GM and the Collapse of the Republican House of Cards

GM’s stunning announcement that it will cease producing gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2035 may have pulled the first few cards out of the rickety house that conservatives have built in their anti-science world.  The announcement is a symbolic admission by the most conservative automaker that the threat of climate change is real.  And once the 'drill baby drill' nonsense is totally discredited, maybe the rest of the republican anti-science universe will start to disintegrate.  It doesn’t bode well for conservative political credibility.

The republican party, now perhaps better named the Trump party, has built a Maginot line of denial against science across several fronts for many years – climate change, COVID-19, evolution, abortion, gun-control, sexuality – to name a few.  It has rallied its followers with absurd claims and conspiracy theories. It has based policy on fabrications and fantasies rather than conducting a good faith analysis of scientific studies. 

The world began to finally recognize the craven duplicity of republican tactics during the COVID-19 pandemic, as Trump and his allies refused to acknowledge the gravity of the pandemic, abdicated responsibility for leading the national effort to respond, and willfully disdained scientific recommendations on mask-wearing, social distancing and shutdowns.  The crackpot theories – just another flu, it will disappear, hydrochloroquine, too many tests, the deaths are over-counted, masks are unnecessary, go for herd immunity, etc. – were debunked one by one but sadly forgotten in the sheer massive scope of the failure.

Perhaps climate change is the hill that the martyrs of republican idiocy will make their last stand on.  The conservative ship of fools is foundering on the rocks of the environmental crisis that it has refused to acknowledge.  When GM and other corporate giants, the former bedrock allies of the conservative movement, abandon ship, that leaves only the rats aboard.

Will the republicans be able to mask this new proof of their ineptitude by a barrage of conspiracy theories, red herrings and social media absurdities, as they did throughout the pandemic?  That ploy may finally be losing its power to delude the masses.  Hopefully only the most extreme and ignorant will fall prey.

Perhaps then the republican party can be led again by people who respect science, data, intellectual rigor and dialogue.  There is a place for a principled opposition that argues for moderation and careful progress in meeting our many national challenges.  But the charlatans who are now in charge need to go.

The Double Orwellian

Conservatives have been energetically condemning the social media and publishing censure of Josh Hawley, Donald Trump and others as Orwellian.  Their use of the term is amusing, as George Orwell would most likely view their Trumpian antics as an excellent example for the formative stages of the dystopian future that he envisioned in 1984. 

Orwell was a passionate opponent of totalitarianism, but he was not at all a conservative.  Indeed, he was a lifelong advocate for the poor and embraced democratic socialism as the ideal political and economic structure for a state.  He detested the British colonial system, spent significant time living a pauper’s life to understand the poor, and fought for the republican side in the Spanish Civil War, nearly losing his life.  The negative impact of the Stalinist-led communists on the overall republican efforts in Spain contributed to his distaste for any form of totalitarianism.

 The true definition of Orwellian is, according to Webster: 'suggestive of George Orwell or his writings, especially relating to or suggestive of the dystopian reality depicted in the novel 1984.'  It is a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It imagines a society defined by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink), and manipulation of the past.  The Trump era lies, fabrications and incivility are perfect examples. 

I am pretty certain that a private social media or publishing company deciding to censure a divisive public figure who is promoting political lies that have clearly led to mass conspiracy theories and violence is not a short step away from 1984.  There are, admittedly, the classic questions of free speech involved, but no one has actually stopped these idiots from talking. And they certainly have large numbers of outlets for their delusions – Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Epoch Times, and the many dark, teeming Internet sites that commercially benefit from fomenting outrage and paranoia.

In fact, by whining about their Orwellian treatment, these politicians have actually performed a double Orwellian.  Like others who accuse liberals of employing Nazi or fascist tactics, they have embraced the kind of doublespeak that is truly Orwellian.  As they rally the most dangerously anti-democratic and ultra-religious nutcases throughout the land for an assault on congress and our election process, they have the audacity to accuse liberals of being fascist and Orwellian and controlled by communists.

Now that is Orwellian.

 

 

The Short Trip from Biblical Inerrancy to QAnon and MAGA World Lies

Did all of humankind descend from Adam and Eve?  Was the world created in 7 days?  Did Noah build an ark that held two of every creature (and plants?) so that the world could start anew after God re-booted it?  Did Jonah live in the belly of a leviathan?  Was Jesus born of a virgin?  Did he change water into wine?  Did he walk on water?

Against all scientific evidence and logic to the contrary, many Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that the Bible and the Koran are inerrant – that their stories are true and historically accurate.  A large percentage of Americans do not accept the concept of evolution, or the geographical age of the world, or the basic truths of cosmology, particle physics and the universe.   

When it comes to matters of faith and religion, people stubbornly cling to a fantasy world that defies all modern science and reason.  Two thirds of white evangelical protestants believe that human beings have always existed in their present form (Pew Charitable Trust survey).  Between 2009 and 2013 the number of republicans that believe that human beings have evolved over time decreased from 54% to 43%.

The rationale for these beliefs is generally that they are a matter of ‘faith’.  Some adherents will attempt arguments to support this ‘faith’ and counter the prevailing scientific views, but most will simply declare their absolute certainty that their beliefs are correct and avoid further debate.  Sound familiar?

If one is able to accept biblical stories that contradict all of the long history of human discovery and accumulated knowledge in the service of protecting one’s closely held beliefs, then the leap to accepting all kinds of fabrications, half-truths, and outright lies to defend a political position is not a big one.  Who needs facts or proof?  If I believe hard enough, it can be true!

The habit of suspending disbelief is easily acquired.  It is very human to want to believe things that support one’s position and we all gravitate toward explanations that fall in line with our way of thinking.  But many of us are willing to reassess our stances if faced with clear, logical arguments that refute what we have assumed is true.

When the lifelong habit of refusing to reconsider religious myths or recognize the ambiguity of theological conundrums confronts the newly minted panoply of political and cultural myths, is it surprising that America’s evangelicals have smoothly transitioned to a new frontier of fantasy?

Is Trump a Godlike warrior with a heart for Jesus?  Is religious liberty under attack?  Is antifa the biggest domestic threat?  Is climate change a leftist conspiracy?  Was the election stolen?  Is communist China in league with the democrats?  Is BLM a Marxist movement?  Was the pandemic an overblown flu?  Did doctors and hospitals exaggerate COVID deaths?  Is there a cabal of deep state cannibal pedophiles?

Let’s face it.  If you can believe the Noah story, then you can believe just about anything.  And that’s where we are right now, despite all of our efforts to educate, inform and teach critical thinking.  Who said the dark ages are over?

Thoughts on the Change in the Presidency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

The Role of Religion Must Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Day for Republicans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Conservatives Get Right (and Wrong!) About Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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