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

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

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

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

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  All our ancient historical documents – e.g. the Upanishads, the Bible, Greek and Roman classics – have been copied repeatedly and there is no way to know what has been added, modified or deleted,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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Globalization - The Third Great Disequilibrium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Open Letter to My Conservative Friends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hiding Behind Reasonable Doubt

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

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

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

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

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

A Logical Look at the Kavanaugh Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on the NFL Protests and Patriotism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Politics of Resentment and Envy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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