Optimism

Trump’s victory in November shocked me and put me in a rather discouraged state of mind.  I worried that this was the beginning of a downward spiral of demagoguery and the decay of American values, ideals and civility.

But in recent days I have seen a rising tide of resistance and resolution that gives me hope for the future.  Trump’s victory, his incredibly childish antics and his mean-spirited directives have awakened a broad movement of outrage and activism.

The political pendulum swings to and fro.  That is the nature of American politics and it is generally a satisfactory if not inspirational phenomenon, sacrificing speed to avoid radical, potentially de-stabilizing changes.  The American experiment has never been a revolution, but rather a continual tinkering with the detailed machinery of governance and public policy, full of compromises and experimental half measures.  The general trend has been toward a more equitable, enlightened and appealing life for all Americans, though certainly there has always been much to improve.

The U.S. citizenship is split almost 50/50 on many of the large policy issues of the day.  This has almost always been true and it must reflect some basic crossroad of human development when one’s sentiments begin to veer in one direction or another and soon the other path is in the murky distance and hardly recognizable.

When the people are at loggerheads on basic issues, it is difficult to gain consensus and it may be impossible to push forward.  This stalemate is frustrating, but perhaps it is better than moving aggressively on new policies and potentially alienating large groups to a point of no return.

Trump and the Republicans have no mandate from the American people.  The fact that the Senate is slightly Republican is a strange artifact of the red state/blue state distribution.  Most of our least populous states are conservative.  They still have two senators.  Even the distribution of representatives has some very peculiar demographic attributes that make it more likely that conservatives can win.  The true picture of how the American people are divided is best portrayed by the popular vote, which despite Trump’s petty claims, show a fairly substantial majority of Americans are opposed to either him, his platform, or both.

It appears that Trump will be at least partially frustrated in his efforts to act upon his campaign promises.  This is only fair, because most of those promises are anathema to a majority of Americans.  His refugee directives, which make no sense whatsoever and are an affront to basic American values, should never be allowed to stand.  Hopefully the judiciary will stand firm and the congress will oppose any new legislative efforts to circumvent the courts.

The efforts to roll back financial and environmental regulations will probably have some success, because these are also Republican hot buttons.  But there will be strong resistance, especially on the environmental front.  Americans are finally waking up to the reality of global climate change, and there is the beginning of an internal Republican challenge to the ‘drill, baby, drill’ mantra.

Health care changes will also be hard fought.  The Republicans have been successful at making the abstract generality of ‘Obamacare’ a bogeyman, but once the details have to be hammered out they will find that sleight of hand will no longer suffice.  In the end, I will not be surprised to see congress only tinker slightly with Obamacare, change the name, confuse the hell out of everyone and declare victory.

It is on foreign policy that Trump is most dangerous and unpredictable.  Here, we can only hope that his early missteps and embarrassments will serve to create a braking action on his tweets, hapless phone calls and pronouncements.  His advisors may be a motley crew of billionaires and Alt-right zealots, but hopefully there will be enough common sense on hand to avoid catastrophic errors.  The U.S. will cease to be a leader in the world for these four years and transition to the role of a bully, but perhaps the damage will be only temporary.  It may actually be healthy for other nations such as Germany, the UK, France and Japan to become more influential and active as leaders in the world.

On the economic front, Trump’s chest-beating and saber-rattling over trade policies and outsourcing will probably have minimal impact.  The economy will evolve, as it almost always does, somewhat independently of the policies that are targeted, with great fanfare, to impact it. 

It seems to me that there is an unavoidable fact that automation is steadily reducing the number of available middle class jobs, and that there is probably no way to compensate by creating ‘new’ industries or jobs.  This is a characteristic of the way that the global economy is evolving and the genie has long since been out of the bottle.  The problem is massive and it will become ever more massive.  Demagoguery, bullying and threats will not solve it.  We can either study it and try to socially engineer changes to lessen or thwart its impact, or we can allow it to create chaos and catapult us into a morass of unstable political and social turmoil. 

I believe Donald Trump has had his moment of glory. It is going to be a long, painful four years, and Trump will tweet himself into ever more pathetic absurdities as he confronts his impotence.  As for his rabid supporters, they will grind their teeth in fury at the resistance that thwarts his every move, but eventually they will grow weary of the Donald’s ineptitude and realize his supposed business acumen either never existed or is totally unsuited for running a country.  They will no longer believe his preposterous claims of being the one and only possible savior.  They will no longer thrill to the inarticulate ravings of political incorrectness that they once somehow found courageous, and they will realize, though probably never admit, that he is just a desperately insecure man who has managed to bully and connive his way to a fortune and hoodwink a lot of people in the process.

Religion From the 'Other Side'

When I try to rationalize the theology and dogma of the many religions that human beings have concocted throughout history I find it useful to attempt to view them from God’s perspective – from the ‘other side’.  This may sound presumptuous and perhaps even blasphemous, but we humans have an intellect and reasoning power, so it would be surprising for God to fault us for employing that intellect in such an exercise. (The fact that Adam and Eve were supposedly banished from Eden for pushing the envelope in the knowledge department might make one think otherwise, but I am going on the assumption that this metaphorical version of the creation is not an indication that God does not want us to use our given intellect!)

Conceptualizing God is a fool’s errand of course.  Historically mankind has envisioned deities in anthropomorphic fashion – Gods with human form and human foibles.  Now that we have some idea of how vast and unfathomable the universe is, our past fantasies seem somewhat foolish.  If God created man in his own image, as the bible surmises, then is God just a super-sized human being with super powers?  Even with a healthy dose of ‘blind faith’, that concept seems rather absurd and unlikely.

If there is indeed a God or some form of divinity, and I, for one, am hopeful that there is for a variety of reasons, then I imagine that God would be more amorphous and less tangibly physical than we envision.  But the form of God isn’t really that germane to our discussion, so its mystery can safely be left unraveled.

So God, in whatever form, creates the universe, in whatever manner – big bang, evolution, and any other mechanisms that may be useful.  A first question might be why he even wants to create the universe.  For sake of later questions and argument, let us just say that it is God’s nature to create.

The next big question is: What is God’s purpose in specifically creating human beings? Are human beings truly unique in our possession of a self-conscious state?  Is God uniquely interested in our activity as opposed to the rest of his creation, simply because we are self-conscious and have free will?  These are already tough questions, but in order to move forward with this analysis, let’s assume that God does regard us as special creatures.  What does he want from us?

Is our chief end, as the Judeo-Christian faith speculates, ‘to glorify God and to enjoy him forever’?  Did God create man for his glory?  Is our sole purpose to ‘worship and love God with all of our heart, soul, strength and mind’? 

What does all that really mean?  It seems to ascribe a very human narcissism and vanity to God.  Does a God that can create a universe really need a fan club?  Does God need glory from his creation?  Whom is he trying to impress?  Is there a competition with other universes and Gods?  These questions may sound flippant but I believe they are worth asking.

I interpret all this worshiping and glorifying purely in the context of God wanting humans to bend their hearts and behavior toward Godly things.  God doesn’t need worship or glory in the sense that is normally associated with those words. 

Now if one understands this idea of a relationship between God and humans to be one of mutual love, and that by ‘worshiping’ and loving God, as well as loving other human beings we are reflecting the love that God represents and instantiates in the universe, then that would be much more plausible and palatable.  It seems like the kind of thing God might want.

It is reasonable to believe that if there is a God and he created the universe, then he must have created the universe and human beings for some higher reason than to simply have a functioning machine that would run in a predictable manner like a huge train set in his basement.  If so, then he would be curious and perhaps even passionate about creating beings that have free will and the capacity for both creation and destruction, good and evil, love and hate, compassion and cruelty.  This is the line of reasoning that people use when trying to explain why there is evil and calamity in the world if God is a loving God.

Perhaps God is interested in simply seeing how humans progress with their free will and intellect.  But apart from the pure curiosity of seeing how his creation evolves and how these beings with free will act, what would he expect from this creation and how would he interact with it?  If God is love, and love is the goal and motive force in his creation, then perhaps God would seed the whole enterprise with some mechanism for inspiring this love and animating it in the non-deterministic elements of the creation – the human creatures.

And out of this love would come a sense of morality and an inclination toward ethical behavior that would somehow be innate or at least periodically suggested through some link to the divine – a soul or a spirit perhaps.  And maybe God would be intrigued, even passionately determined, to have the creatures hearken to this call of love and ethical behavior.  Wouldn’t it be logical that God would want his creatures to evolve toward a more loving and compassionate state? 

But what seems highly improbable is that God would be insistent on humans having a specific set of abstract beliefs about the nature of God or the universe, or that he is terribly interested in whether his creation formally acknowledges his existence, given his penchant for avoiding direct contact or communication with his creation! 

Is it really likely that God cares whether we believe in the inerrancy of various forms of scripture?  Can we really believe that God will test us on our knowledge of the trinity?  Is it rational to think that ‘accepting or following Jesus’ (whatever that might mean in practical terms . . . ) is a litmus test that determines whether we go off to eternal damnation or bliss?  Is God likely to care whether we embrace love and compassion via Jesus, Isaiah, Mohammed, Buddha, or through a friend or teacher or self-study?

We trivialize God and strain credulity when we claim that he cares about things like whether we:

• ·         eat pork or shellfish
• ·         believe that Mary was a virgin
• ·         believe that Jesus performed miracles
• ·         believe that Mohammed was God’s last and greatest prophet
• ·         believe there is one ‘chosen people’
• ·         believe that there was actually a flood and Noah’s ark housed representatives of every species on earth
• ·         swear
• ·         doubt God’s existence (as Bertrand Russell famously said: Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence)
• ·         wear a burka, hajib, yarmulke, veil or any other garment
• ·         keep a certain day holy
• ·         pray in schools
• ·         Or a thousand other laws, customs, dogma and idiosyncrasies that religions have decreed as necessary for membership that do not move us any closer to a spirit of love and compassion

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to believe that the only things God truly cares about are things that mold and refine our hearts and actions to be in tune with the morality that every religion as well as secular movements have slowly embraced over thousands of years?

Religious metaphors and traditions, and the cultural heritage associated with them can be wonderfully enriching aspects of our lives and communities, and to the extent that they bind us together in communal life and nurture our interest and search for God’s message of love and compassion they can be very positive forces.  But they are not the essence of our quest to seek God and they should certainly not encumber us in our search or prevent us from reaching out to one another in a spirit of common humanity.

The ‘arc of history is long but it bends toward justice’.  This must be the arc that God wants to see, because justice implies love and it implies compassion.  And all of the human baggage that gets in the way – the divisive religious squabbling and exclusivism, the arrogant, self-righteous insistence on having the ‘one true’ understanding of God – must be jettisoned along the way if this arc is ever to complete its travel.

The Spirit is Willing but the Flesh is Weak

Life is not simple.  There are many aspects of day to day living that confound us, where clear answers to the questions confronting us are not discernible, and may not even exist.  The world is full of contradictions.

For example, we are encouraged to resist the temptations of the flesh by our religious teachings.  In many western religious texts, our ‘natural’ urges are presented as diabolical ploys of the evil one. There seems always to be a dichotomy between the call of the spirit and the pull of the flesh.  Earthly pleasure is perceived to be of secondary importance and at best a distraction for a seriously spiritual person.  Some pleasures are seen as outright sinful, while others are judged to be permissible as long as they do not dominate one’s life or thinking.  But higher commitments to the spiritual life seem to involve a negation of worldly pleasures and cravings.

In eastern religions, the concept of suffering brought on by worldly desires is central.  These desires are not necessarily viewed as evil in any moral sense, but they are the source of pain, discomfort, longing – all of the things that make life so difficult for many people – and are therefore to be mastered or eliminated.

For the non-religious, this dichotomy of flesh and spirit seems antiquated and puritanical.  And the repression of desire is perceived as a recipe for psychological disaster in the form of various neuroses and mental illness.  Worldly desires are understood as natural phenomenon that have evolved in humans and other animals for very good reasons.

All of us struggle with balancing our desires and our discipline.  Only the most decadent libertine will argue that every desire can be indulged without harmful consequence.  And only the most ascetic monastic will proclaim that all desire should be purged from life.

In this struggle to find a middle way between succumbing to all desire and imposing an iron rule over our natural impulses an interesting question arises.  Is there a path that is morally prescribed?  Is there a higher calling to tune our natural selves to be in harmony with a universal morality or ‘right way’?

Human sexuality is a good example of the challenges we face in life.  Clearly, sexual desire is a natural, biological urge.  Repression of this desire has been proven to be a harmful thing in most cases.  Yet it is also clear that unbridled sexual behavior can also be dangerous in many ways.  Is there a ‘morality’ that could guide our sexual behavior that does not vilify it but also does not encourage acts with negative consequences?  If we are doing things that have a significant probability of hurting ourselves or other people, then is this not the definition of an immoral act?

This kind of definition of morality is loose and does not lend itself to well-defined laws or codes, but it provides a basis for decision-making and it also avoids the often arbitrary nature of culturally or religiously prescribed moral statutes.

But it also acknowledges that there is a need for us to rein in our natural impulses to some degree, to apply discipline to those biological and natural urges.  Just because something is ‘natural’ doesn’t mean that it is necessarily ‘good’ or desirable.  We can celebrate nature and evolution for their profound beauty and complexity, but we are still sentient beings with the opportunity to temper and mold ourselves to create a more just and harmonious world.

A second example of the option for refinement and discipline over our natural impulses is our penchant for violence.  Earlier cultures celebrated warlike behavior and prowess and encouraged their development.  Conquest and even annihilation of other groups were greeted with rapturous enthusiasm. Our present sensibilities no longer find this type of full-throated embrace of war and conquest acceptable.  We couch our violence in terms of ‘defending the homeland’ or ‘spreading democracy’, but we still secretly admire and envy the courageous deeds of the special forces and the covert operators, or watch with fascination the brutal encounters between UFC and MMA fighters.

Is there a higher calling for us to evolve psychologically beyond this addiction to violence?  Aggressive, violent behavior is to some extent natural.  Nature is filled with stalking and killing; indeed, it depends on it.  Is our conflict and killing just another aspect of this natural world – a way to control population and weed out the weak and undesirable?  Or are we ‘called’ to leave all of this behind and forge a new path, however frustrating and ‘unnatural’?

There are no easy rules for living.  Some will choose to pursue a more ascetic path, eschewing pleasures of the flesh and finding their joy in the undiluted pursuit of spiritual connection.  Others will revel in hedonistic delights, riding the fine line of self-destruction or broken relationships.  Most will try to find a balance somewhere in the middle.  Morality, whether secular or religious, is an elusive concept that defies any sort of absolute interpretation.  We will continue to fumble in our efforts to define the best path, but perhaps our religious and materialistic perceptions are slowly converging to a unified sense of what a righteous and just life should be.

Thoughts on the Future of Labor and Wages

One of the pivotal issues in the presidential election was the decay of the middle class.  Manufacturing jobs have fled to other countries and automation has taken its toll.  Significant numbers of desperate voters turned to Trump as a possible savior, believing that his promises to punish corporations who were shipping jobs overseas and negotiate new trade agreements with low-wage economies like China and Mexico would restore American economic prowess and herald a renaissance of middle class wages and jobs.

Much has been written about how complex trading relationships are and how an aggressive stance on trade may backfire.  At a minimum it seems likely that forcing a turnaround in our trade deficit would end up making products more expensive in the U.S.  The simple fact is that labor is cheaper in other nations and if products are made here then they will ultimately be more expensive. 

This in itself would not be a bad thing from my perspective, but more expensive products would probably reduce overall demand for products and the net effect might actually be worse than the status quo for the general population.

But I do not believe that the future holds any real hope for a return of manufacturing jobs.  The true culprit is not outsourcing but rather automation.  Outsourcing accelerated the disappearance of those jobs, but they are destined to decline because of relentless automation. A fix for trade deficits and outsourcing is a short-sighted band-aid for the larger problem.

When automation hit agriculture during the industrial revolution the impact was dramatic, but agricultural workers flocked to the cities and found manufacturing or service jobs to replace their work on the farms.  A long, painful process was necessary to find a new equilibrium (child labor laws, unions, safety regulations, etc.), and world revolution was narrowly avoided, but eventually a relatively happy state was achieved.

An optimist might say that the current evolution away from industrial jobs will also find a new, happy equilibrium.  But there are reasons to doubt that such a pain-free future will unfold.

Automation eliminates jobs. The only way to replace those jobs with similar manufacturing jobs is to create more products.  But at some point there is a saturation effect.  Human beings can only make use of so many products.  We are already seeing that most of the new jobs in our economy are ‘service’ jobs.  Service jobs are generally lower wage jobs than those in manufacturing.

There is a second factor at work here – the impact of women working.  Since the second world war, women have joined the workforce in ever greater numbers.  Indeed, having two wage earners in a household is seen as an unavoidable fact of life by most people.  The double income family has more earning power and provides a woman with the possibility of a fulfilling career.  But it also puts tremendous pressure on the family in terms of focus, free time and flexibility.  As I pointed out in a previous post, the double income family also plays a role in increasing the income disparity between the classes.

One possible solution to increasing automation and a dearth of higher wage jobs would be to decrease the number of days/hours that are worked by the average worker.  In essence this would be a form of job sharing and would increase the number of available jobs.  The work week decreased from six days to five in the early years of the twentieth century.  Is there any reason it can’t decrease further?

The argument against this change is that it would result in lower incomes for families and start a recessionary cycle of decreasing spending/demand and further loss of jobs.  However, in theory the cost of products should also decrease with increasing automation, as the labor required to manufacture and even to distribute products would be lower.

There is a type of optimism that argues that new forms of labor will replace the industrial labor in this coming post-industrial society.  We have already seen that the computer revolution has produced many new jobs in the so-called ‘knowledge’ industry.  It is tempting to imagine an endless array of ‘on-line’ jobs that will become available for displaced industrial workers.

However, there are obstacles to this type of job growth.  Knowledge jobs require much higher intellects and job skills than industrial jobs.  Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the number of knowledge jobs created could ever compensate for the jobs lost in manufacturing, textiles and other industries affected by automation.

That leaves service jobs as the only real alternative for job growth if we cannot accept job sharing or a shorter work week.  The move from industrial jobs to service jobs is a phenomenon that we have already begun to experience.  But service jobs generally have low salaries and the income disparity that results is very corrosive in a society.  Market forces have generally kept service job salaries very low, but that may have to change if we are to avoid all of the unpleasant and potentially dramatic ramifications of our increasingly class riven society.

I am not a pessimist at heart, but I do not see an easy solution to our current economic travails.  The revered ‘marketplace’ may eventually sort it out, but a little social engineering may be necessary to preclude a further deterioration of our civil harmony.

Empathy

One of the most important human attributes is empathy.  The dictionary definition is ‘the ability to understand and share the feelings of others’.  Empathy is the primary means for people to make progress in resolving their differences.  If you cannot understand what another person is feeling, then it is almost impossible to reach out to them in a way that will bridge the gap.  If you have no empathy, then your only means of interaction is to attempt to dominate or overwhelm your adversary and make them subject to your way of thinking.

Unfortunately, showing empathy is not an accepted attribute of leadership.  Empathy requires an admission of the ambiguity and nuance of human affairs.  Most people are not comfortable with ambiguity.  They crave certainty.  That is why demagogues are so successful.

One of the reasons I have found Obama such an incredibly appealing President and person is that he has a very strong inclination toward empathy.  He does not outright condemn other cultures or countries or even political views, and he tries to put other opinions into perspective and give them respect.  Many people see this as weakness.  They accuse him of going on apology tours and weakening the status of the U.S. in the world.

When people think of a strong leader, they equate strength with absolute conviction and dramatic declarations.  To be sure, when a country is facing a desperate situation and at the brink of destruction, strong leadership of this nature with no hint of doubt or hesitation is necessary.  The belief that any show of softness or empathy would demonstrate weakness and invite more aggression is reasonable and must be considered in such situations.

But leadership in this era of globalization and rapid change is no longer simply a matter of standing strong against an implacable foe. The world is integrated as never before and we can no longer afford to lead by posturing as the world’s only moral nation, as a people who are never wrong and have no weaknesses or failings.  We must acknowledge and comprehend the diversity in this world by empathizing with others, understanding their point of view, even when we do not necessarily agree with it.

We accept and celebrate empathy when it is in a religious leader like the Pope or the Dalai Lama.  But would it not be just as appropriate for a political leader who is engaging with other nations and peoples?  Isn’t it time for these leaders to project a moral and ethical message that is honest and thoughtful? 

Within our own land we see so many missed opportunities for empathy and it is at the core of our fractious political life.  Can I as a progressive not empathize with those who are frightened by the changing fabric of our society, who see their old world disappearing?  Is it so hard to empathize with the plight of those whose jobs have fled overseas and feel anger at the smug attitudes of the so-called liberal elite?  Conversely, can those on the right not empathize with African-Americans who are stymied by intractable poverty and hopelessness, and outraged by the parade of videos clearly showing tragic, unnecessary shootings of unarmed young men?  And can African-Americans not empathize with the incredibly challenging situations that police in urban settings face on a daily basis, whether black or white? 

If people could start with empathy, acknowledging the fears, concerns and hopes of their adversaries, avoiding the simplistic labeling that constructs a deep chasm – racist, elitist, xenophobe, socialist, sexist, radical – and carefully analyze problems with data and an open mind, then perhaps we could get past the entrenched ideological stalemate that seems to have gripped our country.

Reflection on the Election

Like many of my friends, and indeed perhaps half of the nation, I was in shock and depression after the Trump victory.  I felt a bit of apprehension before it occurred, but I discounted the close polling as somehow reflective only of the normal liberal conservative divide, and believed that many of the conservatives would in the end find it impossible to vote for a man such as Donald Trump, even if they could not vote for Clinton.  I was wrong.

So what does it all mean and how will things go on from here?  Much has been written about how Trump managed to win over so many white voters.  Upon reflection it seems fairly simple to me.  One portion of the Trump supporters embraced him as an unapologetic voice against progressive values.  They want immigration trends reversed and illegal immigrants deported; they believe African-Americans must take responsibility for their own problems; they believe climate change is a left wing conspiracy; they think Obama has weakened the US in international affairs; they want to roll back entitlements; and they want to eliminate Obamacare.

These are the people that would have voted for any republican nominee, even an axe-murderer.  They would not be deterred by major character flaws in their candidate, no matter how egregious they might be.  Indeed, the flamboyant and bellicose character of Trump excited them and whipped them into a frenzy of giving the middle finger to the ‘system’ and voicing a newfound joy of political incorrectness!

The other large group of Trump supporters crossed over from the labor union side of the democratic party.  They were seduced by Trump’s claim to know how to ‘fix’ the economy.  Out of desperation, they were ready to be true believers.  And sadly, they too found the racist, xenophobic, and even the misogynistic rantings of Trump somewhat appealing.  They had previously embraced liberal leaders only because the democrats had established themselves as the friend of labor.  The sad state of the middle class in the current economy severed those bonds and left them adrift where they were easy prey for a demagogue.  Disruption is inevitable in times of transition.

The last group, smaller but decisive, was the independents who held their noses and voted for Trump because they had become convinced that Hillary Clinton was not to be trusted and they believed the false (in my opinion) equivalencies drawn between Trump and Clintons’ flaws, transgressions and character.  The Hillary hate campaign was incredibly effective in this regard.

Combine all of this with a heavy dose of apathy in the African American community – almost a sense of fatalism – and voila, Trump wins!

There are many potential ramifications of this result.  With a republican congress generally supporting him, Trump can impact a lot of things fairly quickly – immigration, energy and environmental policy, financial regulations and some foreign policy decisions (Iran, Syria, Cuba).  We can only hope that the damage is temporary and not cataclysmic.

But ironically, the most important issue for his supporters, and the one that really powered Trump into the White House – the economy – will likely be much more resistant to change.  Even if he is able to enact tariffs on certain trading partners – and this is not something that the congress will necessarily greet with enthusiasm, free trade being a long-held Republican ideal – their impact could very possibly be negative rather than positive, i.e. make consumer goods more expensive without bringing back jobs.

People are generally clueless about the economy.  It is simply too complex for the average citizen to understand in any deep way.  Even the most respected economists differ greatly on how to address macroeconomic issues.  A country is VERY different from a business.  The belief that Trump’s success as a businessman, which is certainly not a universally-accepted fact in itself, will translate into success for the national economy is simplistic almost to the point of self-delusion.  The last much-heralded titan of business who entered the White House was Herbert Hoover, and his commercial genius ushered in the Great Depression!

Trump’s best hope for economic success is probably deficit spending in the form of vastly overdue infrastructure improvements.  Obama has been trying to promote such improvements throughout his tenure as President with little success because of the gridlock in congress and the fear of the growing national debt.  But now that it is a conservative idea, it may get some traction . . . .

The sad truth is that middle class manufacturing jobs are unlikely ever to return in great numbers.  The automation and globalization genies are out of the bottle and no amount of demagoguery will put them back.  We face a brave new post-industrial world in the labor market, and we will probably have to go through a lot more pain before we evolve into a sensible new order that will not leave millions out in the cold.

So good luck Trump!  I really do wish you well.  Not because I have even the slightest admiration for you as a person.  I believe the way you ascended to the Presidency is the most pathetic spectacle I have witnessed in U.S. political life.  I wish you well because I want our nation to survive and, ultimately, to thrive.  It will most likely have to do that in spite of your leadership and policies rather than because of them.  But if it does I will be happy, even if it means that your petty but gargantuan ego can lay claim to having saved the republic.

Sexual Predation

It is ironic, although certainly not entirely unexpected, that the final nail in Donald Trump’s coffin will be driven in by a legion of women coming out with stories of groping, harassment and unwanted sexual advances by the Republican nominee for president.  Ironic, because the Republican Party considered itself well established as the party holding the moral high road after Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct.  And not entirely unexpected, because any fool could have predicted from first glimpse of ‘the Donald’ that his past must be a veritable treasure trove of sexual improprieties.

This may go down as the year when society finally became fully aware of the extent of sexual predation in our social interactions.  From the Stanford swimmer who was caught attempting intercourse with an almost unconscious woman to the army of sports figures and celebrities who are implicated in rape and domestic violence, to Mr. Trump and his incredible hot mike recording with Billy Bush.  After this recording went viral, millions of women came forward with stories of their own encounters with sexual predators.

Sexual predation is clearly more about power and control than it is about sex.  Most men have strong sex drives.  But a normal, healthy sex drive is oriented around mutual attraction, affection and consent.  A healthy, well-adjusted man may desire an attractive woman he encounters, but he would never make an overt sexual gesture such as kissing, touching or even verbally suggesting sexual activity unless he received a clear signal that the woman is a willing participant. Indeed, the quickest way to turn off a normal man is to show indifference, contempt or resistance to his sexual interest.  This should douse the flames immediately.

Any sort of pleasure that a man feels in forcing a sexual encounter is out of the realm of normal sexual behavior.  It is the perverse pleasure of a bully or a psychopath.  It is the sad expression of some serious psychological flaw.

When a man forces a kiss or gropes a woman’s breast or vagina, or even propositions her, it is a pathetic attempt to overcome feelings of inadequacy or insecurity.  It is the expression of a frantic need to be powerful and in control.  It has little or nothing to do with sexuality in any healthy sense, but rather is exploiting a sexual urge to establish dominance.  It is conflating a healthy human desire with a sordid, perverse need to produce a toxic, anti-social action.

So called ‘locker room’ talk is something every man encounters.  Some participate and some do not.  It occurs most often in one’s youth, in gym class or on sports teams, hence the term locker room.  For the most part it consists of boys talking in sexist terms about girls’ looks and bodies, and speculation or even bragging (often on a fictional basis!) about sexual activity in raw language.

But in my experience it does not include talk of sexual predation.  I cannot recall boys or men bragging about how they could force themselves on women or do things without their consent.  Even in my time in the Navy on a submarine where sexual banter was endemic, I rarely heard men describe forcing themselves on women.  And when they did, their comments were greeted with an awkward silence.  The majority of men know the boundaries.

This is not to say that men in general are not guilty of rampant objectification of women and misogynistic comments about them.  But there is a difference between predatory speech and typical male buffoonery.

Some will say that women invite sexual advances by dressing provocatively or emphasizing their breasts or other anatomical features.  It is certainly true that men find sexy outfits titillating.  But to imply that unsolicited sexual overtures are justified by any type of appearance is totally absurd.

Have men so little self-control or discipline that they cannot contain themselves in the presence of an attractive or even provocatively-dressed woman?  This seems to be the conclusion that society long held and that certain cultures still hold today regarding female attire and this is why historically women all over the world have been forced to wrap themselves from head to toe outside of the home.

Blame will also be placed at the foot of our more permissive, sexually liberated society.  This is surely specious reasoning, as predatory sexual behavior has been around for all of human history, and may even have been worse before women gained some level of liberation and power.  Sex is no longer a taboo topic, hidden behind closed doors fueling massive neuroses throughout society.  Its liberation may cause some degree of discomfort and has certainly challenged our way of dealing with it, but there is nothing in the new openness of sexuality that justifies sexual misconduct.

It is now time for men to draw clear lines around acceptable sexual behavior, and more importantly, to communicate to other men that they will no longer laugh at predatory language or jokes, or shrug off the claims or bragging of the predators themselves.  Silence is equivalent to approval.  Sexuality is a beautiful and exciting part of life, but like many beautiful things, it must be protected from toxic and malevolent forces.