Just the Facts Ma'am! - A Short History of Truth

Recent political conflicts have forced us to confront the elusive and uncertain nature of truth.  How does one determine what is fact and what is fiction?  In an age when information is so easily disseminated and manipulated, how can we ever be sure that what we read, see or hear is true?

In the beginning, there was no ‘media’ to capture or spread information.  People talked to one another and information was relayed person to person, mouth to mouth.  Oral history and folklore were the only means to record historical events.  And anyone who has ever played the game of Chinese Whispers (or the Telephone Game as it is called in the U.S.) knows that a chain of oral retellings has a high probability of introducing error even when no one is intending to change the story.

Historians suspect that much of the folklore and mythology that came out of the period of human oral history is significantly embellished or outright fiction.  Something happens, but when people talk about what happened they tend to relate the event in a way that embodies their own biases, wishes and interpretations.  Or they may simply invent something out of whole cloth that serves their purposes.

Once the written word was invented, that provided the opportunity to record facts or fiction in a less alterable medium.  It did not ensure that what was written was factual, but at least for the duration of the medium’s existence it prevented it from being capriciously altered.  But sadly, all media are prone to degradation, and new copies must be made, which of course re-introduces the opportunity for modification.  All our ancient historical documents – e.g. the Upanishads, the Bible, Greek and Roman classics – have been copied repeatedly and there is no way to know what has been added, modified or deleted, though certainly historians and other social scientists have their theories.

Much of what we now accept as historical fact has been compiled and authenticated by historians via multiple sources – newspaper accounts, magazines, books, letters, official documents, court records, photographs and video – which certainly increases the odds for achieving accurate portrayals. There is never absolute agreement about historical events and they are of course interpreted by different people in different ways.  The perspective of observers and scholars may change as time passes, which is the reason why we often see ‘revisionist’ interpretations of history long after an event has occurred.  But the basic facts of our history are reasonably well preserved and held inviolable.

Before the advent of the Internet, there were a limited number and type of media outlets for obtaining information – books, magazines, newspapers, and radio and TV stations.  The capital and labor costs of mass producing printed material, or producing radio and TV ensured that it was mostly well-funded enterprises and/or serious historians that participated in the reporting and associated commentary of events.

These well-funded media sources were captive to their markets and needed to achieve a profitable business success.   Therefore, one could always expect an element of showmanship in magazine, newspaper, television or radio reporting.  More serious scholarship in books and periodicals was less subject to the fickle nature of the viewing public and thus more likely to avoid sensationalism.  Scholarly writings are also reviewed rather aggressively by one’s peers, which may eliminate much of the temptation to embellish or distort.

Journalistic standards evolved over time, and credible newspapers and magazines, as well as TV and radio news shows, could generally be relied upon to provide factual content, with perhaps a modicum of either liberal or conservative bias, depending on the political leanings of the publisher.  By the late twentieth century there was a general perception in conservative circles that much of the media had liberal leanings.  I would argue that this is not a bad thing, as the press is the fourth estate and may be seen as playing a role of counterbalance to the influence of corporations and the rich and powerful.  The journalist who aligns him or herself with the poor, the powerless and the downtrodden is performing a noble function that may indeed be quite necessary in modern society, as long as his or her basic presentation of events is still accurate.

However, the modern era of Internet media has unleashed a veritable maelstrom of information, much of which is passed on by casual reference without reference to any reliable source, or worse yet, a false reference.  Angry blogs, anonymous emails, rogue news sites, conspiracy theorists and a thousand other would-be pundits produce mountains of ‘news’ that may have little or nothing to do with actual events.  The effort required to verify sources and veracity is prodigious, and the public’s penchant for embracing and forwarding any views that align with their own, no matter how uncertain their origin, makes policing the Internet an almost impossibly complex task.

It is a sad irony that the Internet, while on the one hand providing a fantastic resource for enrichment and education, is also a rapidly growing dystopia of propaganda, hate speech, ‘fake’ news and outright falsehoods.  True journalism may be found amidst the trash, but it grows ever more difficult to guide an easily bamboozled public to authentic, trustworthy information.  And the rapid emergence of authoritarian regimes that exert a powerful influence on media does not bode well for the future.  Let us hope that a recognition of the pitfalls in our current path will awaken in all of us a desire to seek out facts and truth.

Globalization - The Third Great Disequilibrium

One may look at human history through many different lenses.  There is a lens for the evolution of human myth and religion, one for human discovery and invention, one for art, literature and philosophy, a few for political and social transformations, and endless lenses for wars and conquest.

I am interested in viewing the world through a lens of disequilibrium –  a look at the periods of history where the world has been cast into paroxysms of chaos and uncertainty with cataclysmic results.  There are, of course, many cataclysmic and tragic events in history, so finding specific, causative points or periods of disequilibrium may seem like a fool’s errand.  And history is ultimately a continuum, so any effort to identify and separate historical trends and epochs is doomed to eye-rolling dismissal on one level.  However, it can be illuminating to look at events from different perspectives, so I will forge ahead with my own hypothesis of disequilibrium!

I do not classify run-of-the-mile empire building and conquest as disequilibrium, because the history of the world up until modern times has suffered a continuous stream of such events.  If one were only to measure death and destruction, then these empires and conquest would certainly be the focus.  But my objective is to understand other critical factors in the way that the world has evolved and I believe that some insight may be obtained by looking at the following periods of disequilibrium.

I propose that the first major period of global disequilibrium was the result of the collision of myths and religions.  Civilizations developed their myths and religions over many centuries starting at the very dawn of humankind, and the migration, proliferation and evangelism associated with individual religions is an interesting topic unto itself.  But the disequilibrium associated with the clash of these religions and myths mostly plays out over the several centuries from the crusades, through the spread of the Ottoman empire, through the voyages of discovery and periods of Christian and Muslim conquest, and ends with the reformation, the inquisition, the pogroms and the long European wars that resulted.

The chaos, conquests and carnage associated with the collision of myths and religions were a result of a rather unholy alliance of religious fervor and hunger for power and dominion. The conquistadors may have found part of their inspiration to conquer and plunder in their Christian beliefs, but it is likely that piety was more of a justification than a driving force, and that their lust for gold and other more worldly treasures was often the motivation.

The tally of death and destruction due to this disequilibrium is beyond measurement.  The brutal slaughter in the Holy Lands; the depopulation through both disease and murder of much of the Americas; the spread of slavery (due to both Muslim and Christian efforts); the savage colonial empires inflicted upon less technologically advanced peoples; the wholesale carnage of the Thirty Years War in Europe after the reformation which exacted a toll of up to 1/4 of the population; and many other religious or quasi-religious conflicts paint a portrait that is ironically the clear antithesis to the basic tenets of the religions and myths that authored it. 

These conflicts continue to haunt the earth and its peoples through periodic confrontations, but other disequilibriums have become more dominant and, in the case of globalization, incorporate religious conflict as part of their chaotic effect.

The second disequilibrium period is that of industrialization, which in my interpretation begins with the enlightenment and the age of scientific awakening, goes through the industrial revolution and the associated conflict between capitalism and Marxism and between religion and humanism, climaxes in the two world wars, and then ends with the cold war.

The seeds of the great conflagrations of the twentieth century were sown in the two hundred years preceding.  The opening of the human mind to science and to intellectual progress in non-religious directions, combined with the timeless and bottomless appetite that humans have for material wealth and power, led to dramatic changes in political, economic and social arrangements and consciousness, and ultimately to a rising tension between haves and have nots, between capitalists and workers, between the religious and the atheists, between aristocrats and the common people, between the lovers and the haters .  These tensions spawned the multiple political eruptions of nationalism, socialism, anarchism, fascism and populism that dictated relationships both within and between nations.

One of the most liberating, but also disorienting aspects of the age of industrialization was the scientific evidence – astronomical, geological, biological/evolutionary, psychological – that cast doubt upon the myths and religion that had dominated both personal and social behaviors since the dawn of humans.  Humanism and Darwinism were quickly interwoven into the dynamic forces of the various economic and political movements that swept the globe from the mid-nineteenth century up through the cold war.

The end of the cold war and the disintegration of the Soviet Union brought about the acceleration of what we now term ‘globalization’.  This is the third great disequilibrium.  Globalization takes on myriad forms, but it is generally characterized by an increasing interaction between states, cultures, religions, ethnic groups and economies.

The economic impact of globalization began in the 1980s as industrial nations began to utilize cheaper labor markets in developing nations.  This had the triple impact of increasing middle class opportunities in these developing nations, decreasing the price of many goods, as well as increasing profits for the international companies that outsourced the labor.  But lurking behind the euphoria of this classic capitalist strategy was the loss of middle class jobs to the industrial nations and the malaise that eventually resulted from steadily increasing wages for the elitist classes and stagnating wages for the middle classes or lower classes.

The second economic impact of globalization was the opportunity for developing nations such as China to take advantage of free trade and their own cheap labor pools to compete (sometimes with dubious tactics such as state-supported price cutting and the theft of intellectual property) successfully with their own manufactured goods in the global markets.  This upended the decades long dominance of Europe, the U.S. and Japan in world trade.

In theory, free trade should allow all nations to benefit in the long run with optimized production and pricing worldwide.  Additionally, free trade should allow developing nations to modernize and join the world economic force as a somewhat equal partner with the benefit of growing middle class populations.  But transitions are always difficult.

The second disrupting aspect of globalization is the relatively free and large flow of immigrants and refugees across borders and the growing diversity in formerly homogeneous populations.  This mixing of cultures, ethnic groups and religions is occurring at both the lower and upper ends of the social spectrum, though more heavily and dramatically at the lower end because of the economic and political crises across the globe.

The third dramatic impact of globalization is the international rise of women in social, educational, political and economic importance.  This trend emerged during the industrialization period, but is now sweeping across the world because of globalization and colliding against traditional cultural views of a woman’s place in society. 

Another major trend is the change in views on gender and sexuality.  Industrial nations have dramatically liberalized in their acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, family planning, gender variations and increased sexual activity.  The globalization of this trend is not assured, and it is a significant point of disequilibrium.

The last attribute of globalization that I will describe is the slow movement toward an international community that attempts to solve world problems and ease the transition to a more global society.  The U.N., multiple economic groups and forums, aid groups, special organizations for prosecuting war crimes, conventions to address climate change and joint peacekeeping operations are all examples of this aspect of globalization.  International efforts to ease economic hardship and famine, to apply pressure to countries to eliminate graft and corruption, to adopt joint agreements to combat climate change and promote free trade are all part of this somewhat awkward and often bureaucratic quest to create a global community.

These characteristics of globalization have created dramatic upheaval in many countries in the form of economic distress, as well as a multitude of reactionary ills – xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, populism, nationalism and authoritarianism.  Industrial nations are not willing to cede their dominance or their independence, and accuse this world community of incompetence, bureaucracy and the cynical promotion of special interests.  Developing nations accuse the industrial powers of greedily clinging to their power and economic status and maintaining a colonial attitude to the rest of the world.

There is a growing concern that the formerly assumed triumphant progress of liberal democracy across the globe is now in serious jeopardy and that reactionary forces with authoritarian and nationalistic leaders such as one sees in the U.S. with Trump, in Poland, Hungary, Italy, Turkey, Brazil, the Philippines and other nations, are rapidly creating a dark counter flow propelled by fear and uncertainty.

As the final point of my analysis, I note that periods of disequilibrium are growing shorter and more dramatic in an exponential manner.  This is not surprising, as the pace of change in our world has been accelerating in a continuous, disquieting manner.  The first two periods of disequilibrium I described each had, slowly but surely, a positive, increasingly harmonious impact on our world, an encouraging sign of our ability to adapt to and embrace change.   Even at the dawn of the new millennium we had some reason to be optimistic about our future, as the new disequilibrium of globalization seemed to be manageable and appeared to be on a trajectory that would ultimately lead to a more just and equitable world.

But things have gone awry since that time.  It is certainly not clear how the current disequilibrium of globalization, which has emerged and had dramatic consequences in three short decades, will conclude.  It has the potential to unify the world in a common goal of peace, prosperity, harmony and cooperation.  However, it is not at all clear that it will achieve this lofty goal.  The changes may simply be too rapid for our human institutions to accommodate.  And if we are unable to stabilize our beautiful little planet in the next ten or twenty years, then the fourth disequilibrium, whatever it may be (climate collapse, automation and artificial intelligence, who can say?) may come upon us so quickly and mercilessly as to completely outrun our human ability to adapt.

An Open Letter to My Conservative Friends

The increasingly rancorous interactions between conservatives and liberals cry out for some sort of mediation or reconciliation, but I wonder if it is still feasible to find middle ground.  Have things gone so far that empathy and compromise are impossible?

I know that my conservative friends are not bad people.  I know that on a personal, one-on-one level they are good people with compassion and basic values that are very similar to mine.  So why do they come to such radically different conclusions about public policy than the ones that I reach?

One aspect of the current polarization that I find difficult to move past is the Faustian bargain many conservatives have made in embracing Donald Trump.  I understand that they were frustrated and yearning for a strong voice, and that they see Trump as a game-changer for the conservative cause.  But the man is a dangerous demagogue who has character traits that seem to me to be the exact opposite of the morality and integrity that conservatives have long celebrated.  His lack of humility, incivility and reckless rhetoric can only further divide this nation.  I know that many of my conservative friends see him as a means to an end rather than a sterling example for humanity, but this is a very dangerous game they are playing and there are potentially tragic consequences at stake.

The rhetoric on both sides has become so vitriolic that it makes sensible discussion very challenging.  The right (most notably Trump) has villainized the immigrant with images of gangs and crime to make its case for stronger borders and deportation of undocumented workers.  The left has portrayed the right as hateful xenophobes who have no compassion or conscience.  Not long ago there were bi-partisan efforts to craft a reasonable immigration policy but we are now so polarized that any compromise seems a distant dream.  

But are we really so far apart on this issue?  Liberals understand that there must be some control of immigration and I believe conservatives can understand and sympathize with the desperation and fear that propels immigrants to our country.  Can we not jettison the divisive rhetoric and sit down and find a reasonable path forward?  Does it make sense for us to demonize the other side (or the immigrants) to make our argument? 

Abortion, gay marriage and other hot button religious issues are also blown out of proportion.  Pro choice proponents are not eager to see abortions occur.  On the contrary, they want to see less abortions through an increased availability of contraceptives, family planning and sex education.  I am sure that most conservatives realize that going back to the old days of coat hanger, backroom abortions is not a viable option.  The abortion rate has been decreasing steadily over the last thirty years and is only slightly higher than the rate before Roe vs. Wade!  There is certainly an opportunity to work together to minimize abortions without creating draconian legal consequences.

Gay marriage and transsexual rights are difficult concepts for conservatives to accept, but there is now a large body of scientific evidence that sexuality and gender identification are not binary but rather a continuum, and that these behaviors or preferences are innate and not ‘choices’.  Liberals should be empathetic with conservatives who struggle to accept these cultural changes, as they do conflict with sincere religious beliefs, but I believe this is an area where the younger generation, regardless of political or religious orientation, has already accepted these facts en masse and will lead the way forward.

Gun control is a very difficult issue for me to find common ground with conservatives.  I doubt that we will truly reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country until we have rigorous licensing and control of guns, something that appears to be anathema and a non-starter for many conservatives, even when hunting rights are assured.  The evidence from other developed countries where such rigid controls effectively eliminate gun violence do not seem to have any effect on conservative thought.  The only way forward I would recommend is a truly bi-partisan study of gun violence in this country, but any attempts to do such a study have been blocked by mcongress.  On this topic it is difficult to find any reason for optimism, but perhaps some very timid beginnings will be possible with the new congress.

The climate change issue is also one that deserves a less adversarial approach.  It appears that many conservatives now accept the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change.  But they are understandably concerned with the negative effect that any actions to address the problem might have on our economy and they are suspicious of treaties or commitments that would hamstring our country in comparison to others.  Wouldn’t it make sense to have a bi-partisan group of legislators, scientists and economists work together to craft policy on this hugely important crisis? 

Economic, tax and entitlement issues, including healthcare, will continue to defy consensus.  Any three economists will come up with three different analyses.  And when politicians enter the fray careful analysis is no longer possible.  Both liberals and conservatives understand the basic concept that bureaucracy should be minimized and that economic freedom is to be highly prized.   But any reasonable person can also see that in a complex, integrated, global society some level of government involvement is necessary to prevent injustice and to create a more equitable society.  Add to that the thirty-year-long growth of wage disparity and the looming crisis of automation and the disappearance of middle class jobs and you have a situation that clearly demands bi-partisan action. 

I do not believe that conservatives are greedy, lack compassion or are insensitive to economic hardship or disparity.  But neither are liberals conniving socialists who want to steal a wealthy man’s hard-earned riches to give to the idle poor.  These are stereotypes that are useful for whipping up partisan outrage but they serve to harden our biases and make reasonable compromise ever more difficult.  

Social and economic engineering are complex and uncertain, but we have no choice if we are to avoid the potential devastating effects of the social, scientific and economic issues that confront us.  It is time to stop the puerile name calling and the perpetuation of stereotypes and vapid generalizations.  The hard work of governing demands that we abandon our partisan antics and roll up our sleeves to work together.  We owe it to our children.

Hiding Behind Reasonable Doubt

The Kavanaugh decision was sadly a bitter partisan fight rather than a candid evaluation of whether the man should be confirmed to one of the most important jobs in America.

The few senators who could have voted against confirmation all rationalized their yes votes on the basis of reasonable doubt, as if they were deciding whether to put Kavanaugh in jail or throw him out of the bar.  They uniformly described their decision in terms of a criminal trial.  They made a decision to confirm Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice because no one had proved that he committed sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt. 

But this was not a criminal trial.  It was a decision on whether Kavanaugh was the right person to put in a lifelong position with the highest and most important court in our land.  I have hired dozens of people in my work life for much less important jobs than this one.  I look for candidates that have all of the qualities that I need for the job.  If there is any doubt about their capabilities, then I look at others because I want the best person for the job.

There may be a reasonable doubt about whether Kavanaugh committed sexual assault, though I find it very hard to believe that a person like Ford would create a story out of whole cloth that would turn her world upside down and endanger her family and future.  But the reasonable possibility that he did assault her, along with multiple other indications of a less than savory background and temperament – in particular his testimony before the senate judiciary committee – would certainly disqualify him for one of the most important positions in America in the eyes of any objective decision maker.  Why settle for a man with so many questions surrounding him when there are certainly many other incredible candidates?

The answer is of course that this process has little or nothing to do with qualifications.  It is purely political, and it is just another manifestation of the rancorous partisanship that contaminates our political life. 

A Logical Look at the Kavanaugh Case

It is almost impossible to be objective about the Kavanaugh situation because of the intense partisanship passions it evokes.  I will confess outright that I am against Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court because I worry that it will secure a conservative majority for much too long a period of time.  However, I have tried to view the current issue through a lens of objectivity to try to understand what is the most likely version of the truth.

I do believe there is a way to logically evaluate the validity of the claims against Kavanaugh for sexual assault and come to certain conclusions.  Whether those conclusions disqualify Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court is a question that must then be evaluated

It is simply illogical to believe that Dr. Ford has somehow fabricated her story.  There are multiple reasons why this does not make sense. 

1. What woman would subject herself to the slander, denigration and possible danger that are absolute certain ramifications of her testimony unless she believed the story to be true
2. She related the story to multiple people long before Brett Kavanaugh was nominated (this is clearly the most powerful of the reasons and makes it essentially certain that some form of this event happened).
3. Her background does not indicate anything that would prompt her to lie or claim the spotlight under such potentially disastrous circumstances for herself and her family.
4. There is enough anecdotal evidence of drunken and nasty behavior in Kavanaugh’s background to imply that he was capable of doing something similar.

If it is reasonable to believe that she is being honest and telling the truth as she remembers it, then that means that one of two things is possible:

1. Brett Kavanaugh was so drunk that he doesn’t remember the event.
2.  Brett Kavanaugh remembers the event and is lying.

Had Brett Kavanaugh said that he remembered the event and either made heartfelt apologies or questioned the details, then he would certainly have been pilloried by many, but at least he would be able to potentially claim that a youthful, drunken mistake should not stand in the way of his nomination.

But he did not acknowledge the event as having occurred, so now we must believe that either Kavanaugh was so drunk that night that he cannot remember what he did or we must come to the conclusion that he is lying.

For someone of Kavanaugh’s distinguished reputation, it is very difficult to admit a tragic flaw or a horrible mistake in the past.  One sees this again and again – pride goeth before a fall.  The calculus for Kavanaugh is the following:

1. Admit the mistake, apologize profusely and question the details at the same time, hoping that the nomination will not be withdrawn.
2. Lie and double down on the denial, rallying the troops to make the issue more of a partisan battle than a question of character.

My guess is that Kavanaugh is lying, though we may never know.  It is a common thing for powerful men to lie when up against a wall and faced with the first whiff of humiliation in a long and storied career.  And furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Kavanaugh was so drunk that he could not remember what happened.  It would be interesting to hear scientific research on how likely that kind of memory loss would be.

So then, faced with two rather unsettling alternatives for Brett Kavanaugh’s actions, what should the Senate do?  In my opinion, he is now tainted, and another candidate should be found.  And I say this knowing that Trump will simply nominate another conservative candidate and that ultimately a conservative will be on the bench.

But if a conservative judge must be appointed, then I would rather have a conservative who never assaulted a woman, even when drunk, and who does not hold his reputation in such high esteem that he will brazenly lie to protect it.

Thoughts on the NFL Protests and Patriotism

The NFL season has begun, and with it, the culture war over protests around the Black Lives Matter movement by players during the playing of the national anthem.  The protests have sparked an ever-escalating outrage from some quarters, and encouragement from others. 

Donald Trump, the super-patriotic bone spur veteran, has tweeted his indignation at the disrespect that these protests indicate for the military sacrifices of our soldiers.  He has put increasing pressure on the NFL to mete out punishments.  There is also a grass roots effort to rally fans for a boycott on the 11^th of November to punish the league monetarily for this movement and encourage it to clamp down more vigorously.

On the other side of the issue, Nike has presented Colin Kaepernick, the super-bowl winning quarterback who launched the protests, as the centerpiece of their anniversary celebration of the ‘Just Do It’ ad campaign, and is standing behind the protests.  The issue has become one of the myriad polarizing issues between liberals and conservatives and generates great passion on both sides.

There can be reasonable differences in opinion about how society should address the problem of police shootings, racial profiling and police treatment of people of color.  But there is no justification in the USA, a nation that should be the world paragon for freedom of speech, for the point of view that seeks to prevent NFL players from expressing their concerns.

The primary argument against the protests is that the players are somehow showing a lack of respect for the military and the sacrifices of service members killed or wounded in our various conflicts.  This is simply specious reasoning.  The players are not targeting the military and if you ask any of the protesters they will say that they have full respect for all who have served in the military.  Indeed, military veterans who reason thoughtfully about this issue would be proud that they have served or fought for a nation that gives its citizens the right to express their views about how it could be made better, and would perceive the protests as a validation of their sacrifice.

There is a corollary anger about the protests that seems to target the wealth and lifestyle of the players as indicative of hypocrisy in their actions.  The fact is that these players are beneficiaries of unique economic and celebrity status due to their athletic abilities.  Like so many of the super wealthy or famous, this gives them a platform to make their beliefs and opinions known to a larger audience.  

There is a long history of famous people speaking out about issues close to their hearts and there is no reason these players cannot become socially active in a similar manner.  Their choice of taking a knee during the national anthem may be offensive to some who see the national anthem and other patriotic expressions as some sort of sacred duty that is inviolable, but isn’t it actually the highest form of patriotism to stimulate a discussion about a national problem and seek an improvement in our society?

Symbols like the flag and the national anthem may be used to express one’s affection for the country and its qualities.  But creating a quasi-religious mystique around these symbols creates an obstacle to honest appraisal of our country’s good and bad points.  It has been said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and we must be careful not to use patriotism to delude ourselves into naïve fantasies about our country and ignore the many challenges that it faces.

Patriotism is not a blind commitment to one’s country or any of its symbols, but rather a continuing effort to support and nurture the principles that have contributed to making the country a good place to live and work.  Solving a country’s problems is messy, complicated work, but ignoring the problems is a big mistake and discouraging sincere dissent and protest will only lead to a hollow patriotism that does no good at all.

The Politics of Resentment and Envy

In discussions of income disparity and skewed wealth distribution one can be certain that the old trope of class envy and resentment will surface.  Conservatives have dismissed concerns about income disparity for decades based on their belief that a) there will always be income disparity because the more talented and ambitious will work harder and smarter and earn more, and b) the resentment and envy of those earning less is irrelevant as long as ‘all boats are rising’ in the economy.

There is, of course, some truth to the first part of that argument.  There is a wide range of talent and ambition among human beings.  Some people are driven to seek wealth and others are not.  Some people are indolent, some are energetic.  But it is also certainly true that good fortune, both in terms of one’s birthright and place in the world, as well as the vicissitudes of fate as one goes through life, will have a large impact on whether one succeeds and how much income or wealth can be acquired.  The old joke that a conservative is a person who was born on third base and thinks they hit a triple has a very significant kernel of truth.

It is also a simple fact that on balance, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.  A single small obstacle can derail the fortunes of the poor, while the rich may weather many a trial with no great discomfort.  The fortunes of the wealthy naturally multiply through capital gains and a multitude of other benefits.  The fortunes of the poor are assaulted daily by health costs, transportation costs, shelter costs, childcare costs and a litany of other basic needs that loom as relatively huge obstacles to any accumulation of savings or wealth.  A single unexpected expense can launch a poor person on a nightmare voyage of high interest loans and long term debt.

But let us, for argument’s sake, say that indeed all boats are rising.  Is a growing income disparity justified in such a case?  Well the first question is whether the boats would be rising even faster if the incomes were more evenly distributed.  This question has been at the core of the battle between conservative and progressive economists for many decades, and I am unlikely to answer it here in any new or acceptable way.  My simple economic logic is that money in the hands of the poor and middle class is more likely to be spent directly on goods and services and is therefore more likely to contribute to growth in demand and growth in the economy.

However, leaving aside the question of economic effectiveness, what is the impact of high income and wealth disparity on the social fabric?  One may argue that wealth does not equate to happiness, and this is certainly true.  Indeed, it may be that massive wealth actually leads to a less satisfied life in the long run for many people – one sees this phenomenon often in the lives of celebrities or tycoons.  A modest wealth and lifestyle is probably the best path to happiness.

But the world celebrates wealth and we are constantly forced to compare ourselves with our neighbors and fellow citizens in this regard.  Every place we turn reinforces this fact.  Every advertisement, every mode of entertainment, every party we attend, every post on social media – they all either blatantly or subtly probe this aspect of our lives.  The world tells us not only that money will make us happier, but that it is a measure of our worth, our standing.  We are encouraged to feel inferior to those who have higher incomes.  Intellectually, rationally, we may understand that this is propaganda and a fallacious mode of thought.  But on a gut, reactive level we cannot help but be affected by this incessant indoctrination.  Those who are struggling at the margins, and even those who are reasonably successful but forced to pay homage to the rarified world of the increasingly rich and powerful, will become envious and resentful.  It is simple human nature.

The solution to this very real and very dangerous problem is to return to the extremely high marginal taxes on upper income ranges that were in place during the 1950’s.   The 50’s were, after all, the years when America was great, right?  The tax revenues produced by these higher marginal rates can be used to provide medical care to everyone and to revitalize our infrastructure.

A growing income disparity unravels the social fabric.  The resentment and envy that it creates may not be justified in terms of a true measure of our happiness and worth, but they are there nonetheless and are a cancer that will metastasize and invade every part of society.  No good thing will come of gross income disparity and many a bad thing may be on the horizon. 

Spreading the Wealth

A recent article in the Atlantic warns of the ‘Birth of a New American Aristocracy’.  The author defines a new 9.9 percent group, just below the formerly villainized 1 or 0.1 %ers, as the more dangerous, soon-to-be-entrenched aristocracy.  Riding just under the radar, this group has privileges that they glibly pass on to their progeny without realizing the implicit unfairness.  The so-called meritocracy of our society is a sham when examined closely, as merit can to a great extent be bought or ensured by the relative advantages of birth, neighborhood, school system, marriage, race and other factors outside the reach of human striving.

The article is well written and thought provoking.  However, it offers little in the way of antidotes to the poison of an entrenched aristocracy.  It seems to suggest that the best way to avoid a long-term disaster of radical income inequality and associated class resentment is to appeal to the individual consciences of the 9.9 percenters and hope that they will in some as-yet-to-be-defined fashion relinquish some of their many advantages. 

This is seriously naïve.  Who gives up their good fortune willingly?  What father will not ask a friend to give an interview to his daughter?  What mother will not seek out the best possible education for her son?  What aspiring professional will not seek out other aspiring professionals as life partners?  These are not criminal acts or even ethical lapses.  They are as natural as breathing and they will only be surrendered by a tiny minority of the most idealistic who have the strength of their convictions.

I advocate another means to achieve some measure of egalitarianism – spreading the wealth.  The number of capable, well-educated young people continues to grow ever higher.  In 1940 only 3.5% of the population had college degrees. Today over 35% do.  Any elite college can tell you that they receive almost identically impressive applications from many times the number of students they can enroll.  The jobs of the 9.9%ers – management consulting, physicians, law firm partners, accounting firm partners, financial firm partners, high tech executives, etc. – are a form of lottery that bestow high degrees of wealth on only a small portion of the population that could effectively occupy those positions.

The problem with today’s job and income marketplace is not that a small number of candidates achieve the ‘merit’ necessary to be successful by entrenched privileges, but rather that the highly compensated labor marketplace is too small and getting smaller!  Can anyone argue with a straight face that a law school graduate from Yale is worth the $250k/yr they are paid as an associate?  Or more importantly, that they deserve the ten-fold ratio of pay over the law school applicant who missed out on the Yale law school lottery and had to settle for a lesser school? 

There are complex and intricate reasons why our marketplace has evolved into a rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer scenario.  But with the rapidly approaching end-of-life of so many job functions and the ever-increasing expectations of a burgeoning educated class, we must begin to analyze this trend and work to unravel the Gordian knot of wage disparity and job cartels before chaos and revolution descend upon us. 

Perhaps the first step is to encourage a much smaller work week – say 20 or 30 hours – for highly paid professionals.  This would have the effect of expanding the job market in those areas.  Of course the free market would not bend in that direction without some significant encouragement.  That must come in the form of very high marginal taxes on the upper incomes.  Would this be such a hardship?  The law firm partner who formerly made $500k and now makes $250k/yr and works 20 hours a week might just grow to appreciate this new quality of life over the rat race of his formerly lucrative but drone-like professional career.

It may seem the height of naivete to suggest such a radical change in our job market, but what other meaningful choice is there?  If, as many predict, and we are already observing, the number of well—paying jobs is decreasing, then the only real solution is to share these jobs and the associated wealth.  And the only way to do that is by some fairly potent social engineering in the form of taxation and other incentives.

Elite Schools - A Contrarian View

A recent court case concerning Harvard’s apparent attempt to limit the percentage of Asian Americans in their admission process has once again brought up the topic of how incredibly competitive elite colleges have become and how desperate parents and students are to gain admission into their exalted realm.  I think everyone is focusing on the wrong question here.

I am a product of the so-called elite colleges with degrees from Stanford, MIT and Georgia Tech.  I am well acquainted with the benefits of a degree from these institutions.  I make this disclaimer at the outset because I am going to take a contrarian view to the prevailing wisdom on this issue and I believe I am qualified to do so.

The usual argument from the media, educators and businesses when hearing anguish from students rejected from elite schools is that there are many excellent institutions of learning and that anyway, one’s career is not dictated by the school that one attends, but rather by the work that is done throughout one’s career.

There is of course some truth in these common sense platitudes.  A poor performer from Harvard will eventually be ejected from the fast track and a superstar from a good public university (or even a poor one) will over time rise to the top of his or her profession given a modicum of good timing and fortune.

But in my experience and in many years of observation, elite schools do offer an amazing advantage to their fortunate graduates.  The reasons are threefold – Brand, Cronyism and Connections.

As a Stanford graduate I have found that my resume is almost always given a second look because of the brand of the school.  People who meet me are visibly impressed when they learn that I went to Stanford or MIT.  Elite universities have spent much of their endowed billions (which, by the way, are donated in a rather incestuous cycle by their successful graduates for exactly this purpose) creating and polishing their brand so that the general public, and many potential employers, are simply in awe of them.  This is not to say that these institutions do not deserve some cachet, but I am quite certain that their brand is much more powerful than it really should be, for reasons I will point out later.

When graduates of elite universities head into the marketplace, they are able to take advantage of a uniquely American cronyism that is quite astonishing.  Consulting firms, financial firms, high tech firms, law schools, business schools and a plethora of other top opportunities are doled out by executives who are graduates of these elite schools and are typically inclined, like shadowy potentates in some secret society, to seek out their elite brethren and offer them the choicest entry points into the business world.  They justify this in the name of meritocracy, because who can argue against offering elite opportunities to elite graduates?

This cronyism is one type of networking, but the benefits of an elite pedigree do not stop there.  The multiplying effect of having both friends who have graduated with you and are now on the yellow brick road of good fortune, as well as a network of former and future graduates who have also been anointed in similar fashion, is quite stunning.  It creates an outsized impact on one’s career and perpetuates itself by giving one’s children and other loved ones similar advantages.  Who can blame you for hiring your college buddy’s daughter for that fast track position?

But it’s all ok, isn’t it?  These graduates of elite universities are the best and brightest, right?  They deserve to get the best jobs and careers.  They’ve earned it.

 

Ah, there’s the rub that makes this a calamity of such long life (if I may be forgiven a slight paraphrase)!  There are, give or take, 325 million people in the U.S.   The Ivy League schools and their equivalents throughout the country (Stanford, MIT, CalTech and a few others) can admit perhaps 20,000 students each year.  It has been noted on numerous occasions that the actual admission process for these schools is the equivalent of a lottery.  There are so many qualified applicants with amazing test scores, grades and activities that they could fill up ten times the number of so-called ‘elite’ schools and still not have enough spaces.  By perpetuating a myth of these elite schools having uniquely gifted students and offering a uniquely brilliant education we have created a system that is simply another form of hereditary privilege.

Of course this will never change.  It is our uniquely American form of oligarchy - an oligarchy that takes its form in both business and government.  Is it horribly evil?  No, not really.  But it is unfair.  However, we can all take comfort in the fact that life and happiness are not closely related to power, wealth or business success.  The Stanford grad who is hired by another Stanford grad at McKinsey and then fast-tracked to an all-expenses paid MBA at Harvard three years later and then becomes a partner with a whopping million dollar a year income may in the long run be just as miserable as any other person on this planet who focuses their life and energy on making money and cultivating power.

I have experienced much of this myself and have observed it at very close quarters all my life.  Did I unduly benefit in my career from my Stanford and MIT pedigree?  Well, I am actually the exception – I deserve everything I got!  😉

The Thai Cave Rescue

I, like much of the world, was riveted by the cave rescue of the Thai soccer team.  This miraculous event has lessons on so many levels for our world.

In one sense a rescue like this seems to be a wildly extravagant and foolish use of resources.  People die tragically every day.  Why make such a massive effort to rescue 13 people who somewhat imprudently risked their lives by entering the cave at the onset of the monsoon season?

The answer is of course that human life is precious, and that something in our nature can cause us to go to extraordinary measures and conquer incredible obstacles to save another life.  We are at our best in these instances, and at a very basic level we all understand that.

What are some of the lessons we learned?  I made a list:

1. Humans from different cultures, ethnic groups, organizations and countries can work together harmoniously when they choose to do so; when there is a common goal and a result that benefits all.  
2. Don’t be frustrated or deterred by early disappointments.  The efforts to find the Thai soccer team did not produce results for over a week and there was every reason to believe that the team was no longer alive.  I read that many of the cave divers were preparing to abandon the search because of the technical difficulties, but when they saw the Thai Navy seals heading back into the cave to risk their lives with inadequate equipment and cave experience they were so moved that they changed their minds and re-committed themselves to the task. 
3. Let the experts lead the way; take advantage of skill and knowledge.  The ultimate success in finding and rescuing the team occurred because everyone deferred to the right people whose expertise guided the operation.  Many of our challenges today could benefit from acknowledging the expertise of people who have dedicated themselves to understanding and finding solutions to these problems, whether in healthcare, immigration, climate, trade, welfare, diplomacy, energy, gun control, crime or prisons.  There are experts in all of these fields. They should be driving the process rather than politicians who are pandering to the half-baked ideas of powerful businesses or wealthy individuals. 
4. Celebrate the result and whatever successes that occur in a way that promotes further harmony and community.  The Thai cave rescuers spoke as one about the teamwork and the contributions that every team member made.  Even the cave divers, who could have been singled out as celebrities, have been resolute in their rejection of any labels of heroism and have instead spoken consistently about the team effort and the amazing community of volunteers from so many countries.  Hopefully these divers will not succumb to the overwhelming media pressure to make them the heroes of the day.  We have a tendency to want to create individual superheroes rather than celebrate the heroic measures of the group. 
5. Be grateful for the good in this world and humble in receiving it.  The Thai youth that emerged from the cave showed amazing grace and gratitude for their rescue.  Their first act was to pay solemn respect and thanks to the Navy Seal who had perished in the rescue.  Their gentle nature and humble gratitude to all who had contributed to the operation was a powerful testament to the better angels of our humanity.

The search and rescue of the soccer team was not some macho military operation or a Hollywood script, though no doubt it will quickly be turned into one.  There was little in the way of posturing, bickering, grandstanding or other dramatic plot twists that beg for heroes and villains to be identified.  On the contrary, the rescue was a quiet, earnest and methodical operation with a cast of thousands and a single burning purpose – to show the world what can be done when we all work together.

Immigration – Open the Doors Wide

As I flew over the country last week it once again amazed me how little of our vast land mass is populated.  And it struck me how pathetically selfish we are to restrict immigration.  We are the richest nation in the world with the largest usable land mass and the most productive economy.  We are a land of immigrants and a melting pot of cultures and ethnic groups.  We have the occasional attribute of being incredibly compassionate and generous.  Yet we fret endlessly over the flow of immigrants over our southern border as if it were about to deal a death blow to our economy and culture.

Let’s be honest.  The immigration fear that we have is mostly about Americans of Northern European heritage becoming a minority.  It is not about economic stability or the threat of terrorism.  In terms of percentage, the immigrant flow now is no larger than our historical immigration.  But the current immigrants are generally non-European, and most are Spanish-speaking, which makes us nervous about the potential impact and change in the culture and character of our country.

The fact is that immigration has always been resented by many if not most Americans.  Each wave of immigration (Irish, German, Chinese, Eastern European, Italian, Jewish, etc.) has seemed alien and foreign to the current inhabitants.  It is a sad habit of human beings to resist change and fear its impact on their lives.  Despite being the most stridently self-proclaimed Christian nation on earth, we have rarely been able to enthusiastically embrace Jesus’s exhortation to ‘welcome the stranger’.

But there are also times when we have had the grace to celebrate our diversity and proclaim the positive effect of immigration on our land and life.  There are times when we realize how the energy and creativity of immigrants have transformed our country and made it better.

I believe we have the capacity to take in all the immigrants and refugees who are escaping war, gang violence, economic hardship and disease, and employ them usefully to grow our economy and enrich our culture.  Who is better positioned to do this than the richest country in the world with a long history of receiving immigrants?  We could grow to ten times our current population and still occupy a tiny portion of this great land.  Our rich traditions of political stability, entrepreneurship, strong work ethic, minimal corruption and social harmony are strong enough to absorb a massive influx and transform it into American citizenry with all its variety and energy.

Is it naïve to think that we could do this?  Would it overwhelm our institutions and create havoc?  It would definitely be challenging, but immigration is self-regulating to an extent anyway as job opportunities rise and fall.  And if it became a rallying cry for our country and a means to overcome the present political turmoil, then it would be well worth a few challenges!

Would Northern Europeans become a minority within the U.S.?  Probably, but so what?  Is our culture really a ‘Northern European’ culture?  What foods do we eat now?  What clothes do we wear, what arts do we celebrate, what music do we love?

 Our culture is already a mix of world cultures and it is all the richer for that fact.  Inter-marriage quickly eliminated many of the stark boundaries of prior immigration waves.  Who even notices whether someone’s ancestry is Italian, Spanish, Romanian, Russian or Polish these days?

So I say ‘open the doors wide’!  If we can be a beacon of light to the downtrodden and the desperate, what better role can there be?  In the long run, it is wiser for us to help transform the world through unparalleled generosity than to take a bunker mentality of ‘America first’ into a dystopian world future.

On Thugs and Harsh Realities

Recently a New York Times editorial columnist wrote a piece suggesting that perhaps Trump was the type of thuggish person necessary to match perverse wits with other world thugs in North Korea, Iran, Russia and China.

The longer Trump is in office the more inured we become to his childish and thuggish antics.  Out of sheer desperation for new things to write, many begin rationalizing his behavior and attempting to postulate new interpretations of his actions.

It is true that the world is often a brutal place and that foreign policy, and even economic policy, must be established with cold sobriety rather than the intoxication of idealism.  However, I do not accept the proposition that we must view everything through a lens of mistrust and cynicism.  If we abandon the goal of creating an equitable global community and replace it with a completely self-seeking, nationalist agenda – especially in light of our long-held position of wealth and dominance in the international community – then we are risking a rapid descent into conflict and bitter competition over ever-dwindling resources and spheres of influence.

True diplomacy is frustrating and tedious.  It does not try to appease, but neither does it provoke nor bluff.  Winning inequitably on one front will often lead to losses on another, or other unpleasant consequences that may not even be obvious for years.

The United States has been the dominant world power for almost one hundred years.  In recent decades the developing world seemed to be slowly catching up – China, India, Brazil, Russia and many others experiencing rapid growth and the gleeful creation of substantial middle-class segments of society.  But war, economic instability, climate change and political corruption have stalled the progress of many if not most developing countries.  We see the consequence of this paralysis in the tides of refugees and immigrants that now threaten the political stability of even the most progressive and socially conscious nations.

Pursuing an aggressive policy of ‘America first’ that simultaneously harms developing nations through tariffs and other punitive trade measures while mercilessly curtailing immigration and refugee resettlement will ultimately result in a powder keg of world chaos and despair.  The uncertain gains of such a policy will seem paltry indeed if we find ourselves surrounded by a rapidly deteriorating global civilization.  The richest nation in the history of the world with a legacy of noble ideas and generous welcoming of ‘the tired, poor and huddled masses’ can certainly do better than that!

Liberty and Social Justice

Our country was founded on the concept of liberty and this concept continues to be at the center of all the political and social turmoil that we are now experiencing.  Liberty is defined by Webster’s as follows:

the quality or state of being free:

a : the power to do as one pleases

b : freedom from physical restraint

c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control

d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

e : the power of choice

By the time of the writing of our Declaration of Independence and subsequently, our Constitution, the concept of liberty had been intensely debated and explored by a veritable who’s who of philosophers, including Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith.  Later, John Stuart Mill, in his treatise ‘Liberty’, captured many of our founders’ aims.

In a natural and ideal sense, liberty can mean the total freedom of an individual to do whatever one pleases.  But in human society liberty is defined with some restrictions in terms of a social contract.  One person’s liberty cannot impinge upon another’s for example.

Many of the first immigrants to American were seeking the liberty to practice their religious faith without persecution.  Others were attracted to the so-called New World for economic opportunity, and they sought liberty in terms of their freedom to seek their fortune with fewer taxes and bureaucratic obstacles.  They also chafed at the old European class systems that limited their opportunity for self-fulfillment.

Desperation and economic disaster were the catalysts for other immigrants.  The lofty ideals of liberty were not of immediate concern to these ‘tired, poor, huddled masses’.  The ‘yearning to breathe free’ reflected a much more basic need to be freed from slavery, serfdom, poverty and the poorhouse.

But the new land also attracted many discontents and borderline sociopaths and misanthropes – the whole anti-social spectrum of people who are not comfortable in close societal cooperation.  When one considers how radical an act it is to leave one’s family and friends for a foreign land with a high probability that one will never see them again, it is no wonder that America bred a uniquely contrarian and independent populace.

The War of Independence focused attention on the liberty of a people to form its own government and laws.  The tyranny of a remote government making decisions and establishing taxes without representation from those who were most affected was anathema to the colonists.

This concept of liberty from political tyranny was then augmented in our constitution with other basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, a universal right to vote (ignoring women and non-whites, which seriously diminishes the eternal universality of this document) and of course the endlessly confusing and controversial freedom to bear arms (a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state).

No one likes to be told what they can or cannot do.  Thus, liberty has universal appeal.   All forms of government, including the judiciary, police and military, infringe to some extent on basic liberties.  One can argue that a goal of civilization should be to have the minimum amount of government necessary to create a peaceful and harmonious society.  But the devil is in the details.

The fact is that our society has become more complex and more interwoven.  We have evolved from a nation of independent citizen-farmers to an urbanized nation with a complex web of industry and a fully integrated workforce.  The rugged individualism and political idealism of the 18^th century can no longer be held up as the model for concepts of government and liberty today.

By the mid-nineteenth century the industrial revolution rendered older models of society obsolete.  Feudal systems that at least gave some stability to the masses had been obliterated and grim urban nightmares replaced them with even harsher and more dangerous working environments.  Concepts of social justice and government activism on behalf of the poor or disenfranchised developed slowly and arrived just in time in barely adequate form to avoid worldwide revolution in the early twentieth century.  But the tension between liberty and social justice has persisted and will never be entirely resolved.

In Europe there is a recognition that society is stronger when individuals trade some elements of personal liberty in exchange for social justice.  The population density and history of Europe prepared its citizens to make this compromise. In America, the vast open spaces and frontier mentality of its citizens have created more obstacles for this type of reconciliation.

Liberty is most highly prized by those who have the luxury of a stable, well-paying job that provides for basic needs and a bit more.  Social justice – the creation of conditions that allow those on the lower end of the scale to prosper – is just as important as liberty for the smooth and harmonious functioning of a complex society.  Liberty cannot guarantee social justice, just as the free market cannot guarantee economic growth and stability.  Social justice and economic stability must be shepherded by government and social planners.  This is the simple truth.

Liberty demands that the means of creating social justice and economic stability be established with a minimum of bureaucracy and curtailment of individual freedom.  But in a society where individuals have complex and unpredictable relationships with one another, liberty cannot be deified and must be balanced with rules and regulations in a social contract that ensures social justice and a shared ‘good life’.

Alexa is Not Your Friend

Have you purchased an Echo or Google Home and started interacting with your digital overlord?  Has Alexa charmed you into thinking that your life will be so much easier with her steady hand on the helm?

One of my favorite old black and white movies is Truffaut’s Fahrenheit 451 with Julie Christie and Oskar Werner (from the book, which is also excellent, by Ray Bradbury).  The movie takes place in a futuristic, dystopian, mind-control society.  Books are illegal and burned.  The temperature required to burn paper is 451 degrees Fahrenheit, hence the name of the movie.  But the really creepy aspect of this movie is the wall-size television screen in everyone’s home that provides entertainment and also monitors the inhabitants and controls their lives with soothing, but firm instructions.

I have this feeling that Alexa and all her sisters in form and function are a trojan horse, the first step on our way to a Fahrenheit 451 society.  We already have massive TVs in our houses and they will be wall size soon enough.  How many waking hours do we while away in front of these monstrosities, binge-watching Netflix series or shouting out our pathetic exuberance at some sporting event while our bodies and minds waste away.

Alexa will be happy to free us up from tedious tasks like thinking or researching or getting up out of our seats or bed.  Want something to eat?  Let Alexa order it for you – no need to run to the store or work in the kitchen.  Need to know something?  Ask Alexa and she will tell you the answer.  You will probably forget it by the next day because you didn’t really make any real effort to learn it, but so what?  Is it too hot or cold?  Alexa will fix that so that you don’t have to go to the trouble of actually manipulating the thermostat.  In fact, pretty soon you will not even know there is such a thing as a thermostat, or even what temperature is.  You will just be very, very comfortable.