Money and Politics - A Toxic Combination

Ponder running for public office.  You want to serve your country and perhaps ultimately become a member of congress or a senator.  How would you start the process?  One path is to run for a local office, a county or city commissioner perhaps, and then slowly work your way up to more senior positions.  But even at the lowest levels of elected office it is necessary to raise money or spend your own.  One needs flyers and posters.  There are meetings to host.

At higher levels the amount of money necessary to run for office is staggering.  Even a modest run at a congressional seat requires over a million dollars on average.  For the senate, it is a whopping ten million!  Unsurprisingly, the necessary amount has risen dramatically since the supreme court case of Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission that basically allowed unlimited spending by corporations to influence elections.  The total for presidential elections now exceeds a billion dollars each election cycle.  Here is the growth in presidential election spending from 1976 to 2016 (blue is money raised and black is money spent)

When you add congressional election spending the total explodes to over $6B in the 2016 election cycle!  And the 2018 election spending was $5.7B just for congress.  Compare this to 2000 - $3B – and you can see the rapid growth.  In this spreadsheet the column on the left is the total, the next column is the congressional spending and the third column is the presidential spending.

Running for office is a money game rather than a process of finding good citizens to represent the people.  A friend of mine recently ran for congress.  He spent most of his time fundraising and contributed quite a bit of his own money.  The only reason he was able to compete at all was due to a large network of relatively wealthy friends.  There are rare exceptions to this rule, the recent election of AOC being a good example, but generally, election to higher office is limited to people with lots of money and connections.

How does our election process and campaign spending compare with other developed countries?  The costs for elections in France, Germany and the UK are a tiny fraction of those of the U.S.  Most other developed nations limit their election process to a few weeks or months before elections, whereas the U.S. is in almost a continuous election process.  

In other countries many of the election costs are publicly financed and parties are limited to a few spots on television and radio.  Candidates spend very little time running for office except for the weeks before the election.  They almost never do personal fundraising – the emphasis is on the party and its platform rather than individual candidates.

And the irony is that the percentage of eligible voters who vote in the U.S. is close to the bottom of the developed nations – about 58% in the last presidential election and much less in non-presidential years.  Of course, that may be due to the obstacles placed in front of potential voters – the registration process, the fact that elections occur on workdays, etc.

What does all this money do to our political ecosystem?  If a candidate relies on powerful and wealthy individuals or interest groups to fund his or her campaign, then clearly there is an expectation of quid pro quo from these groups.  Donors may say otherwise – that they are supporting a candidate because they believe in the person and their political beliefs – but if a candidate needs large amounts of money to stay in office then it is illogical and naïve to believe that he or she will not act in a way that ensures the continuing flow of those funds.  Money buys influence.

The growth in spending in our elections seems likely to be intimately related to the rancor in our politics.  With so much money being spent, the stakes grow ever higher for political actors and they stake out more extreme positions with less room for compromise or negotiation.  Donors and PACs are not giving huge sums because they have moderate political aims.  On the contrary, the more radical the agenda, the more generous the spending.  The radical nature of the giving and expectations is amplified dramatically through social media.  The actual election spending is dwarfed by the money spent to sway voters through facebook, youtube and their more unsavory cousins on the fringes.

Our political health would benefit from a massive overhaul of our election process.  Here are some suggestions:

1. Limit the timeframe for the campaign process.  Primaries should be 1 month, and the final election process should be 3 months for the President, 2 months for congress.
2. Spending for each party should be limited based on the election.  Platform descriptions and campaign ads should be reviewed by a bi-partisan panel for ‘reasonable’ accuracy.
3. A single website for detailed information about the candidates and parties should be maintained by an election commission as a way for every citizen to fully access accurate and less partisan data.
4. Elections should be held on Sundays and early on-line voting should be made easily accessible for all voters.

If we do nothing to address the growing chaos and waste of our political process, then we face a very frightening future of instability and civil discord.

In Praise of Creativity

What is creativity?  Does every human being yearn to create?  Are we all capable of being creative? Is creating things a necessary component of our happiness or is it a rare gift that only a small percentage of human beings possess?

In our culture the adjective ‘creative’ is used as a way to identify especially gifted people who excel in music or the visual arts or sometimes, in business.  The implication is that some people are creative, while most are not.  The creative ones are setting the cultural agenda, while the rest of us are spectators and followers.

The result of this application of the concept of creativity is that most of us give up any claim on creativity and abandon our creative efforts early in life.  We cease learning that musical instrument, we stop drawing or painting, we tear up our early efforts in story writing or essays, we only sing when inebriated or in the shower, we give up on acting or mimicry, and we meekly submit to the dictate that tells us we are the audience and the ‘creative’ are the creators.

We can hardly be blamed for our retreat from these creative pastimes.  The pervasive evidence of our mediocrity compared to the virtuosity of the cultural icons insidiously robs us of our motivation to cultivate our own skills unless our talents are glaringly obvious or our drive is indomitable.  Why even try?  We will never attain those heights, so what’s the use?

But wait, the creative impulse still burns within us, and it often finds an outlet in other less culturally intimidating ventures.  We create interesting meals, we bake bread, we work in our gardens, we perform creative handyman tasks, we do woodworking, we refurbish old cars, we arrange and decorate our houses or apartments.  There are a thousand hobbies and avocations that we undertake to provide some means of ‘creating’ something.  We are clearly creatures who need to create!

Perhaps the biggest impediment to our creativity is the idea that our creative efforts must command an audience or be at a competitive level with the superstars we see on social media.  If one sits down and writes a song or a story, or paints a watercolor landscape, does it really matter whether the result is seen or heard by others?  It may be helpful to get constructive criticism or guidance from others to hone one’s creativity, but I believe that the creative act is worthwhile even if it is only experienced by the creator.  Most of the rest is vanity.  Perhaps creativity without reward is even purer and more satisfying in some basic spiritual way.

Think of all the creative output that has gone unnoticed and forgotten over the millennia.  There are probably moments of genius that never reached the public, never gave joy to others.  But they, and all the other billions of creative acts, from ingenious to trivial, gave joy and a sense of accomplishment to their creators.  We betray ourselves if we surrender our creativity because we will not be recognized or celebrated for it.  Most celebrity is short-lived.  And even the brightest stars are extinguished over time. 

The essence of human life is creation.   We should allow our hearts and our native curiosity to direct our passions and be indifferent to whether any acclaim comes our way.

Of Normites, Neanderthals and Neo-Luddites

A while back I did a crash course in woodworking.  Not wanting to spend a lot of money before I determined whether the hobby would persist, I made several pieces of furniture using mostly hand tools.  (The term furniture is used loosely here – my pieces won’t win any awards!)  In my Internet searches to understand how to use these tools I came upon a very interesting cultural phenomenon:  The rift between ‘normites’ and ‘neanderthals’.

Normites are named after the well-known PBS woodworker Norm Abrams, who hosted This Old House and the New Yankee Workshop for many years.  Norm had a power tool for every possible application.  Normites, like Norm, are woodworkers who love power tools and will always prefer to use a power tool over a hand tool to make life easier and make the project go faster.

Neanderthals, on the other hand, are named after the prehistoric predecessors (and apparently distant relatives) to homo sapiens who would have only used hand tools, if indeed they used many tools at all!  Modern woodworking Neanderthals eschew all power tools and almost exclusively use hand tools.  They search all over for old hand planes, chisels and dovetail saws to restore and bring back to life.  They are perfectly happy sacrificing time and efficiency for the joy of working wood by hand and avoiding the noise and dust that are inevitable byproducts of power tools.

As I researched the techniques and tools that Neanderthals used and perused the various online discussions and blogs, I made an interesting observation.  Many Neanderthals were computer programmers or university professors.  This seemed counter-intuitive as first, as you might think that well-educated technology professionals would use the latest power tools.  But apparently these Neanderthals perceived their woodworking hobby as an escape from the oppressive onslaught of technology, a refuge of sorts.

This dichotomy between Normites and Neanderthals is in some ways quite similar to the difference in mindset and philosophical inclination that influences many of our choices in pastimes, entertainment and sport.  The sailor versus the motor boat fanatic, the cross-country skier versus the snowmobiler, the cyclist versus the biker, the hiker versus the hunter, the book reader versus the TV watcher, the chess player versus the video gamer.

Technology fascinates us, but it can also repel us.  Each new wave of technological innovation pushes us further from direct contact with some aspects of our world.  It makes life easier, faster, more efficient, but does it make it better?  My iphone seems indispensable these days, and on the rare occasions when I forget it at home, I feel quite adrift.  But would I be better to sever that umbilical cord and live a different sort of life?

The Luddites were a secret group of artisans and craftsmen that destroyed machinery in the early stages of the industrial revolution.  They feared the loss of their livelihood and being forced into low wage, low skill industrial jobs.  The movement was very harshly suppressed, and machinery destruction was made a capital crime punishable by execution or transportation to penal colonies.  Lord Byron, the Romantic poet, was one of their few champions in English society.

It is clearly romantic naivete and self-indulgence to wish for a less technology-saturated world.  Agricultural machinery and fertilizer chemistry have made it feasible for the world to be fed reliably without constant fear of famine (though we have yet to master the political and social skills to achieve it).  Medical and pharmaceutical technology, sanitation and other advances have extended life and health dramatically.  Our entertainment and activity options are vastly greater because of the many technological innovations.

Yet there is a certain contrarian allure to being a neo-Luddite, that amorphous and undeclared modern movement that seeks to find metaphysical and spiritual solace in time spent away from our technology addiction.  Working in one’s garden with a hoe and spade, reading a good book in a dusty library, walking through woods without air pods, or yes, working wood by hand without the whine of a table saw or an orbital sander.

We will never willingly return to a simpler, less technology-driven society, though the current assembly of dark clouds on the horizon may signal some significant unwilling changes in the near future.  But individually we may find it restorative, and even necessary, to occasionally unplug and embrace the world without the encumbrance of our devices and machines.  Perhaps it will help us to feel less estranged and disoriented in this crazy world.

Neo-luddites of the world unite!  You have nothing to lose but your anxiety!

The Sad Appeal of the Modern Gladiator

Sometimes, during the rare occasions when I am reading about sports online, videos of UFC fights or other MMA or boxing matches appear on the screen.  These short videos typically depict a particularly vicious set of punches or kicks.  One of the fighters is being pummeled over and over with absolutely no mercy or relief. The videos are clearly intended to appeal to the type of men who are attracted to such brutality.  I have to look away.

I am no prude, nor am I averse to physical challenges.  I wrestled and played soccer throughout my life and could hold my own in rough play.  But I find it sickening to watch human beings battering one another with the sole purpose of proving physical dominance and causing pain or injury.

Many men are fascinated by combat sports, just as they are fascinated by the exploits of SEALs or other military superstars.  Football, hockey and a few other non—combat sports also feature plenty of brutality, which is a large part of their allure. Attempts to limit particularly violent or dangerous hits in football or to eliminate fights in hockey have been stymied by the public’s bloodlust for these aspects of the sports.

Why are many men (and it is primarily men - women seem much less interested) so bewitched by this kind of savagery?  Are we biologically programmed to seek and celebrate violence?  Is this a kind of evolutionary attribute that was ‘naturally selected’ to allow us to survive and prosper in a violent world?

After all, nature is violent.  Predator and prey – one animal is another’s meal and means of survival.  The beautiful world around us appears to be an idyllic natural setting but is actually a deadly war zone with every creature on full alert either seeking out something to kill or hoping to elude death for another day. 

Watching a nature program can be just as unsettling as viewing an MMA fight.  I find it very unpleasant to see one animal attacking, killing and then devouring another.  But that is the way life remains balanced in the natural world.  No lions are lying down with the lambs yet, and if they did it would require a rather dramatic shift in the eating habits of all the earth’s creatures.  Maybe we need to initiate a worldwide carnivore to herbivore animal counseling and conversion effort?

 

But are human beings destined to remain mired in the same ‘survival of the fittest’ primordial bog that the rest of nature inhabits?  Isn’t the whole history of human civilization one of a gradual rejection of our violent and warlike traits and a cultivation of new, cooperative attributes – technology and invention, collaboration, artistic expression, sport, industry, spirituality, humor, humility?

During the Roman Empire the people flocked to see men fight to the death in gladiatorial combat.  The Romans celebrated warfare and the ability to kill because their empire was built on conquest, subjugation and slavery.

Our modern gladiators are our football and hockey players, UFC fighters and boxers.  There are elements of sport and skill in their combat that allow us to pretend that we are not watching with only a morbid interest in the violence, but the gleeful way we celebrate the bone-crunching hit in football or the gloves-off pugilism in hockey belies this self-delusion.  There is no illusion at ringside for the UFC or boxing matches.  They are pure gladiators and the spectators are the bloodthirsty Roman mob.

One might argue that this type of combat sport allows men to satisfy their crueler instincts in a controlled, less harmful environment and thus hopefully avoid the lust for actual warfare and combat that has characterized so much of our history.  And of course, there will always be the need for combat-trained people with a willingness to employ ferocity and rage to fight evildoers.  But hopefully ever fewer men should be needed in this type of role.

Is our fascination with violence, as evidenced by much of our entertainment and game industry, an indication that we are by nature violent creatures and that any attempt to wean us from this diet of savagery is doomed to failure?  Our anger and volatility, the emotional allies to violence, are clearly visible in our daily lives – the road rage, the bar fights, the domestic violence.  Is our penchant for violence simply another of the contradictory and inscrutable aspects of human nature that will never be fully understood or controlled?

I choose to believe that we are malleable machines with a noble spirit that can be cultivated to reign over our intemperate components.  We may not be able to completely subdue those parts of us that hearken to brutality, and perhaps we need a certain level of unpredictable emotion and passion to make life interesting, but I also believe that we are doing ourselves no favor by delivering an endless stream of cruelty and violence in our movies, games and sports.

Moral Decay - Getting Past the Tropes and the Hype

In a recent speech at the University of Notre Dame, Trump’s Attorney General William Barr decried the relentless attacks by ‘secularism’ on the world’s religious heritage.  He portrayed the last 50 years as a moral decline due primarily to the rise of secularism and its nefarious side effects.

This speech is a reflection of one of the basic tenets at the heart of the current culture wars.  Many in the U.S. believe that we are in a pitched battle between the forces of good – i.e. the Christians – and the forces of evil – i.e. the agnostics, atheists, Muslims, socialists, communists, progressives, etc.

The catalog of ills that are supposedly the result of having our religious institutions ‘under attack’ and losing our Judeo-Christian morality includes abortion, illegitimate children, birth control, promiscuous sexual behavior, drug abuse, suicide, same-sex marriages and violence to name a few.  

Barr makes the argument that the march of civilization is due primarily to the influence of religious institutions in concert with our divinely-inspired embrace of liberty and freedom, and that the rise of humanist or secular thought and moral relativism is eroding the moral fiber of our nation.

The first response to Barr’s diatribe is a healthy skepticism about the data.  Drug and alcohol abuse, suicides, illegitimacy, euthanasia and other ills have long histories and cannot be laid at the feet of the so-called attack of secularism on moral principles.  According to WHO statistics, the suicide rate in the U.S. along with most countries has been more or less flat since 1950 when it was first collected.  Teenage pregnancy has declined by 70% in the past 20 years.  Barr's Trump-like portrait of a nation in moral free-fall is simply a dark self-delusion.

In fact, the last 50-70 years have brought in a period of relative peace, prosperity and happiness that is unique in human history.  Many of the current tragedies of opioid deaths, depression and loss of purpose are more directly attributable to changes in our economy, social media and a looming sense that we are at war with one another than any loss of moral compass.  Barr and his hyper-religious associates are contributing to this discord, not helping it.

If indeed our purported moral decline is due to a lack of religious affiliation and influence, then perhaps we need to look for inspiration to a period when religion was supreme.  How about the Middle Ages?  That was certainly a period of intense religious fervor and allegiance. Everyone was a Christian – no agnostics or atheists lurking around in those days!  And what a tremendous moral example that era is!  Witch burnings, heretic burnings, wholesale slaughter of innocents by warring monarchs, many of which were sanctioned if not directly initiated by the same Catholic church that Barr so loyally lauds today. 

It was also a time when the great majority of people were enslaved as serfs and women had absolutely no rights.  Was that part of the absolute morality to which Barr wishes to return?  If religious institutions had not been forced to adapt to humanist and progressive ideals over the last two hundred years, then women would still be virtual slaves and not enjoying the rights and opportunities that they have today.

Barr is also convinced that the Founders' religious spirit has been lost and that we would be wise to emulate their moral rectitude.  He might want to sound out a few Native Americans and some African Americans about the Founders' morality before he gets too sentimental.  Interestingly, many of the Founders were Deists and steeped in the questioning spirit of the Enlightenment, unlikely to agree with Barr on many doctrinal points.

And if secularism is indeed accelerating the decline of western civilization, then certainly Europe must be in the most advanced stage of decline, as secularism is almost universal there and churches are more or less empty.  But wait, Europe has far less violence, less people in prison, similar suicide rates, less drug abuse and more social harmony than the U.S. by almost any measure.  What’s going on?

I understand the disorientation that Barr and his fellow travelers feel in today’s culture.  Sexual mores have changed dramatically, gay people have come out of the closet and been given the right to marry, birth control (gasp!) is being used by an ever-increasing percent of the population, making pre-marital sex commonplace.  Movies, the Internet and TV have mature themes with lots of profanity, sex and violence.  Abortion is legal and, though declining rapidly due to increased availability of birth control (no thanks to the Catholic church!), fairly commonplace.  Drug use is rampant, alcoholism still ruins many lives and families, and suicide continues to be a disturbingly frequent escape for many people.

Some of these cultural phenomena are disturbing, some are simply the way human society is evolving.  Is there an absolute morality we can apply to any of these trends?  Hasn’t morality always been, to some extent, relative?  The commandment says do not kill or murder, yet we bombed civilian targets in every war in the last century on the basis of the ‘relative’ morality of the just war theory. 

Is sex immoral outside of marriage?  Can anyone reasonably argue that sexual conduct can be dictated by some absolute moral principle or set of rules?  Sexual behavior can hurt people and we draw the line clearly at rape and child pornography, but as in so many things, it is the spirit of kindness and respect that must guide our sexual behavior, not some relic of a religious doctrine that once justified slavery and stoning of adulterers.

Mr. Barr and his fellow religious fundamentalists (who, by the way, only represent a minority of religious thought - there are many Christians who think very differently) are not comfortable with ambiguity.  They need rigid structures in their belief system as a bulwark against doubt and insecurity.  But alas, life is not so simply categorized and legislated.

Is there really any substantive difference between the moral and ethical guidance that comes from religious education and a secular or humanist one?  I have many relatives and friends who were brought up in totally non-religious homes and they are incredibly well-balanced, ethical human beings.  They may have much more tolerant views of sexuality (including gay marriage) and abortion, but are these really the issues that determine the moral course of human history?  Isn’t the morality of social justice, peacemaking, generosity and environmental sustainability more relevant to our hopes for the future than the personal moral issues that Barr and the religious right seem obsessed with?

The practices of faith and spirituality are important aspects of human experience.  The mystery of our origins, existence and purpose, and the anxieties over our mortality, will always have a powerful effect on our lives and our beliefs.  Even with the move away from structured religion, most people still believe there is something more to life than our material selves.  This sense of spirit or significance informs our passion for human rights and the associated morality and ethics. 

But the march of time has also caused us to question and ultimately reject many of the outmoded doctrines and rules of our ancestors, just as we have adjusted our understanding of science and every other human enterprise.  This, Mr. Barr, is progressive, secular thinking.  It does not wish to prevent you from clinging to your good old religion.  Rather it would ask you to take the best of that religion – for example the great bulk of Jesus’s teachings – and adapt it to the ever-changing world that is a simple fact that every one of us must face.

The Unalterable Absurdities of Consumerism

It has always struck me as one of the great ironies of history, or perhaps a cosmic practical joke, that one of the most powerful forces in the last 100 years is a company that sells sugared water – Coca Cola.  With a current market cap of about $250 billion and an empire that spans the globe, Coke is indeed the real thing if we are to believe that wealth and power are the real thing.

Living in Atlanta, one meets a lot of Coke employees.  There is almost a cult-like loyalty that is nurtured in the more senior executives.  Visiting the Coke museum is fascinating, as it somehow convinces one that Coke truly has some kind of proud spiritual element, that it has changed the world for the better. 

Well, it has certainly changed it in one way – it has made countless millions obese and diabetic!

We are a consuming world.  Materialism may sometimes get a bad rap in our folk songs and our church services, but that is mostly a smokescreen of self-deceptive lip service.  We love to consume.  We baby boomers spent a few years rebelling against it, but we quickly abandoned that affectation and went all in on consumerism.  Indeed, we consume far more than our depression-era parents ever did and we no longer even pretend to subscribe to any higher principles that might limit our consumption.

Consumption is the basis of our economy, right?  More consuming means a healthier economy and lots of jobs.  It seems almost disloyal or unpatriotic to avoid spending up to the very edge of our income.  And it appears that many in our culture go well beyond their income, as credit card debt and home equity loans climb to staggering heights.

But we don’t need to do any deep contemplation or rationalization about the topic, because we are brainwashed on a daily basis and expertly manipulated and coaxed to each new purchase.  Guess where the biggest two juggernauts of the modern tech area get their revenue – advertising!  Facebook and Google may offer social media and search services, but their business is advertising.  Constant, subliminal, creepily personalized and relentless advertising.  Every service and technological marvel they offer is wrapped in an inescapable package of ads.

And the other, even larger leviathan of our modern consumer economy is Amazon.  Every wish fulfilled and to your doorstep in a day or two!  Give us our daily Amazon delivery and allow us to fully indulge our sins, and lead us into every temptation, for thine is the power and the glory!

We bemoan the materialism of our world, or at least some of us do, but the great majority of us keeps on buying.  We find no substitute for the pleasure of acquiring new toys or spending freely to seek out new experiences.

The life of an ascetic has a certain cerebral appeal.  We know deep down that we would benefit in many ways from a less acquisitive lifestyle.  But our friends and family are beckoning for us to join them at that expensive restaurant or on that next trip.  And we do really look much more fashionable in that new outfit!  How can we take up that new hobby unless we invest in the appropriate accoutrement?  How can we stay fit without a health club membership and a few nice exercise machines at home?

Let’s face it, we are indentured servants to our culture and its mantra of ‘SPEND’.  It will take more than a few years of counterculture posturing to move the needle in any significant way.  But maybe the earth itself will rein in our out-of-control consumerism?  Perhaps it will demand immediate payment on the debt we have run up in natural resources and pollution and insist that we balance the ecological budget.  Mother Nature has been a very forgiving banker up to now, but we may have tested her patience beyond its limits.

The Drug War Debacle

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.  – George Santayana

This aphorism can be applied to so many human follies, but it is particularly relevant to our disastrous approach to drugs.  The lessons of the alcohol prohibition in the 20’s seem pretty clear, but somehow they have failed to inform our societal response to the problem of drug abuse.  Almost everyone, - politicians, policymakers, law enforcement and social scientists – agrees that the so-called war on drugs has been an abject failure, but much like our other endless, nightmare wars – Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan – it goes on and on and on.

Let’s look at some facts: 

• It is estimated that we have spent over a trillion dollars fighting the drug war since it was declared by Richard Nixon in 1971.  The annual spend is estimated at around $47 billion.  This includes DEA and other enforcement agencies, judicial and court costs, and incarceration.
• If drugs were legalized and taxed at similar rates to alcohol and cigarettes, the incoming revenue would be around $58 billion.
• This means that over $100 billion dollars would be available to combat drug addiction as a social rather than a criminal problem.
• The proliferation of illegal weapons due to drug crime is astronomical
• Between 25 and 30% of property crime is drug-related.
• About 1/5 of all incarcerations are drug-related.
• It has exacerbated our racial conflict - black drug users are 6 times more likely to be incarcerated than white users and serve much longer sentences.
• Blacks and latinos make up 60% of those serving time for drug offenses but are less than 32% of the population.
• Our illegal drug trade has had catastrophic effects on Mexico, most of Central America and several countries in South America, and is a major factor in increased illegal/undocumented immigration and the breakdown of those societies.

The use of drugs by Americans is summarized in this graph:

Despite massive efforts to interdict drugs coming into the U.S. and the incarceration of vast numbers of drug users and sellers, the number of people using illicit drugs on a monthly basis has not changed much over the last 50 years.  This graph shows the trend from 2002 to 2013:

Ever so slowly, there is recognition in our political realm that the war on drugs is a total failure and that steps must be taken to change the status quo.  There are some significant efforts underway.  The first is the use of alternative sentencing programs that focus more on rehabilitation for drug users.  The second is the legalization of recreational marijuana, which has now occurred in 11 states.  An additional 22 have made medical marijuana legal.

I just read a book, Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari, that makes a very strong, data-driven argument for de-criminalizing all drugs.  This may seem like a radical proposition that would result in much higher drug usage and societal problems, but the data Hari presents and the programs he surveys in various countries argue that the exact opposite would occur.

Understanding the nature of drug use and addiction is critical to minimizing it.  Trauma, depression, hopelessness, poverty, unemployment, sickness and other factors play a large role.  These are not easy problems to solve, but putting people who use drugs in prison and making their addiction a Russian roulette of costly drug acquisition and overdose risks only makes these problems worse.

Like so many other problems we face, the time has come to search for solutions in a methodical, bi-partisan manner.  Drug legalization is not as clearly partisan as one might think.  Many conservatives and libertarians have proposed marijuana legalization in the past, and one has the impression that conservatives would be open to allowing research and studies on various treatment options.  It is time to jettison the war on drugs and focus our resources and attention on managing the social problem of drug abuse just as we did 90 years ago when we repealed prohibition and found ways to live with alcohol.

The Cancer of American Incarceration

There is no starker example of the contradictory nature of the USA’s exceptionalism than our prison system.  We have 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prisoners.  Our normalized (adjusted for population size) incarceration rate is many times the rate of any other developed nation and is in the same category as such ‘exceptional’ nations as Russia and Iran.  Indeed, we can boast of an even higher level than those countries!

Here is a map of the world prison population depicted in colors:

This prison mania accelerated monstrously from 1980 to 2000 and is now very slowly declining.  Here are three graphs depicting the growth of our correctional world.  The first one shows the total numbers of people in various states of correction, the second shows prison population, and the third shows the growth of the % of the population incarcerated over time.

There is currently a bi-partisan effort underway to address the extreme nature of our prison industry, but the ramifications of this 30 year orgy of incarceration will be with us for a long time.

Not only do we incarcerate more people than any other nation, we also do the poorest job of rehabilitating them.  Our system’s mantra is punishment, not rehabilitation, and we have rates of recidivism that reflect that misguided policy.  Over 77% of prisoners released in 2005 were arrested again by 2010.  Over 43% are arrested within the first year.  Compare this to European countries, where the focus is on rehabilitation and the recidivism rate is well below 50%. 

People who have a criminal record have a very difficult time re-entering society.  Job opportunities are scarce (who wants a ‘criminal’ as a new employee?), their primary group of friends and acquaintances is very likely to consist of ex-cons who may tempt them to return to criminal activities, their families may have distanced themselves during their incarceration, they cannot vote or hold many types of jobs, and they are much more susceptible to depression, suicide, drug or alcohol abuse and many other ills.

To a great extent society gives up on people who go to prison.  And the consequential costs to society are staggering.  The largest visible cost is the incarceration itself and the justice system that surrounds it.  More police, more courts, more judicial officials, more jails, more prisons, more probation officers – the list goes on and on.  And then there are the unseen costs – the loss of these people as contributing members of society, the impact of their imprisonment on their families, and particularly their children, the material and psychological impact of their criminality on our social fabric.

Underlying all of these sad facts is our nation’s unresolved problem of race.  Black men comprise 37% of the prison population in the U.S. though they are only 16% of the overall population.  Blacks are given significantly longer prison sentences than whites for the same crimes.  There can be no denying that these facts are a dismal legacy of slavery and the unfinished reconstruction of our society after freedom was granted. 

There are two sides to the racial crime coin.  One is that blacks are undoubtedly profiled and targeted for investigation much more aggressively than whites, especially in drug-related crimes.  The other side is that blacks do commit more violent crimes than whites, with the great majority being black on black crime.  However, black crime is a huge fear factor for white people, and much of our over-zealous incarceration over the last 30 years is due to a kind of hysteria that afflicted white people and influenced lawmakers to act aggressively.

What is clear is that ever-increasing incarceration as punishment is not the long term answer to crime.  Excellent examples of rehabilitation techniques do exist in the world, especially in Nordic countries – Norway, Sweden, Denmark.  Our current prison system is a frighteningly dangerous, dysfunctional hell that is more likely to create career criminals than do any rehabilitation at all.  If we are not willing to reform our system and dedicate the necessary resources to oppose this trend of vengeance over forgiveness, then we will be doomed to a vicious cycle of increasing crime and alienation in our society.

Idolize Ideas not People

Human history is a complex web of ideas, people and progress on many different fronts.  If progress can be understood as a type of change that generally moves human society in a positive direction, then one can chart progress in many different areas: technology (including all the sciences and mathematics), language, commerce, ethics, political systems and so on.  Some areas of change are not necessarily positive areas of advancement.  For example, I would describe religion and military change as often retarding the advance of civilization, though certainly they have at times had effects that can be argued as salutary.

Each of these areas has its heroes at different phases of progress that our civilization has acknowledged and placed on pedestals.  Our world is littered with monuments and statues of past heroes, and our history books extol the virtues of these titans with unabashed adoration.  More recently, a whole cottage industry has developed that produces lengthy biographical tomes that catalog the minutest details of the lives of various well-known historical figures.

The Great Man Theory, which became popular in the 19th century, posited that history was defined by the acts of 'great men' and that most of what has been accomplished in this world is due to heroic efforts by a few great men, which then allowed the masses to follow their genius and build upon it.

But as we have investigated the lives of our storied figures, we have routinely discovered that all of them have feet of clay, and that they are, unsurprisingly, all too human.  How often have we spent decades extolling the many virtues of some lionized hero only to be bitterly disappointed as a multitude of sins or ethical lapses come to light?  Moreover, if we look closely at their contributions, we see that they stand on the shoulders of countless unsung others who did as much, if not more, to bring about the advances for which they are heralded. 

For human progress is very rarely a step function or a quantum leap.  On the contrary, it is a slow, dogged march with many a misstep and a long litany of mini-triumphs before a major breakthrough or accomplishment can be cited.

It is humankind itself, in all its striving and hopefulness that relentlessly pushes our civilization forward and deserves our praise.  It is the efforts of the many, not the genius of a few, that allow us to refine our world and polish its rough edges.  It is a thousand experiments in a dozen laboratories, and the ensuing exchange of ideas and techniques, that brings the ‘eureka’ moment.  It is the intellectual heritage of hundreds of writers, philosophers and poets that allows a few well-positioned men to write a Declaration of Independence or a Bill of Rights.

It may be intriguing, and even instructive, to study the lives of men or women who have been present at pivotal times in our history.  It is a very human trait to be curious about other people’s lives and how they end up playing important roles.  To the extent that this veneration can inspire others to contribute to society it may even be somewhat warranted. 

But the hagiography of other human beings is a slippery slope that veers toward a worship of fame and fortune rather than a more appropriate love of the ideas that undergird their accomplishments.  And in my view the worship of fame and fortune is one of the great ills of our society.

The worship of truth and enduring principles is far more helpful than the idolization of a mythologized human actor who plays a role in the drama of unveiling that truth.  It is the pursuit and embrace of ideas and ideals that will draw us upward - let us love them instead!

The Fed and the Naivete of Economic 'Control'

I taught IB mathematics at Atlanta International School for three years and have had more than my share of math courses in my life.  The classic question from frustrated or intimidated students was:  “When will I ever use this stuff!”

It is true that most people will rarely be tasked to solve algebraic equations or identify minimums or calculate derivatives in their work life.  But I would argue that an understanding of math and physics gives one an insight into the way that ‘systems’ behave that is invaluable in understanding many aspects of life.  And not just physical systems like planets, airplanes and human bodies, but also systems such as social systems, economics, political systems and general human behavior.

I did a masters degree focused on system dynamics and control theory, which I found to be a fascinating insight into almost everything!  The basic concept is that systems can be modelled mathematically and then controlled by either open loop or closed loop control scenarios.  Open loop means that the control is done with no feedback from the system itself and closed loop means that the feedback is used to alter the control input.

A simple example of a closed loop control system is an elevator.  The control input is the control signal to the motor that raises or lowers the elevator.  The position of the elevator is the measured quantity that is used as feedback to determine whether to increase or decrease the motor speed.  As the elevator gets closer to its desired position (floor), the motor speed decreases and is eventually stopped.

An elevator is a single input, single output system – very simple.  An airplane is an example of a much more complex system.  There are multiple control inputs – throttle, flap positions, rudder position, etc. – and there are multiple measured quantities that must be used as feedback to control the airplane – air speed, pitch, roll, yaw, elevation, etc.   This is a multi-input, multi-output system. 

Controlling an airplane is very complex, but fortunately the dynamic behavior of airplanes can be modelled quite successfully, and control algorithms can be mathematically derived.  Airplanes can be operated completely by computerized automatic pilots.

There are two critical questions for every system: (1) is the system ‘observable’ – i.e. are the available measurements sufficient to understand how the system is behaving?  And (2) is the system ‘controllable’ – i.e. are the control inputs sufficient to actually control the system?  To determine the answer to these questions one must have an excellent model of the system and its control inputs and measurements.  The more complex the system, the more likely it is that multiple measurements and control inputs will be necessary to 'observe' and 'control' the system.

 

Our economy is about as complex a system as one can imagine.  Attempts have been made to model it, but there are so many non-deterministic aspects of economic behavior (consumer attitude/action, political impact, weather, war, etc.) that models are at best a way to convey concepts and trends rather than accurate portrayals of behavior.  The economy is clearly a multi-input, multi-output system.  The lack of a comprehensive and accurate model makes it very challenging to derive any true control algorithm.

It is not clear whether the measurements we have of our economy are sufficient to make it ‘observable’ from a control point of view.   Similarly, it is also clear that multiple control inputs would be necessary to control such a complex system, if indeed it is ‘controllable’.

The primary ‘control’ input for our economy is the interest rate that the Federal Reserve (the Fed) establishes.  In times of stability and small perturbations of the economy, the use of this control input can seem to be effective in controlling many aspects of the economy.  But it is absurd to believe that this single control input can truly ‘control’ the economy in any real sense.  I suspect that most serious economists know this, as quantitative economics is a fairly well-developed discipline.

When the economy goes into recession, attempts are made to use other controls to bring it back to a healthier state.  Examples are deficit spending such as infrastructure investments, unemployment aid, quantitative easing and, in some cases, austerity measures.  There is great debate over whether these measures should be initiated and whether they are effective.  The simple truth is that there is really no way to know without a comprehensive model of the economy, which is unlikely to ever be derived.

When the economy has serious disruptions, the Fed is more or less helpless in guiding it to a more stable situation.  In these scenarios, the lack of ‘controllability’ of the economy is apparent and the world can only take shots in the dark to attempt to fix the problems.  It is naïve to believe otherwise, though many will claim to have the answer!  Fortunately, the economy is generally self-correcting, though not without a lot of pain and misery in the interim.

Free Market Education?

Milton Friedman became a conservative rock star by espousing the idea that every societal function could be dramatically improved by making it part of the ‘free market’.  In the religious pantheon of true-believer capitalists, Milton is right up there with Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, William Buckley, Friedrich Hayek and a few others.

One of Milton’s most famous assertions is that education needs to be privatized.  Parents should be given a ‘voucher’ for education and they should have freedom of choice.  This, in Milton’s opinion, would create a competitive industry for schools that would ensure high quality education and provide a means for low-income students to escape the poor educational environment that currently exists.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable.  Why not have schools compete for students?  Wouldn’t this result in better run schools with great results?  Wouldn’t the competition be the crucible out of which an excellent education would emerge?

But is education close enough to traditional capitalist endeavors to work in this model?  How is the success of education measured?  If schools become commodities that parents choose based on effectiveness, how will the logistics work?  Will ten first-graders in a neighborhood be going to ten different schools all over the city as the parents attempt to find the best school for their child?  How would transportation work in such a scenario?  What kind of sociological nightmare would that engender?

The first question that needs to be answered is whether schools are indeed broken today.  From a public perception perspective, it is not entirely clear what people think.  About 75% of parents are happy with their oldest child’s education, while only 50% of the general public is happy with education in general.   This is similar to the fact that only 16% of people have faith in the government yet 75% like their own representatives!!

 And in the last 5 years the partisan divide has worked its way into these polls.   Republicans are more likely to be unhappy with public education than democrats.  There is some suspicion that the Common Core plays a big role in this divide, as more conservative parents regard this as a governmental way to control and impact the culture through education.

What is clearly broken is education for the poor.   Schools in poor neighborhoods are typically dramatically different and inferior to those in middle-class or wealthy neighborhoods.  The charter school movement, a publicly funded, privately-run option, has become increasingly popular in poor neighborhoods and 50% of charter school students are either black or Hispanic.  There appears to be some success in these programs, though it is not clear that it is really helping those students who most need help.

Another option, floated more often by conservatives, hearkens back to Friedman’s ‘voucher’ concept.  In this case, a voucher is given to a certain number of applicants who can then use it to pay for private school.  Critics argue that these vouchers simply siphon money away from hard-pressed public schools and gift it to religious and other private schools to help them make ends meet.  They also skim off the best of the minority students, who are not really the disadvantaged or under-performing population in the public education system.

One does not have to be a liberal or even a cynic to believe that the current school voucher system is simply a way for middle or upper middle class parents to get their private and religious schools funded so that their own tuition bills are either reduced or eliminated.

For the sake of analysis, let us imagine two different future public education options.  One is where every family is given a voucher for education and their children can go to whatever school they choose, and all schools are privately run.  The second would also have privately run schools, but otherwise it would be similar to the current public school situation in that children would go to the schools in their neighborhoods.  There would be no vouchers – everyone would attend a for-profit, privately-run school.

In both cases the schools would have to be certified and evaluated on a regular basis.  In the first case, it seems likely that every competing school would want to minimize the attendance of weak or problem children because those children would drag down the metrics and make the school less competitive.   It would introduce two interwoven but problematic competitions – the one to maximize metrics and educational benefit, and the other to attract the best students.  The natural evolution of such a system would be for the best students to aggregate at certain schools and the poorest (and probably underprivileged) to collect at schools that are struggling.  Sound familiar?

Additionally, unless there were rules to prohibit parents from sending their children to schools outside their geographical area, a true voucher system would create havoc in terms of neighborhoods, busing, and many other aspects of family life.  Parents would very likely hop from school to school, seeking out the best program for their children.

The second scenario, where the schools are for-profit, but structured in the same way that they are now, might be an interesting experiment.  The big challenge would be to effectively measure how successful schools are.  Comparing one school to another to determine whether each privately run school should continue to get funding would be a tremendously complicated process. 

Schools would focus entirely on whatever criteria allowed them to stay in business and would cut back any expense that did not contribute to that goal, because cutting back expenses means more profit.  For all their inefficiencies, public schools and their staff have the mostly intangible, overall welfare of the child at heart.  A for-profit school would not be motivated in a similar way.

School populations that are resistant to improvement because of a variety of issues – absenteeism, lack of parental support, behavioral issues, pre-school preparation, etc. – would be unattractive targets for the for-profit corporations.  It is not hard to imagine a revolving door of companies attempting to work their magic in these low-income, traumatized neighborhoods with no more success than the public schools that preceded them.  It is not clear at all that education in these environments will ever improve substantially until the basic problems of poverty, broken homes, unemployment and drug abuse are addressed.  To believe that some clever entrepreneur is going to come up with the silver bullet is a kind of naïve fantasy.

In general, I am highly skeptical of claims that the invisible hand of the free market is the solution to such thorny issues as education and healthcare.  These are complex systems that are quite different than the basic consumer/product model that works so well in basic capitalism.  We need to accept the fact that some aspects of our society truly need to be analyzed and planned, rather than blithely consigned to the whims of the free market.

The Growth Paradox

“Whatever is not growing is dying”

Really?  This provocative statement, attributed to various famous people, is accepted by many as an axiom of life and business.  If a business is not increasing in revenue and size, then it is stagnant and on the path to eventual decline and disaster.

We expect our country to grow in economic output.  We expect our population to expand.  We expect our productivity to increase.  Europe and Japan are considered to be in jeopardy because their populations are not increasing, but rather are slowly decreasing.

Every business measures itself by growth - revenue and profit year over year.  And when a business seems to have reached a saturation stage in its current product, then it embarks upon new products or services.  Starbucks, not content to be the ubiquitous coffee shop, begins serving wine.  Uber expands into public transportation.  Amazon becomes a web services and cloud provider.

This mantra of growth may seem logical on one level.  Growth is change and we human beings seem to be addicted to change.   When things stay the same, we get bored and depressed.  We need new challenges and new vistas to inspire us.

But does change always have to equate to growth?  If one accepts that personal growth really means change then that opens up multiple avenues that do not necessarily imply something becoming larger or increasing.  One can vastly alter one’s world without being part of something that is ‘growing’.

The problem with growth is that it ultimately impinges on something or reaches some limiting point.  Growth can eventually begin to damage both the thing that is growing and its environment.  Moreover, the growth of one thing can harm or even destroy the existence of another thing.  There is certainly a balance in nature that can be damaged by growth, and there is often also a balance in the affairs of humans that can be similarly destructive.

The growth of Walmart is a good example.  Walmart brought endless availability of goods and cheap prices to communities throughout America.  But its growth destroyed the small stores that previously thrived and may have been a contributing factor in the demise of small town America.  Amazon did the same to bookstores and is now leading the Internet’s general annihilation of brick and mortar establishments.

This growth is fueled by the societal imperative to acquire more material things, i.e. to consume, and to live ever more exotic lives.  This is why the Consumer Confidence Index is one of the most important statistics of our economy.

On one level all of this growth is the ‘march of progress’.   But on another level it can be deeply disruptive and perhaps ultimately harmful to society and the world at large.

The growth in population in many countries is a major threat to survival.  The growth in energy demand is the major contributor to global warming.  The growth in disposable items (plastic bottles, bags, etc.) is accelerating the pollution of oceans, animal habitats and human living spaces.  The growth in social media is contributing to the radicalization of society.  The growth in mega-corporations is contributing to social and political turmoil.  The growth in automation is causing a loss of middle-class jobs and increasing the disparity in wealth.

Why is growth such a prized attribute?  I suppose it is somewhat natural to want to grow things, to seek expansion.  Growth is a sign of success in most ventures.  Our oldest myths and religions extoll the virtues of growth.  “And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.” (Genesis).  But like many of the long-prized assumptions of our civilization, this exhortation may have outlasted its relevance.

Is a business truly doomed to failure if it is content to stay a certain size?  Is a land necessarily in decline if its population decreases rather than increases? I suspect that the growth axiom is not nearly as axiomatic as one might imagine!

We cannot control or even really discourage the allegiance to change.  We have learned that any dictatorial or centralized planning and directives are unlikely to be successful.  But perhaps we can slowly impact the extent to which change is interpreted as growth.  On a personal level, we can certainly ‘grow’ in many ways without acquiring more or demanding more of the earth’s resources.  Learning new things, experiencing the fullness of the existing natural world, interacting with one another in innovative ways, and creating new non-material activities can slowly take the place of our acquisitive habits.

And in the business world, perhaps an investor consciousness can be cultivated that prioritizes long term sustainability and societal harmony as goals over short term profitability.

If we human beings are going to survive into the next century then our ‘growth’ will certainly have to be curtailed in some respects.  It will require changes in lifestyle, in our daily routine, and in our mindset.  But with our minds, bodies and souls freed from the need to constantly get bigger and acquire more possessions, perhaps we will find that we are actually ‘growing’ in a more sustainable and pleasant manner.

Our Racial Divide

The divisive nature of our current President and the long history of racial tension in our country have converged to create an unstable and potentially explosive atmosphere. 

Trump is a master of race-baiting and dog-whistle racial tactics.  He entered the political stage with his absurd and transparently racist support of the birther movement, questioning our first non-white President’s legitimacy.  He has continued to utter, incite and provide cover for the type of racist and xenophobic outbursts that only a few years ago would have doomed any public figure associated with them.  Somehow, under the guise of defying ‘political correctness’, Trump is able to emerge unscathed after even the most scurrilous comments.

Some of his closest associates voice their absolute confidence that Trump is not personally a racist, but this beggars belief.  And ultimately his own personal feelings are moot if he is using racial animus as a political weapon.

There is a substantial and apparently rapidly growing segment of US society that feels empowered to give full throat to racist and xenophobic tropes.  Under Trump’s watch this type of behavior has crawled out from under the rocks and crevices and spread its disease with only tepid disapproval from conservatives.  This is a shameful display of political self-interest.

But there is also a troubling chasm over race between the much larger, moderate segments of society that would characterize themselves as liberals or conservatives.  Many liberals are convinced that both institutional and individual racism are at the core of many of our current national challenges and that our racial problems have never been adequately addressed.  They believe that aggressive measures to lift the status of blacks, whether in the form of reparations or other affirmative action style policies, are the only way to reach a more positive and egalitarian status quo.

Conservatives, on the other hand, feel that the ‘race card’ is overplayed and that the woes of African-Americans and Hispanics are a mix of self-destructive cultural traits (drugs, crime, single parent families, etc.) and the historical cultivation of dependency through liberal, welfare-style programs.  They believe that reparations or other affirmative action programs will simply exacerbate the problem.

Most conservatives sincerely believe that they are not racist, that they judge people individually on their merits.  The notion of ‘implicit bias’ is viewed as a form of guilt-shaming.  They point to the rise of South Asians and other non-white immigrant groups as evidence that American economic life still rewards hard work and diligence, and that Americans will embrace and accept anyone who has ‘American’ values.

Liberals point to the enduring legacy of slavery and the ubiquitous signs of ‘white privilege’ as proof that a more dramatic effort must be made to solve the race problem.  They see under-funded schools, housing bias, excessive incarceration and a host of other indications that people of color struggle under a much more onerous burden than either whites or recent immigrants. 

The fervent call to ‘address’ the race issue resonates in liberal circles but results in conservatives rolling their eyes.  The question is:  How can any kind of meaningful progress be made on this incredibly divisive issue?

The first thing that must be done is, in my view, clear beyond any reasonable doubt.  All Americans should unequivocally condemn, and demand the eradication of, racist and xenophobic speech, including the type of ‘racist whispering’ speech that Trump and some members of congress use.  

Addressing the problem of immigration through negative stereotypes of gangs, rapists and job-stealers appeals to the worst in ourselves and is a quick path to hate speech and violence.  Soft-pedaling or rationalizing groups who promote hate speech and allowing rallies to erupt in outbursts of ‘Send Her Back’ are simply unacceptable flirtations with racist and xenophobic hysteria.  They are shameful for any political figure, but especially pathetic for the President.  The full congress needs to hold Trump accountable for such abominations.

Addressing the broader and more complex problems of people of color, including police relationships, jobs, crime, healthcare, breakdown of the family, drugs and economic progress must be done on a less emotional and more data-driven basis.  Both sides must learn to avoid the demonization that is at the heart of our current political discord.  Conservatives who don’t believe in affirmative action or reparations should not be dismissed out-of-hand as racists protecting white privilege.  Liberals who call for more aggressive policies to bridge racial divides should not be labelled naïve, welfare-state socialists. 

The issues are complex and deserve thoughtful analysis and consensus-building.  We now have capabilities to analyze such problems through big data and modeling techniques that can give us insights that were unobtainable before.  It is time to start using technology to help counter some of the hysteria and acrimony that social media has engendered.  We need to study problems such as these rather than simply spit out sound bites and platitudes.  Cooler and more compassionate heads must prevail, or we are doomed to an ever-increasing level of conflict and distrust. 

We are already seeing the rotten fruit of Trump’s cynical racist strategy in recent violence.  If we do not take measures to renounce this despicable practice and thoughtfully address the core issues, then we can only expect things to get worse, and perhaps much worse.