Who is the Patriot?

The women’s World Cup and Megan Rapinoe’s silent protest during the national anthem elicited once again indignant cries of outrage, led by the super-patriot President Bone Spurs.  Now one might ask where Trump’s patriotism was in the 60’s when his fellow countrymen were fighting in the jungles of Vietnam and he maneuvered himself out of the draft with the absurd disability of ‘bone spurs’.  But it has famously been said that ‘patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels’, and Trump is the poster child for that aphorism.

What is a patriot?  Who qualifies?  A patriot is someone who loves his or her country.  But what is a country?  A country is an abstraction – a collection of human beings who have a common interest because they are geographically co-located, have a shared government, military and economy, and may have a similar culture and language.  Why does this abstraction have such a powerful effect on so many people?

Allegiance to a country or nation is a relatively recent phenomenon – the modern nation-state has only been in existence for a few hundred years and its more fervent loyalties only since the American and French revolutions.  For most of history, peoples’ allegiances were more likely to focus on their tribe or religious group.  As empires rose and fell, they cultivated loyalty from those who sought or benefitted from power and wealth, but the masses were generally indifferent to the allure of an abstract entity like an empire that included multiple lands, peoples, religions and cultures.

As more homogeneous and well-defined nations emerged – France, England, Spain and later Germany, Italy and others – the concepts of nationalism and its attendant emotional ally, patriotism, began to inspire poets, songwriters and pamphleteers. 

The USA, initially a similarly homogeneous nation of mostly English culture and language (apart from a sizable slave and native population that was officially exempt from membership!) seemed to be uniquely endowed with patriotic ardor.   It was able to leverage the new idealistic fervor around liberty and freedom as well as traditional nationalistic themes to create a fever pitch of patriotism.  One of the first historical facts I learned as a child was the famous speech of Nathan Hale – ‘I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country!’

The passion that attends patriotism is odd.  Unlike communism, socialism, capitalism and other idealistic constructs, patriotism does not have a single unifying concept other than self-interest.  John F. Kennedy’s famous exhortation to ‘Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country’ turns the basic motivating factor of patriotism on its head.  Indeed, there are all sorts of contradictions in patriotism when one looks closely.

One could argue that patriotism is a love of our fellow citizens and a noble dedication to their well-being.  But this argument falls apart quickly when the patriot is asked to share some of his worldly goods with those same fellow citizens.  Patriotism seems to be more about the individual than the group, even though it is defined in terms of a group.  One might say that patriotism is really a love of a country that benefits that person by creating a rewarding environment. 

It seems that patriotism actually defies any rational definition.  Like all forms of tribalism, patriotism is a reflection of the need that most human beings have to identify with a group (see my blog on Tribes: https://rvgeiger.blogspot.com/2016/01/tribes.html ).  And this identification is often bound to an individual’s concept of honor - honor associated with a strict code of loyalty and unwavering devotion.  My country, right or wrong.  Love it or leave it!

But such blind devotion is clearly a contradiction and an impediment to progress.  In any practical scenario, a patriot should be seeking continuous improvement of his or her country, both for the patriot’s benefit as well as his or her fellow citizens.  Healthy and constructive criticism, of which peaceful protest is an important part, should be encouraged.  If a country is indeed ‘wrong’, then it is incumbent on its citizens to correct it.

It may feel good to embrace a mythical version of the USA and glorify it in uncritical terms, but that is not true patriotism.  The true patriot loves a country and its people enough to go through the difficult process of assessing its strengths and weaknesses and working tirelessly to make it better. 

We may not all agree on how to make it better, but honest and sincere efforts to identify areas for improvement like Megan Rapinoe’s and Colin Kaepernick’s deserve to be encouraged rather than vilified.  These are the truly courageous patriots.  The blind patriot is really no patriot at all.

The Free Press

The concept of a free press is increasingly difficult to describe or define.  Is the free press the traditional journalism of newspaper, magazine and television?  Does it expand to include online journalism, cable news, talk shows, comedy shows and other revenue-earning media that report and comment on current events?  Does it expand further to include blogs, and all social media – facebook, twitter, Instagram, snapchat - and any other form of social intercourse that allows people to freely express opinions?  If one describes the free press as anything that reports and comments on current events, then the free press is totally amorphous and impossible to define or corral in this age of the Internet.

In days of yore, the growth and reach of the free press was limited by the requirement that enough resources be available to print and distribute its output or that it had access to radio or television airtime.  This made for a more reasonable number of outlets so that one could generally be aware of the alternatives and make educated choices about what to read, listen to or watch. 

In this smaller universe of media there was a concept of journalistic integrity that, though certainly not perfect, inspired most journalists to report events responsibly and try to separate fact from opinion.  This line between fact and opinion is always blurry, and journalism has always been challenged in its reporting.

 

The power of the free press has been extraordinary and growing ever since the creation of the printing press. Its influence has helped launch wars, promote various charitable or philanthropic causes, alert people to dangers, epidemics or natural disasters, and create or destroy the careers of politicians, military leaders and entertainers of all types.  Every revolution that has occurred in the past three hundred years has been reliant on the press to rally people around its cause.

As revenue-earning enterprises, much of the free press necessarily emphasized entertainment over education, which tended to create sensationalism. The yellow journalism of the Hearst and Pulitzer eras are prime examples, but there is always a temptation in media to create dramatic effect. The public is fickle and easily bored or distracted.   Other challenges were imposed by the owners of these profit-making businesses, who often had strong opinions and influenced the tone and even the substance of their papers or programs.

The advent of the Internet and social media has partially destroyed the old model of the free press and put in its place a wild west of infinite and uncontrollable sources.  Many citizens are seduced by media that echo their own opinions and may read endlessly through unsubstantiated nonsense and never know what is truth and what is fiction.

In a world where powerful forces control much of society and where wealth and influence are concentrated in an ever-smaller group of business tycoons and politicians, the free press is in theory an independent bastion of free thought and a spotlight on the actions of those in control – in effect, the classic fourth estate after our executive, legislative and judicial branches (and of course now the business elite should also be recognized as equally or more powerful than those governmental branches!).  The free press should be the voice of the common man, the conscience of society, the honest marketplace of ideas and issues.

There has often been a perception in conservative circles that the free press is blatantly liberal in its reporting.  It is true that journalists have often felt a kinship to the working person and the powerless.  Indeed, many journalists go into the profession with a crusading spirit, embracing their role as a voice for those who have neither wealth nor power.  But I believe the great majority of true journalists embrace the ethical responsibility they have to report factually and to verify their contacts and sources.  If they are guilty of being liberal in their reporting, then it is only in the lens they use to interpret the facts they are reporting. 

This bias can, of course, be significant, but I am not troubled by it.  I see it as a much-needed counterweight to the overwhelming influence that the wealthy, the corporations, the military and other powerbrokers in our society wield.  These powerful forces are by and large conservative, as dictated by their own self-interest.  They may protest indignantly at the ‘liberal bias’ of the media, but the irony is that the balancing effect of the media is probably all that has stood between them and violent revolution for these many years of our republic.

Now, with some clever machinations of the conservative power elite – the Murdoch empire being a prime example - and the unleashing of dark, reactionary social media, the free press is a shadow of its former self.  Chaos prevails in our media, and there appears to be no means to rein it in.

When a balanced system is disturbed or broken, then the resultant behavior is unpredictable and possibly catastrophic.  With the free press now increasingly overshadowed by fabrications, distortions and hate speech from unknown and unchecked sources that are not held responsible for their content, it may be that the future looks rather bleak.

On Trump, False Equivalencies and Faustian Bargains

People who support Trump seem to be in two camps – (1) those that give him full-throated support and defend him on all levels and (2) those that like his policies but are uncomfortable with his personality and behavior in varying degrees.

Both groups engage to some extent in defending Trump based on the premise that his antics and character flaws are not significantly different than those of other politicians from both parties – the notion of ‘equivalency’.  For example, his sexual predation is seen as equivalent to Bill Clinton’s or JFK’s.  His lying is seen as a typical characteristic of politicians and is compared to the perceived lies of Hillary Clinton and even Barack Obama.

I believe these are false equivalencies and that a careful evaluation of the number and nature of Trump’s lies and sexual predations puts him in a different and much more troubling category than other politicians or public figures.

Some of his most alarming character traits are unique to Trump and it is difficult to argue that equivalent or even similar traits exist in other politicians.  His incessant, almost comic bragging is one of these.  What kind of person does this?  Confidence is often seen as an American attribute, but I have never heard a public figure boast with such a complete lack of humility and in such juvenile language.  There can be no doubt that Trump’s constant crowing about his accomplishments is an indication of a deep and pathological insecurity or some other disconcerting psychological disorder.

A second trait that is similarly disturbing is his confrontational, thin-skinned style of interacting with political adversaries.  It is clear that Trump has brought a level of incivility to the political life of this nation that is deeply corrosive.  The mirror reflection of this bellicose posture to his adversaries is the sycophantic, servile pandering that he requires and receives from his underlings and supporters.  One asks again, what kind of person is this who feels compelled to lash out so viciously at every perceived slight or criticism?

A third characteristic that is perhaps the most chilling is Trump’s willingness to tap and even inflame the worst prejudices in American society – racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, religious fundamentalism – and enlist these dark forces in support of his agenda.  Is it not almost incomprehensible that the man who popularized and weaponized the ‘Birther’ movement, a transparently racist effort to de-legitimize Barack Obama's presidency, is now the President of the United States?!

The group of Trump supporters that support his policies but voice some misgivings about his style bemoan these more egregious examples of his character flaws but are willing to overlook them or to rationalize them as necessary evils on the road to more productive policies that they believe he has initiated.  They theorize that liberals would be similarly willing to overlook personality aberrations in their leaders if liberal policies would result.

It is true that partisanship is a very powerful drug and can easily blind one.  But I would argue that Trump’s behavior is so far beyond the pale that to brush it aside as inconsequential or manageable is a very dangerous and reckless act – the very essence of a Faustian bargain.  We are trading unknown but potentially catastrophic future consequences – diplomatic crises, trade war effects, civil unrest, general degradation of the political process – for short term policy results.

I know that many Trump supporters of the first group believe that our society is locked in an apocalyptic battle of the Godless versus the God-fearing, the moral versus the immoral, the capitalists versus the socialists, the grateful patriots versus the ungrateful America-haters.  They see Trump as an epic figure that is finally speaking the truth and willing to play hard ball if necessary to save the nation.

This is a sad and thankfully small percentage of America, but it has an outsized influence because of its kingmaker political clout and its zealous and energetic advocacy.  They will do everything possible to ensure that Trump remains in office.  If the good citizens and better Angels in our society do not recognize the nature of the Faustian bargain that we have struck then these hard-liners will have their way and will push us ever closer to the brink of their apocalyptic fantasies.

The Dangerous Allure of the Self-Help Genre

I love reading.  But as I age I find fewer works of fiction that capture my imagination.  I’m not sure why, but I find many of the characters in books one-dimensional and more caricature than character.  And the plots often seem contrived and wearily predictable to me.  Perhaps it is because I have read so many stories over the course of my life and am a bit jaded.  But I can tell pretty quickly whether a book of fiction is going to appeal to me and there are still many that do.

I read a lot of non-fiction, mostly history, science, and other observations of human civilization.  I have enjoyed some of the big picture, trans-discipline books like Guns, Germs and Steel, and Sapiens, though I understand their limitations in terms of accuracy and rigor.  It is very tempting to generalize and draw over-arching conclusions about trends in humankind. 

Even if these constructs are not totally accurate I believe they are instructive and help organize one’s thoughts.  One should never to be too certain about anything.  I believe the ability to accept and live with ambiguity is one of the most important attributes a person can have.

The one area of published works that I assiduously avoid is the self-help genre.  There is something about the shocking presumption of people telling other people how to live their lives that totally alienates me.  I find the great majority of these highly suspect, self-congratulatory tomes to be completely worthless (though admittedly I only briefly skim their contents on occasion).

Human beings are needy creatures and who among us is not beset by various problems or challenges that he or she would like to address?  And thus, we are easy prey for the slick merchandising of the self-help guru, the author who knows just how we feel and is ready to offer his years of experience to rescue us from our sorry state.   

Overweight?  Buy the latest diet fad book!  Want to be wealthier?  Read this book about playing the stock market or investing in real estate!  Stuck in a job you hate?  Grab this book about successful people and their character traits!  Can’t find a mate?   Learn how to be more attractive and desirable in 200 pages!

We are easily seduced by the quick fix, the clever advice from somebody who seems to have it all and is now sharing the secret with less fortunate or astute souls.  No doubt these authors believe they are somehow contributing to society, doing their part for the good of mankind.  And of course, they love to see their names in print and the royalty checks rolling in.

I am suspicious of anyone who really believes they can dispense wisdom or advise others about how to live.  I am ready and willing to listen to a friend’s problems and talk through options, but I would never be so arrogant as to promote my own life experiences and opinions as something that others should mimic.

Every life is a unique journey.  There is no roadmap for happiness, success, love or friendship.  No secret formula for fulfillment.  Those who say they know the answers are charlatans.  Each of us must seek out the information we need to understand ourselves and our desires.  And then we must put into practice those things that will hopefully lead to us being our best and happiest selves.  

But I highly doubt that this will occur through imbibing the much-vaunted elixir of self-help potions or the embrace of other people’s hubris.  It is self-discovery that we seek and that will lead us home, not constructing our life as a disciple of someone else’s fantasy.