On Race

Karen and I went to see the movie Selma this weekend.  It seemed to be the right thing to do for MLK Day.  At various times in my life I have looked closely at the history of the civil rights movement and have always found it to be a powerful experience.  Who can watch footage of the Freedom Rides, the sit-ins or the marches and not be awed by the courage of the participants, outraged by the hatred and violence of their antagonists and shamed by the pathetic cowardice of the ‘good citizens’.

Like every nation, our nation has a legacy of disgraceful deeds.  Slavery and our treatment of Native Americans are at the top of the list.  The sad travails of our Native American citizens are not often brought to our attention, so our misdeeds in this area are more or less hidden from view.  However, the ramifications of slavery are ever present.

For many years the legacy of slavery was expressed in clear outright unlawful treatment of blacks – segregation and the active prevention of voting being the most egregious.  The civil rights movement and the resultant legislation (Civil Rights Act and Voting Act) had dramatic impact in these areas.  Blacks in great numbers have now achieved financial success, education at the best institutions, and prominence in politics, business, sports and entertainment fields.  Most of my baby boomer friends have shed the biases of their younger years, if they had them, and the generation of my children seems to have completely rejected racial stereotypes.

Will race ever not be an issue?  Will the world ever be color blind?  I would say no, just as the world will never be blind to height or beauty or hair color.  One’s race is a human feature that is noticeable.  The best we can hope for is that the recognition of race does not carry with it stereotypes, especially not negative ones; that we will judge each person individually.

But the effects of two hundred years of slavery linger on in many ways, and these are not ameliorated nearly as easily as basic rights were.  African Americans still lag behind the rest of the U.S. in education, income, home ownership and lifespan.  Additionally, negative attributes like the breakdown of the family, incarceration rate and single parent rate are much higher in their population.  Other race issues such as racial profiling, unequal treatment under the law and more subtle forms of racial discrimination are certainly still occurring.  The problem is that all of these are generally not issues for legislative action, but rather involve a cultural evolution on both sides that is progressing very slowly and not always in a positive direction.

The recent series of police shootings of unarmed black men, along with the Zimmerman shooting in Florida, have spawned a new militancy in the long dormant civil rights movement.  There is a strong perception among blacks that the lives of their young men are somehow considered disposable or at least less important than those of other citizens.  These events have also resurfaced the nagging questions of why blacks are still looking in from outside on many of the desired opportunities in our society.  Black voices are demanding fairer treatment by law enforcement and better opportunities in education and the workforce.

Many people are sympathetic with these voices and wish that something ‘could be done’ to fix these problems, but generally don’t know what that ‘something’ could be.  Others feel that blacks are ‘playing the race card’ and using it as an excuse for their own failings.  They believe that the culprits are the breakdown of the black family, drugs and a youth culture that tends to celebrate violence, misogyny and a rejection of societal values.

The police shootings are an example of how polarized our society is in danger of becoming.  Is there hope for a slow reconciliation of these views and a positive move toward better understanding?  Is there hope that the frequency of such tragedies will decrease?

Clearly, no reasonable person wants an unarmed man to be killed by police even if they have committed a crime.  But can we say that the police are never justified in shooting an unarmed man?  No, of course not.  The policeman’s job is very challenging with a constant potential for injury or death.  Historically, the benefit of the doubt has been given to the police, though it should certainly not be done without careful consideration of the events.  It is a dual responsibility of both the citizen and the policeman to avoid situations that escalate out of control or that cause a policeman to believe he is in mortal danger.  There are certainly cases where policeman have provoked that escalation.  But there are also times when unarmed individuals have made poor choices that resulted in their deaths.

Are young black men treated differently than any other group?  Yes, probably so.  Some would argue that there is justification for this profiling, and it is also difficult to know how much different the treatment of blacks is than of any other group in a high crime area.

No law can completely dictate police behavior.  Rules of engagement are already in place and must continue to be refined.  But in the end, there is an unwritten social contract between the people and the police that must be respected by both sides.  Heightened awareness on both sides due to the recent cases may contribute to a better future result.  And certainly the continuing integration of police forces will also help.  Let us hope so.

On the subject of how much racism and prejudice still exists in our society and how to eradicate it, I must again point to how polarized the existing views have become.  Are there racial stereotypes?  Of course!  Are blacks treated unfairly in the workplace and in education?  That is a more difficult question.

There is no doubt that predominantly black schools are more likely to be less ideal for education than predominantly white ones.  Is it because they receive less funds?  Funding is provided by the school district, and certainly school districts that are poorer will have less funding.  But is this a major disadvantage?  It is likely that the vicious cycle of poverty begetting poverty is more to blame than actual funding differences. Poor families, and especially single parent poor families, have less time, resources and education than wealthier families.  Less family support and resources, more violence and disruptive behavior in the neighborhood and in the school, and all of the other crushing burdens of being poor conspire to create a very challenging environment for education.

In the area of income and job opportunities, it seems to me that the black community is again at a distinct disadvantage because of the legacy of poverty and slavery.  But social and economic justice is a complex matter that cannot be corrected with the stroke of a pen.  Every impoverished community struggles to find a way to advance out of poverty, whether white, black, Hispanic or even Asian.  It is a sad truth of our 21^st century world that the gap between rich and poor is growing even in developed nations.

Do black Americans still face discrimination?  It would be presumptuous of me to say no, and I am sure that discrimination still occurs in both direct and subtle ways.  But I do not believe that discrimination itself is the most daunting barrier to progress, and more importantly, an activism that focuses on racial issues will increasingly receive a skeptical hearing and a deaf ear from the American public.  The battle must be fought on the field of economic gains for the working class – better vocational education, more jobs and higher paying jobs.  This is an agenda that can be embraced by every American of every race or ethnic background and both ends of the political spectrum.

Thoughts on Charlie

 Like most of the rest of the world I was horrified and terribly saddened by the events in Paris.  It is difficult to comprehend the motivations behind such heinous acts, but sadly the propensity in the human race for violence is a long established fact.

The first question is whether Charlie Hebdo can in any way be held responsible for its fate because of its highly irreverent and often mocking cartoons.  I categorically reject this idea and I cast my lot with those who declare ‘Je suis Charlie’.  One of the pillars and best accomplishments of modern civilization is freedom of expression.  There are, of course, certain limits such as child pornography or incitement to violence, but the great majority of censorship is a slippery slope to the type of society that we spent centuries evolving away from.  One may be disgusted, incensed or insulted by the written, spoken or visual, and it is only human to react in outrage or pain or anger, but there is no circumstance that justifies violence as a response.

The second question that will resound in the coming weeks and months will be whether a free, open and diverse society can maintain its principles in the wake of such threats.  Can those who are susceptible to the appeal of jihadist violence be identified and deterred without compromising the rights of innocent people?  Of course there is no such thing as absolute freedom, and the requirements for providing security will ultimately prevail over the protection of some rights, though certainly not without a tinge of sadness for what has been sacrificed.

There will be many who will condemn Islam itself for the acts of some of its followers, pointing to various sections in the Koran or to polls or to the Fatwahs issued by certain Imams over recent years.  I do not agree with this overall condemnation.  Any student of history or religion can point out a multitude of violent and brutal acts committed by Christians and Jews over the centuries or in the biblical past.  The Old Testament (or Torah) is full of violence, wars and even genocide.  Much like the Koran, it dictates brutal punishments for a broad spectrum of religious and sexual crimes.  For example, false prophecy, blasphemy and breaking the Sabbath were all punishable by death under the laws of the Torah.  In Christianity, those who were perceived to be blasphemous or heretics were burned at the cross or worse.  Be assured that Charlie Hebdo would not have survived its first printing in the Europe of medieval times or the Reformation.  The Crusades and the killing fields of the Thirty Years War are an example of how easily religion can be transformed into an excuse to kill and pillage.

What is different between Judeo-Christian religion and Islam is that for the most part, liberalizing influences have caused Judaism and Christianity, much older religions than Islam, to reject their violent orthodoxies.  That is not to say that Jews and Christians have lost their penchant for violence, but merely that it is no longer justified in religious terms, other than in the ‘just war’ theory.

Will liberalizing influences have a similar effect on Islam in the long run?  No one can predict the future, but certainly a good argument can be made that eventually Islam will also abandon its more radical laws and re-interpret the Koran and the life of Mohammed.  Indeed, there is an excellent book that does just that and gives a very illuminating view of the impact of Mohammed and Islam on the world – No God But God by Reza Aslan.  The general condemnation of the Paris acts by a great preponderance of Muslim leaders is also a good sign that for many Muslims there is a desire to move forward to a more accepting and peaceful coexistence with the liberalized west.

But unfortunately there are many complex underlying problems that may perhaps curtail the liberalization of Islam.  The sense of Islam being persecuted and the travails of the Middle East and Israel/Palestine create an environment that tends to radicalize rather than liberalize.  A group that feels it is being maligned and oppressed often finds unity in dogma, patriotism and fundamentalism rather than in openness and thoughtful dialogue.  Young men and women who are seeking identity and romantic ideals have always been susceptible to the cynical manipulation of radical leaders.

In this sense it is important for the international community to energetically address the alienation of Muslim youth in western countries as well as the continuing strife and chaos in the Middle East.

In the short term must have hope on two levels:  One, that our combined efforts in international intelligence and cooperation will deter future attacks of this nature.  And two, that the Muslim world will unite in its efforts to divert its youth from hatred and violence.

Das Ewig-Weibliche Zieht Uns Hinan! Or does it?

I became fascinated by German literature and philosophy in college, spent my junior year at a German university and ended up getting a B.A. in German along with my engineering degree.  I enjoyed reading many different German authors and poets, but Goethe is my favorite.

Goethe’s opus magnum is the poetic drama Faust, the classic interpretation of the Faustian bargain with the devil.  It is a complex work that spanned much of his life.  He completed it shortly before his death.

At the end of the drama, Faust’s soul should have been given over to Mephistopheles according to the pact he made, but instead he is redeemed and ascends to heaven as a mystical choir sings the final lines:

Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis

Das Unzulängliche, hier wird‘s Ereignis

Das Unbeschreibliche, hier ist‘s getan

Das Ewig-Weibliche zieht uns hinan

In English:

Everything transitory

is only an allegory;

the unachievable

here comes to pass;

the indescribable,

is here accomplished;

the Eternal Feminine

draws us aloft.

There are of course many interpretations of this final quatrain, but perhaps the most intriguing part of it is the concept of the Eternal Feminine.

I believe that Goethe, as a romantic, was convinced that the best qualities of humanity were exemplified in women - nobility of character, self-sacrificing love, gentleness and strength of spirit, forgiveness.  Indeed it was Gretchen, the young woman whom Faust had seduced and ruined, whose love and forgiveness intercedes on Faust’s behalf in providing for his redemption.

The romantic ideal of womanhood has been a common thread in literature and poetry.  Its contrast to the brutal masculine world provided an image of purity and compassion that could be offered as a goal in the savage reality of a world filled with wars, disasters and merciless competition.

But the sad irony of this romanticism was its tendency to keep women in ‘their place’ as symbols, protecting them from the brutality of normal life by preventing their participation in any meaningful way.  To keep the feminine ideal pure and unsullied, men put it on a pedestal, but rarely allowed the ideal to have any influence in their lives or habits.

There is condescension and hypocrisy inherent in the creation of ideals and symbols.  The ‘noble savage’, for example, was supposedly a respected symbol of a simpler world where men were untainted by the corrupting influence of so-called civilization.  Native Americans were glorified by some poets and writers in this way, but we all know how that story ended.  Mankind has a long history of paying lip service to ideals but totally ignoring them or even opposing them in day-to-day living.

A similar fate awaited the romantic concept of the ‘eternal feminine’.  Women were treated with great reverence, but little respect.  Their honor was protected at all costs, but their opinions and contributions were rejected or belittled.  Rather than seeing their opportunities to influence society grow, women found that their exalted state bound them in ever tighter bonds of irrelevance.

The romantic spirit began to fade by mid 19^th century and unsentimental, materialistic philosophies began to dominate the thought landscape.  Marxism and capitalism spawned their own ideals with antithetical goals, but very similar hard edges of idealized behavior.  Strength, ruthlessness and cunning were paramount - hardly the eternal feminine ideal!

By the beginning of the 20^th century, women began to vigorously claim their own place in the evolution of society, demonstrating their capacity for scholarship, labor and political influence.  In order to achieve this equality, women found it expedient to shatter the romantic feminine ideal and compete in a man’s world, embracing the masculine ethic.  If becoming an executive or a political leader required a remorseless competitive spirit, then so be it.  If an inclination toward compassion or diplomacy was seen as feminine weakness, then it must be abandoned.  If emotional expressions were not acceptable at the top, then a cold, controlled demeanor must be adopted.  If being the vulnerable victim in sexual affairs narrowed one’s options, then the answer was to switch the tables and become as emotionally indifferent and manipulative as the males.

So as we enter the year 2015 instead of the eternal feminine drawing us upward, we find that women, to some extent, have been coopted by the masculine reality. The romantic in me hopes that this is a temporary cloaking of the ideal rather than a true metamorphosis of the feminine into the masculine, and that the eventual equal, interaction of men and women as true partners in our civilization will produce a spiritual awakening of love, compassion, forgiveness and cooperation.

The Double Income Family Amplifier

 There is a general concern about the widening gap in income between the wealthy and the average worker.  In the analysis of how that gap has developed I have never seen anyone mention what I see as a very fundamental cause:  the growth of two incomes in a single family and their often amplifying effect.

In the 50’s, the era we nostalgically view as a high point in middle class opportunity and standard of living, most families had a single income, which was typically the father’s.  Then, in the 70’s and onward, two major trends led to major changes.  The first was the feminist movement, which launched women into careers in great numbers.  The second was the decrease in real wages.  In order to compensate for this decrease and still be able to meet the rising expectations of the American dream, many middle and lower economic scale families chose to have both adults work.

The increased opportunities for women are indisputably a positive thing and long overdue.  However, an interesting dynamic occurs that exacerbates the income gap.  In general, a woman who is well educated and pursues a lucrative career path will end up marrying a man who is also well paid.  Doctors will marry doctors, lawyers may marry lawyers, engineers will marry engineers and so on, with all the possible permutations.  This may not always be true, but I am guessing that it is true well over 70% of the time.

Then, a simple arithmetic fact becomes apparent with this example:  if you have single wage earners with salaries of $30k and $100k, the difference is $70k.  If their spouses are in similar professions at a similar level of salary, then the combined salaries are $60k and $200k respectively, which give a differential of $140k.  This is a very large income difference that produces a dramatic lifestyle disparity.  Even if we assume that the $60k family can live reasonably well on their income, which, when one considers that childcare, healthcare, transportation and a host of other expenses chip away insidiously at one’s available income, is certainly not a given, the unrelenting reminders of such a large difference in lifestyle must certainly be dispiriting for those near the bottom of the income ladder. 

And of course $100k is not even a very high salary.  Two doctors who are married will easily pull in a combined $500-$800k, or even more.

There is no easy ‘solution’ to this acceleration of the income gap.  The genie is out of the bottle and no one wants to return to a world where women stayed at home with no career opportunities.  And it is also unlikely that we will evolve to a world where doctors marry fast food servers.  If anything, the situation will become even more complex and fractured as more middle class jobs are eliminated by automation.  Thus, we seem to be destined to become a more skewed society of haves and have nots, which cannot be a healthy situation even if the have nots are not starving or destitute.

It's A Wonderful Life

Well, it is Christmas again - and time for another tearful/joyful viewing of Frank Capra's 'It's a Wonderful Life'.  Perhaps you've seen it recently too?  Jimmy Stewart is George Bailey, the hero whose dreams of exotic adventure, business success and travel never materialize because he is always giving himself to others, but whose generous and principled existence is nonetheless a beautiful portrait of life lived to its fullest.

Once again I find myself weeping at this poignant reminder of where the true value in life lies.  Isn't it funny that I've seen this picture a hundred times, yet have come no further in incorporating its message in my life?  We all love George Bailey, but almost none of us chooses to follow his path. 

It's not that we are actively evil, like Mr. Potter (the conniving banker who is hated by the entire town).  But as much as we appreciate the simple treasure of George's life as a romantic  ideal, our real life passions are not so easily redirected.  We humans are somehow bound to chase after wealth of a more conventional nature - the very booty that George spent his whole life desiring and never achieving.  We are really more likely to aspire to be Sam Wainwrights (George's opportunistic boyhood friend who seems to have little depth, but becomes wealthy and worldly) than George Baileys.

Even George really does not seek the noble life that he lives.  He tries on numerous occasions to escape from his humdrum existence only to be foiled by various catastrophes that require him to sacrifice his own dreams to rescue others from dire circumstances. 

The film ends rather abruptly after a Dickensian dream sequence demonstrating to George the impact of his life by showing the sad state of affairs that would have resulted had he not been around.  George sprints home with joy in his heart and discovers that his years of sacrifice will not go unrewarded. His friends and neighbors rally around him.  Surrounded by friends and family singing Auld Lang Syne, George seems to understand that his is the essence of a fulfilled life.

But one is left with the question of how George would have felt with the passage of time.  Would the epiphany he experienced with Clarence the Angel have given him a lasting conviction about the value of his life, or would the longing for more exotic experiences and worldly recognition have eventually crept back into his psyche?

Why is it so difficult for us to embrace and act upon the simple truth of this story?  Perhaps it is partly because the truth is not quite so simple.  There are many natural contradictions in life that cannot easily be resolved.  In a sentimental moment we may extol the virtues of the simple life and the primary importance of friends, family and love, but we are easily seduced away from these ideals by the sirens of wealth, adventure and power.

The human spirit seems to quickly lose patience with a placid, humble existence.  Consider the many movies and books that celebrate the passionate young soul who breaks free from a stifling, small town environment and achieves wealth and fame in the big city.  It seems we are doomed to vacillate between the poles of frenzied ambition and sedate acceptance.  We are a restless people who find it difficult to be content with our lot in life.

If one speaks from the perspective of true intentions, one might describe George Bailey as an accidental saint.  But on the other hand, when the difficult decisions had to be made, George always took the high road, the one that clearly was going to dash his hopes and dreams but allow others’ to flourish.  Most of us are subject to George Bailey’s dreams of wealth and fame, but few of us are so selfless and willing to sacrifice them for the sake of others.  This, in the end, is the moral lesson of It’s A Wonderful Life.

Politics - why are we so divided?

A while ago I wrote this to try to understand why people who love and respect each other and have the best intentions can differ so markedly in their political views:

For years I have been astounded by the fact that people I love and respect can have such profoundly different political views than I have.  How can this be?  Discarding the tempting conclusion that I am simply a lot smarter and perceptive than they are, I have come to believe that the true differences between conservatives and liberals are more subtle and less dramatic than one would expect.  Somewhere in the process of taking concrete, basic values and abstracting them to larger political, social and economic concepts, we sprint off on very different paths.

Most of the people I know have similar core values.  They believe in hard work, a high moral and ethical standard, honesty and compassion.  On a micro level, the stereotypes for liberals and conservatives don’t really apply.  Many of the conservatives I know are involved in humanitarian projects and are, by all indications, compassionate, caring individuals.  Likewise, the liberals I know are hard-working, motivated people who value the marketplace and recognize the joy of accomplishment and success.

The divergence in beliefs comes when we consider the imperfection of human nature and its consequences, and it becomes more pronounced in the type of idealized societal scenario we are inclined to believe is possible.  In essence, whether you are a conservative or a liberal comes down to which human frailty you consider the most dangerous or pernicious! 

Conservatives focus on the slothful nature of mankind, the fact that humans will avoid work and take advantage of the work of others if given the opportunity.  They believe the biggest threat to society is indolence, and that the energetic and motivated must drive the progress of civilization, or stagnation and paralysis will result.

Liberals interpret the fallibility of human nature with a different slant.  They fear the basic human qualities of greed and avarice, and are convinced that the corrupting nature of wealth and power must be offset in some fashion to avoid gross inequities and the polarization of society.

Clearly both of these criticisms of human nature are valid.  It is not unreasonable to view the whole progress of the economic, social and political aspects of civilization as a balancing act between these two sets of human weaknesses.

For what is capitalism but the recognition that human progress is best fueled by competition among men and women?  Even the most ardent conservative and capitalist will have to concede that competition, with its propensity for dividing the world into winners and losers, and its potential for inflicting great tragedy and disappointment on those losers, is a means to an end that has manifold flaws.  But what liberal can argue that there is a more effective economic system than capitalism? 

An interesting corollary to the cynicism of these views is the passion we all have for idealistic, utopian models for society.  These models tend to portray the world in very black and white terms, causing reverential and passionate allegiance on one side and eye-rolling dismissal on the other.  The writings and envisioned utopias of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx come to mind.  What liberal does not smirk in contempt at the “Who is John Galt” bumper sticker, and the Pavlovian response of the conservative to the word “socialism” has almost become quaint.

The world is no perfect place, nor will it ever become one.  Anyone trying to create the perfect balance of income distribution and economic regulation with free market dynamism is faced with two sobering realities at the margins:  the greed and powerful manipulations of some of the rich and privileged, and the sloth and opportunism of some at the lower end of the scale of human activity.

How can one create an effective safety net for those upon whom misfortune has truly fallen and not also create an opportunity for the lazy to avoid hard work or responsibility?  How can one minimize the regulations and restrictions for business and still avoid the cronyism, insider trading, market manipulation and outright corruption that tempt even the most ethical?

Perhaps if we started out recognizing the basic contradictions and irreconcilable attributes of human nature that condemn any socioeconomic system to at best a discouraging compromise, then we could discover a more tolerant approach to grappling with policy issues.

Stepford University!

After one of my recent visits to my alma mater, I somewhat mischievously penned this critique of its current superstar status.  It reflects my concerns about the hyper-competitive and materialistic trends of our society, though it is perhaps a bit harsh and undoubtedly exaggerated in its depiction.

I had a dream last night. 

It was about my alma mater, Stanford University.  I flew back for a visit and found that it had changed its name to Stepford University.  When I drove up to the campus I was amazed to find out that all of the students were perfect.  Every one of them was a successful entrepreneur by the time he or she graduated.  Most of them were also playing varsity sports on teams that won championships every year.  They were all incredibly good looking with perfect bodies and bright smiles that radiated energy and confidence.  They were so diverse – White, East Asian, South Asian, African-American, Hispanic  – yet somehow they all looked and acted pretty much alike.

Every student already had a resume that seemed superhuman.  But these resumes were only the first step to the dizzying heights of accomplishment that they expected to ascend.

As I wandered the campus I looked for students who were pondering the basic questions of existence and who were confused about their place in the world.  I listened for conversations about Camus or Keats, but instead heard talk of Google internships, McKinsey bonuses and first year Wall Street salaries. I suppose that there must have been some students who were searching for meaning and grappling with self-doubt, but I couldn’t find them. 

I tried to find the university I had once attended -  the one where the students were pretty much normal kids, maybe a little brighter than average but humbled by their lack of experience and knowledge; the one where the sports teams had occasional success, but played for the sheer joy of it, more often than not in obscurity; the one where no one was angling to be a billionaire a few years after graduating, but rather was more concerned with being a college student and seeking knowledge and understanding; the school with the open fields and spaces all over campus instead of the dense mass of buildings and dedicated fields named after rich alumni or corporations. I tried to find that school, but then I realized it no longer existed.  Stanford had become Stepford.

I had a dream last night.  I’m sure glad it was only a dream.