridors, was deemed the primary problem. While solving homelessness might require big investments in housing, the thinking was that cities could arrest their way out of visible homelessness relatively inexpensively. This tactic was pursued and tested in most large US cities experiencing homelessness as a way of “taking back the city.” After 15-20 years of this approach, however, coupled with the effects of the Great Recession in 2008, it became clear the tactic failed. It has proven to be an endless mission, as homelessness has only worsened and proliferated across the country, with jails and prisons becoming our de-facto mental health institutions. (We can see the conclusion of these policies where better mental health outcomes are being used to argue for building a new jail. — editors)

The approach taken today, as examined by Chris Herring, Jessie Speer, Brian Hennigan, Geoff DeVerteuil, and Antonin Margier, among many others, is one where the unhoused are generally portrayed in more compassionate language, though many of the same “anti-homeless” laws are still in place, alongside stepped-up funding for expanding and increasing shelter capacity and services with increasing and active involvement from private-sector coalitions. This is only a band-aid: imagine that we are in an emergency room, and that we are experiencing a surge of people entering the waiting room with traffic-related injuries. We should absolutely invest in adequate staffing, operating rooms and bigger waiting rooms, so that we can quickly treat people with serious injuries. 

But we must also address why the streets have become less safe

If the streets were much safer, we wouldn’t have so many injured patients entering the waiting room, and it probably wouldn’t be as costly, either. Crisis-prevention costs are usually less than dealing with the crisis after the fact. This is, again, more or less substantiated by the experience of the rest of the industrialized world. And it isn’t just true of countries who have had robust public housing policy for decades. Finland has successfully lessened homelessness by 80%, turning many unhoused people into paying renters, through actions implemented in the last decade.

Housing first

Until we recognize homelessness begins with a massive lack of housing at the lowest-income section of the market, we have every reason to assume that homelessness will only persist, and will likely get worse. More and/or greater enforcement of “anti-homeless” laws, increasing shelter capacities, and even improving our collaborative response (as implied in the new “Spokane Unite” initiative to create a new regional development authority) will do little without creating the necessary affordable housing units. 

Merely enabling the private sector to build more units, as is almost always championed by the real estate industry, will also do nothing to alleviate this crisis unless the units are affordable to the lowest-wage earners in the region. The past 100 years of evidence suggests that the private sector will fail to do this without sufficient public subsidies to make it worth their while.

A common mantra in the real-estate industry is that we just need to lower the barriers to development, as in increasing the urban growth area, lessening development fees, etc., and making development more attractive to more investors. The result will be more units on the market at all levels, and prices will adjust accordingly. 

But when this hypothesis has been tested (particularly by economic sociologists and planners), the results have been mixed at best, and while it certainly serves the interests of developers and builders, more new units do not necessarily lead to falling prices, contrary to conventional supply-demand logic. In fact, following a report by David Giles in 2017, central Seattle experienced both increasing vacancies and increasing prices, all after years of Seattle trying to build its way out of the affordable housing crisis with tall apartment and condo projects of mostly market-rate units. 

New housing construction is often followed by increases in prices, not decreases. In short, housing markets are almost always mediated by myriad socio-political dynamics which render the “build more, and prices will drop” hypothesis anything but a foregone conclusion.

Hostility at visibility

All things considered, Spokane’s housing crisis has come relatively recently, well after many larger cities tried the solutions above and found them inadequate or completely ineffective. 

Rather than take those lessons and work with what are emerging best practices, the dominant approach taken by much of Spokane’s coalition of government and private-sector interests follows the now well-tested-and-failed approach of criminalization. This approach is veiled by compassionate language like in other cities (e.g., Portland, San Diego, Seattle, etc.), but attendance at various public symposiums and venues on this topic in Spokane casts the impression that invested private sector actors are only concerned about the visibility of unhoused people in the downtown corridor. 

Because addiction and mental illness is what we tend to see, it is easy to conclude that all homeless people are afflicted with these conditions. We typically don’t realize that many more unhoused people remain out of sight, as there are just as many (if not more) who do not suffer from addiction and/or mental illness, at least based on the past few decades of PIT counts across the country. 

But if a person’s status as unhoused is not visible, then their presence is not necessarily threatening the profit margins of downtown businesses, nor is it applying pressure on elected officials. Indeed, such people might as well not exist. As such, as our recent study concludes (although the rhetoric has shifted somewhat recently), invested private sector actors and allied elected leaders do not seem to care about homelessness itself. Homelessness only becomes a problem when it is visibly threatening consumer traffic on the street.

It should not be surprising, then, that addiction and mental health are overwhelmingly the focus in this approach, as these two conditions are what makes homelessness a problem for affected downtown businesses, not the fact that these people are unhoused, which unfortunately only perpetuates this myth in the public consciousness. 

I do not want to cast the impression that I do not have sympathy for the plight of downtown businesses affected by this, but merely to make the point that the approach being taken does not serve anybody’s interest, including their own. Conversely, however, there are many other practitioners in the region that project a more genuinely compassionate attitude informed by the sentiment that nobody should be unhoused in the most affluent country in the world.Another myth is that the unsheltered homeless choose not to go to a shelter because they’d rather stay on the street to do drugs. Again, decades of surveys, ethnographies and PIT count data has shown that the top reasons people don’t go to shelters is because of fear of theft, violence, sexual assault, anxiety and certain shelter rules (i.e., pets not being allowed). Evidently, many unhoused people have deemed the streets safer than our shelters. And even if all unhoused people did suffer from addiction and/or mental illness, how can we explain the fact that the vast majority of people who suffer from mental illness do not become homeless? This, then, cannot be the explanation.

All of these factors can make it hard to make ends meet to maintain housing. Now factor in the widening gap between wages and housing prices sapping people’s income and savings, and it’s pretty clear why we have more vulnerable households than we had 10 years ago in Spokane. In fact, this metric alone — the gap between average wages and housing prices — has been shown to determine homeless levels with striking predictability across the US, as exhibited most powerfully by Greg Colburn and Clayton Aldern in their book, Homelessness is a Housing Problem.

If you are not lucky enough to have a sufficient support network of friends or family willing or capable of taking you in, then you might find yourself on the street. And in fact, that is exactly what we have seen in Spokane since 2017, with numbers shifting sharply upward during the pandemic. If housing had not become so expensive in Spokane, then the segment of unhoused people dealing with addiction/mental illness would more likely be able to manage these conditions behind closed doors (like most other people suffering from these conditions).

Rising housing prices leave us all drowning

So, if escalating housing prices alongside stagnant wages without sufficient subsidized housing and mental health treatment options has produced this problem, what has actually caused housing prices to rise so dramatically in Spokane? A number of factors should be noted: it is no secret that the Spokane region has been inundated with migrants from much more expensive urban regions. Even with housing prices more than doubling in Spokane since 2016, Spokane is still comparatively a much better value than, for example, San Francisco where the median home sales price peaked at over $1.6 million in 2022. 

While I understand why someone might relocate to Spokane for this reason, you are, at least to some degree, actively contributing to this escalating problem when doing so, as well as others who “flip” older homes to cater to this emergent pool of prospective buyers. If we had substantially more subsidized housing for those priced out of the market, then this wouldn’t necessarily matter. But that’s not the city — or nation — world we live in.

In fact, since 2010, what low-income rental stock exists across the US has increasingly become the property of just a handful of large-scale investment firms and real estate investment trusts, entities that are also increasingly investing in each other’s portfolios, according to a recent study by Renee Tapp and Richard Peiser.

The result of this trend is that prospective home buyers begin to downscale their expectations by considering housing that they would not have previously considered, with the lowest-income buyers pushed out of the market altogether and onto a rental market where, consequently, vacancies have evaporated. 

In this environment, landlords are able to raise rents and evict those who cannot afford the new rent or cash out by selling to developers or wealthier people who would intend to owner-occupy. In many cases, the tenant gets evicted and affordable housing for the lowest segment of the population vanishes, with nothing taking its place at the bottom of the market. 

I have had multiple students in my classes at EWU tell me that this has happened to them. Landlords who do this are contributing to the problem, which further underscores the inherent conflict of interest for private landlords serving low-income populations. 

The moment there’s more profit to be had, you can expect people to cash out.

Combine all of this with the fact that the majority of Spokane consists of single-family homes, which are the least efficient way of housing people, constraining our ability to increase supply. And while recent zoning changes have made it easier to build multifamily housing across all of Spokane, that does not mean those units magically flash into existence. 

The other problem here is NIMBYism (Not in My Backyard), where nobody wants to live in a community with multifamily housing, which seems to be code for “poverty” in the minds of many. The fear is that new multifamily apartment buildings will result in declining property values. 

While I can understand this sentiment as well, the actual evidence of this happening is mixed, and in some cases the new market construction has resulted in increased property values in the surrounding area. Regardless, resisting the building of new housing units (for whatever reason) is also actively contributing to this problem. 

When I broach the subject of more subsidized housing in conversation (with family, friends, students, developers, policy makers, etc.), I am often met with comments like “This is America, this isn’t realistic here.” If this is, in fact, true, then it suggests there is something intrinsic about the United States that makes this a bigger problem than in other countries. It means we — as Americans — all share in some responsibility and, thus, burden for (wittingly or not) subjecting more of our less fortunate fellow Americans to this cruel fate.

Our long national (and local) crossroads

In the context of homelessness, Spokane, and America more broadly, is at a crossroads, and we need to ask ourselves about our priorities: How much is it worth to live in a society without homelessness? 

Since the Great Recession, homelessness has been on the rise globally. Wealthy European countries like Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom that implemented sizeable austerity budget cuts to subsidized housing programs and tenants rights legislation have, predictably, seen notable increases in unhoused individuals. Yet, the phenomenon still tends to pale in comparison to the US. 

A particularly strong approach that has received notable praise internationally is Vienna’s housing program. First, Vienna is among the biggest producers of public housing in Europe, and it looks nothing like the tenement housing projects that marked the US experience. It also comprises a mix of housing types (including high-rises, low-rise apartments, townhomes and others), that are difficult to visually distinguish from market-rate housing and are not as segregated from the rest of the city. Perhaps most importantly, the buildings are well funded and maintained, with modern amenities like swimming pools, not typically associated with public housing. As a result, not only do Austrian housing policies allow middle-class people to apply to live in these buildings, the buildings are nice enough to attract the middle class, resulting in real mixed-income neighborhoods.

This system also allows people more autonomy: once tenants begin making more money, they are not kicked out. They are allowed to stay if they wish, which means that most public housing over time has become more mixed-income, rather than the concentrated poverty that plagued US experiments in public housing during the 20th century. It is also not stigmatized to the same degree either, as up to 44% of the housing stock in Vienna is socialized (as of 2019). 

In Austria, then, the society is in agreement that public housing isn’t just a social good, it’s culturally desirable. 

And cities like Vienna are by no means cheap to live in. The median Vienese home sales price is over $1.3 million this year, but homelessness is kept comparatively in check so long as the government continues to produce the requisite affordable housing units. According to a report by Roger Rudick, Vienna has more than twice the population of San Francisco (1.9 million to 887,000). Yet, San Francisco has over four times the number of unhoused individuals. Vienna also has three times as many housing units in total (1,050,000 compared to 340,140), with a much higher share of this housing deemed affordable to low-income populations due to government intervention, subsidies and more favorable tenant rights. 

Nearly 80% of the population in Vienna are renters, and public housing tenants pay only a fifth of their post-tax income on housing. Some pay as little as 10%

Homelessness still exists in Vienna, to the tune of 2,200 unhoused individuals per a recent report — roughly the same as the 2,300 documented in Spokane during this year’s PIT count — yet Vienna has over 8 times as many residents as Spokane. 

The caveat here is that other countries often have varying definitions of homelessness which render direct comparisons of this nature to be problematic, but one thing is fairly certain: visible homelessness is markedly lower in Vienna as well, as with cities like Copenhagen, Oslo and Helsinki. These are also not countries without addiction and mental health problems, but the safety nets are generally still in place to keep these people housed. 

It’s important to ensure everyone in Spokane has access to mental health and addiction support if they need it. Until we get serious about re-evaluating the merits of subsidized housing and stronger tenant rights legislation, though, homelessness in Spokane and other cities like it in the US is all but guaranteed to stay.

Author

MATTHEW B. ANDERSON

Matthew Anderson is a professor of Urban and Regional Planning at Eastern Washington University, and is the co-author of a recent paper that examines the role of for-profit businesses, non-governmental organizations and private-sector coalitions in shaping municipal responses to homelessness that punish and retaliate against the unhoused. The paper studied responses in Portland and Spokane.