Thoughts on the Change in the Presidency

Trump’s ignominious departure, slinking out of Washington without ever acknowledging the election results or his successor, is a fitting end to his fractious and angry reign.  It seems highly likely that his presidency will be viewed as one of the worst, if not the worst, in the nation’s history. 

Trump’s decision not to participate in the inauguration of Joe Biden is just another example of his astounding pettiness and immaturity.  His insistence that he won the election and that it was stolen from him is ludicrous, yet it had enough resonance with his cult following to launch an invasion of the capitol and establish a ‘backstab’ myth that will no doubt endure for years and cause as yet unforeseen havoc in the future.

The election lie is particularly heinous and absurd for the following reasons:

1.  Every pre-election poll, including many from conservative pollsters (Fox, WSJ, etc.) indicated a likely win for Biden, some by as many as 10-12 percent.
2. Every post-election legal challenge was either dismissed or ruled against, mostly for lack of evidence.  Many were ruled frivolous. 
3. Republican election officials, most notably in Georgia, refuted Trump’s claims, and in one case literally point by point, even though they supported Trump.
4. The popular vote differential was over 7 million votes.

I still find it difficult to comprehend that almost 70 million people voted for the man.  Clearly, there are some profound problems in our country that have somehow found expression in one of the most flawed political personalities in our republic’s history.

As many have pointed out in recent days, the US has a long history of paranoid right-wing and nativist reaction.  Large numbers of Americans, many with deep pockets, have seen enemies lurking in every phase of America’s evolution – Masons, French revolutionaries, Irish, Catholics, Labor Unions, Suffragettes, Jews, Marxists, Socialists, Hispanics and so on.  Throw in the decline in middle class opportunity and the loss of industrial jobs and you have a very volatile mix.

The Trump phenomenon also harnessed the power of the Christian evangelical movement and its hysterical fear that the US is losing its religious compass.  Somehow misconstruing the loss of interest and participation in formal Christian religion as an ill-defined assault on religious liberty, the religious right ironically fell prey to an idolatrous worship of Trump, rapturously rationalizing away every moral and ethical flaw of the least Christian man one can imagine.

What does the future hold for a nation so divided?  There will be no smooth sailing.  The conditions for further conflict are legion – a continuing pandemic, an economic piper that must be paid, racial issues that can no longer be swept under the rug, global warming, ascendant authoritarian thugs or movements in many countries, an increasingly belligerent Russia and China.

But there is also hope.  I suspect Biden will be the best man for this time – strong but also conciliatory and sincere.  He will not court controversy or deliberately fan the flames as his predecessor was so eager to do.  The pandemic has to some extent alerted the world to a whole spectrum of issues that we must all face together.  In some respects, it has engendered global cooperation on a level previously unseen.  If Biden and other leaders of similar inclination are able to rally us to a higher calling, perhaps the immediate challenges of this time will be the necessary crucible to forge a spirit of global unity and common purpose.

Let us all commit ourselves to making that future come true.

 

 

The Role of Religion Must Change

Religion is at its best when it gives comfort to us in the face of grief, anxiety or despair, and at its worst when it tries to orchestrate human behavior. 

Many people need religion, or at least some form of spirituality, to face a mysterious world where our mortality is ever looming, and the meaning of life is uncertain.  Religion is also one of many ways for people to build community and social networks, which give us a solid base of emotional and psychic support. 

Religion can also provide cultural touchpoints and traditions that are constants in a world that is often changing rapidly and sometimes becoming alien to us.  Religious rites and celebrations are part of the rich cultural fabric of society and deserve to be respected, as long as they bring people together in their common humanity and strengthen bonds, and do not cause conflict and resentment.

To the extent that all religions incorporate basic moral imperatives of love, charity and kindness, then we can all embrace and support the role that religion plays in inspiring us to create a better world.  But when we try to apply the details of religious dogma to political, scientific or legal systems, or even moral or ethical codes, we enter dangerous territory where more harm is caused than good.  To those who maintain that religion is the guardian of civilization and the ultimate arbiter of morality, I would say look at history.  The specific morality proposed by the world’s religions has been erratic at best, and downright counterproductive for much of human history. 

The draconian laws and punishments of early religious life have been jettisoned in most religions over the centuries - not many burnings at the stake these days.  And why has this evolution occurred?  Is it because of a steady dose of epiphanies from some deity, or latter-day revelations?  No, it is because human beings, who have brains and learn from experience, have slowly and painfully moved toward a more ‘humane’ point of view.

Religiously inspired people have in many cases performed great deeds in the service of our civilization, but they have also been complicit or primary in some of the worst.  The same goes for agnostics, deists, atheists and all the other variants of belief. 

This is not to say that there is no creator, no God or no spirit.  Who can say for certain the answers to questions about the supernatural?  Perhaps our very human desire for love, peace and kindness is indeed inspired by God or by some universal spirit.  It is a very human trait to seek these insights and explore the spiritual realm and it may be that all of our motivations for good come out of this quest.

But religions are dangerous purveyors of morality.  The ancient laws they want to foist on society were created by people who were susceptible to all the follies and the historical biases that have prejudiced human behavior – the support of slavery and conquest, the subjugation of women, the intolerance of any new thoughts or points of view.  And these laws are justified by claims that they have been handed down by God in ancient texts or through other unverifiable means, thus making them impervious to the crucible of peer review that has shepherded every other human advancement.

We will never have peace and harmony in this world if we allow religions to implement their own specific versions of morality.  This is the meaning of the separation of church and state.  Leave religion to the spiritual realm, and let humanity work out its earthly business in a logical, practical manner that takes advantage of our knowledge, experience, science and, yes, spirit.

A New Day for Republicans

January 7^th, 2021 is the first day of the New Republican Party.  There will still be the diehard white supremacists, Christian evangelicals and tea partiers that believe in Trump, but the better half of the party will have to finally admit that the emperor has no clothes.

When Trump and his followers say that the election was stolen and that there were irregularities, what they really mean is that too many black and brown people voted.  The senate election in Georgia (and the incredibly impressive point by point rebuttal of Trump’s idiotic call with Raffensperger by Republican elections head Gabriel Sterling) proved beyond any doubt that the blue wave was all about grass roots voter encouragement and turnout. 

The Republican fear of the changing demographics in our country has a long history.  After the election of Barack Obama in 2008 there was a sense that the party could become marginalized if it did not change its approach.  But instead of embracing a style of conservative politics that might attract the new demographic, the party was coopted by the populist Trump movement that started with a clearly racist denial of Obama’s birth credentials.

That movement was a dangerous tilt toward authoritarianism, and it brought out the very worst in Americans.  But thankfully, it has been checked by its own virulence and extremism.  It appears that the time of Trump may be over.

America needs a healthy conservative counterbalance.  The traditional conservative values of minimal government, strong families, economic prosperity and social mobility are important and necessary influences in our society.  But they need to be represented in good faith and with a plan to help solve some of the obvious afflictions that our legacies of slavery and mass incarceration have created, as well as the growing inequalities in  income, wealth, healthcare, education and employment.

Trump tapped a vein of frustration in our society that has a long history and will not disappear with him.  It is up to the new Republican party to forcefully reject the dystopian vision of America that Trump espoused and replace it with a positive, forward-looking set of programs that they can advocate.  They need to reach out to the Trump devotees who are open to a fresh start and nurture a new civility and respect for the process of political negotiation, compromise and inclusivity.

Let us all pray that such a new Republican party will indeed emerge out of the violence and outrage from yesterday’s attempted coup.  It is four years long overdue.

What Conservatives Get Right (and Wrong!) About Government

The most basic conservative belief is that government should be minimized.  Government is viewed as wasteful, inefficient, bureaucratic, controlling, tyrannical and prone to corruption.  Reagan’s famous quote, ‘The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help’, is the beloved expression of this antipathy toward government.

In some ways the fear of ever-expanding government is very American and understandable.  Who has not experienced the frustration of being mired in some government bureaucracy trying to get something simple accomplished?  The trope of the indifferent government official referring one to yet another department in an endless search for the ‘right’ person is familiar to all of us.

There are three major reasons why conservatives hate government.  The first is that they believe every task worth doing should be done as a part of the free market economy, thus providing an impetus to efficiency and productivity.  Without the discipline of the profit motive and competition, they say, government is doomed to be inefficient and ever-expanding.

The second reason is that government limits freedom and liberty.  It is a conservative axiom that government regulations, taxes and oversight are incursions on individuals and their businesses that hamper their creativity, progress and growth.

The third reason is that they believe passionately that government assistance, intercession, guaranteed wage levels and safety nets (the dreaded ‘entitlement’ programs) contribute to poverty, homelessness, unemployment and other societal ills by creating dependencies and an impediment to work for the less motivated members of our society.

I shall address each reason and try to be fair in evaluating their legitimacy.  Let us assume that most conservatives understand that there is a need for some government.  Only the extreme libertarians and anarchists argue for zero government.  The devil, as always, is in the details.

The first valid reason to minimize government is its inefficiency, its tendency to become bloated and its potential for corruption.  However, let us confess that these potential pitfalls are not just associated with government, but rather with every human enterprise of any size.  Even a typical for-profit company can fall prey to these ills.  There are many for-profit companies whose businesses are either monopolies or so profit-heavy that their growth is no longer linked to profit and loss, and their efficiency is suspect.  Lots of high-tech companies are in this category.  And the much-beloved voluntary philanthropic institutions and churches that conservatives say should substitute for government in helping the unfortunate are also operating without the discipline of competition or any curbs on growth or efficiency. 

Moreover, the temptations for corruption exist in every company or institution.  How many times have corporations been caught in bribery scandals, illegal tax avoidance, price fixing and other corrupt practices?

There is good reason to minimize government – conservatives have a valid concern.  But there are many functions in a society that are not practical or appropriate for a competitive marketplace.  Balancing the need for efficiency and minimal government with the need for societal projects and benefits that do not lend themselves to the free market is a challenge that requires careful analysis and bi-partisan negotiation, not scorched earth polemics.

In the end, the role that government plays must be acknowledged and affirmed by conservatives and liberals should concede the risks of it becoming bloated and inefficient.  There are ways to minimize inefficiency and entropy in government if only congress were willing to work in good faith to address it.

On the topic of regulations, a similar balance must be struck.  Human greed and power-wielding run rampant without some measure of oversight.  Environmental regulations, energy guidance toward a less carbon-oriented energy future, curbs on banking and lending excesses, investment fair play and tax-avoidance detection are all areas that must have some regulation to ensure that the unscrupulous are kept in check.

Conservatives are correct to worry about excessive regulation, as this can have a negative effect on businesses, entrepreneurship and overall economic growth.  Finding the right balance requires data-driven, sober analysis.  Casting one’s policy opponent as anti-business, socialist, racist, or anti-science is tempting for political soundbites, but in the end can only make the necessary cooperation more difficult.

The third conservative criticism of government - that entitlement programs, safety nets, and taxing the rich coddle the poor and encourage the very behaviors and problems they attempt to fix – is a toxic simplification of a complex issue.  Conservatives are certainly right that there are and will always be people who avoid hard work and take advantage of the good-hearted and generous.  No social program can completely eliminate the risk of subsidizing some portion of these ne’er-do-wells.

However, in the complex, mutually-dependent, post-industrial society that now defines most of the world, there is more risk than ever that people will find themselves in dire straits through no fault of their own.  My view on this topic is similar to the age-old argument for legal protections:  it is better that ten guilty people go unpunished than that one innocent goes to jail.

Work is a fundamental need for all human beings.  And any person who works should not have to suffer in poverty or see their prospects diminished over time.  The well-documented and extraordinary growth of income and wealth for the top 10% of the world cannot be justified.  The tired conservative maxim of the rising tide lifting all boats (aka trickle down economics) can no longer be supported by any reasonable person.  It is neither radical nor unreasonable to demand that the absurd fortunes of the super-rich be repurposed for the good of humanity in creating new infrastructure, better healthcare systems, expanded public transportation, low-cost childcare, universal education and job training, energy transformation and other important common societal needs. 

The conservatives are correct in being suspicious of government and its potential to grow unchecked and inefficient.  But they are wrong in casting it as a pariah and refusing to acknowledge its necessary role in an ever more complex society.  Both conservatives and liberals must abandon the tactics of puerile slander and hyperbole and roll up their sleeves to do the hard work of forging a better government that minimizes inefficiency and looks to the future.