The Cancer of American Incarceration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idolize Ideas not People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed and the Naivete of Economic 'Control'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Free Market Education?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Growth Paradox

“Whatever is not growing is dying”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Racial Divide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is the Patriot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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