Tribes

It has always intrigued me that people so easily and passionately associate themselves with groups.  Alumni of Ohio State University demonstrate an almost religious devotion to their football team; Coca Cola employees will never be tempted by another sugary drink; Chicago sports fans support their baseball teams loyally despite an almost perfect record of disappointment; Marines put 'semper fidelis' bumper stickers on their cars and consider themselves lifelong marines; citizens of every country proclaim the virtues of their land and bind themselves to it by a fierce nationalism; ethnic groups celebrate their common attributes and find either refuge or exclusivity in their shared experience.

What is the nature of this tribal impulse, this compulsion to associate with a group and embrace both its successes and failures, its triumphs and tribulations?  Is there some deep need within us to belong to something larger than ourselves, to attach ourselves to a substantial organism so as to avoid the oblivion of anonymity and solitude?

In some cases, and especially in earlier times, it was clear that the attachment had a practical and utilitarian aspect.  The tribe offered protection from an uncertain and dangerous world, from wild animals or malicious neighboring tribes.  The tribal efforts to procure food and water would certainly have greater chances of success than the efforts of a single person or family.  Membership in a tribe bolstered survival chances substantially.

But many of the tribal loyalties in today’s world bear no relation to our ancient tribal inclinations.  Certainly the intense emotional bond that many have today with their college or city sports team can no longer be interpreted as having any utilitarian component.  Other than some minor bragging rights, the success of a sports team has little impact on its fans lives.  Yet fans will go to absurd extremes in demonstrating their loyalty and tribal membership – even killing one another in some cases.

The tribal association known as nationalism or love of country is perhaps more understandable, as it has a direct impact on the well-being (or at least the perceived well-being) of the citizens.  But nationalism is a slippery slope, and it has been responsible in the past for many a virulent form of fascism or imperialism. And as the world becomes more global and more inter-dependent, it may be that nationalism actually works against one’s own self-interest.  Yet I suspect that nationalism will not die easily, as it is the most expedient rallying cry of the demagogue.

Tribalism is sadly interwoven into the fabric and orthodoxy of most world religions.  Part of any religion’s resilience is its claim to be the single truth and path to Godliness, and most religions develop a cultural ethos with a strong tribal hold on their members.  Consigning non-members to eternal damnation or death is a pretty effective tool in creating a strong tribal message!

Of course the rich diversity of religious culture is something to admire in the world, and the world would be poorer for its absence.  However, I would argue that the diversity could be maintained without the absolutism and dogmatism that create such conflict and disharmony between individual religions as well as the non-religious.

Cultural and ethnic tribalism are also a complex combination of positives and negatives.  The U.S. has long been the so-called melting pot of cultures, and has been somewhat successful in blending cultures to retain interesting attributes while breaking down the prejudices and separateness that cultural tribalism can easily perpetuate.

One might argue that it is sad to see a melding of cultures and the loss of the pure essence of a particular group’s heritage.  But if no assimilation occurs, then the probability of alienation and hostility is strong when groups live in close proximity and share common resources and political/economic systems.  

Today some cultures do indeed seem resistant to ‘melting’ and assimilation.  Europe, for example, has been unsuccessful in assimilating its Muslim population for a variety of reasons. One might also argue that Jewish populations have also maintained a fairly separate, tribal unity – understandable for historical reasons of persecution – but somewhat problematic nonetheless.

So why do we allow ourselves to be drawn into these tribal relationships?  Is there some basic biological need for them?  Are they simply the most readily available form of community, which might be characterized as a fundamental social need for most human beings?

Are tribal associations an anachronism that should be shed by the new, progressive man or woman?  Aren’t we citizens of the world, joined together in common plight with all of our fellow human beings in an ever more challenging and urgent quest to find harmony on earth and solve common problems?  Can we preserve some of the wonderful diversity of our tribal communities while blunting their sharp edges?  Can we be passionate members of our tribe without also being adversaries with other tribes?  Of course we can, and it is part of our required evolution as a species.  If we succeed we will be the ‘meek who inherit the earth’.  If we fail, then we will join the dinosaurs in the dustbin of the universe.

Martyrs, Murderers, Heroes and Psychopaths

Another mass shooting, this time in San Bernardino by two Islamic extremists.  Before that, a mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic by a Christian extremist. And of course there are others before those too numerable to mention, from heinous elementary school slaughters to movie theater massacres. Are these people psychopaths, murderers, heroes or martyrs?  The sad truth is that they are all of the above.

I read a book several years ago about the Columbine shootings.  The author provided evidence that the two boys were psychopaths, not just troubled teenagers who had somehow been traumatized into a murderous rampage by adolescent grievances.  These types of killings (Sandy Hook, Colorado Movie Theater, Virginia Tech, etc. etc.) are clearly the result of twisted minds.

How does someone shoot down people in cold blood without being somewhat of a psychopath?  Even in moments of burning rage, I cannot imagine doing what these people have done.

The perpetrators of these ghastly crimes come from very different backgrounds and appear to have a wide variety of motives.  For some, the act must simply be an expression of a deep sickness and tortured soul.  For others, the act is inspired by some sort of political or religious zeal – white supremacy, radical Islam, radical Christian or others.  In decades past, revolutionary and ideological fervor was often the cause of such attacks.

We cannot ignore the fact that human beings are violent creatures.  When we line up on opposite sides based on tribe, or country or ideology or religion, we do not hesitate to commit the most hideous torture and murder imaginable.

The assailants in Paris a few weeks ago were generally miscreants with criminal backgrounds.  But somehow they were converted to deep religious belief that inspired them to kill innocent people and sacrifice their own lives in the process.  The murderous San Bernardino couple is a bit more troubling.  They did not appear to have the traits of psychopaths or criminals, but were somehow convinced that the community around them was their enemy and that the murder of their colleagues was justified.  They probably believed they were doing a noble deed in the cause of their faith.  And they will be hailed as heroes and martyrs by more than a few people.

At first this seems irrational.  How can the murder of innocents ever be justified?  But of course every government rationalizes the murder of innocents in its efforts to implement its military and political goals.  Oh no, you say, we never purposely target innocent civilians.  Sadly, though, that is not true.  We try to ‘minimize’ collateral damage, but the cold calculus of war often ‘requires’ the sacrifice of innocents.  In World War II, the allies purposely targeted civilian populations and killed millions of ‘innocent’ civilians in order to break the will of the enemy.  War has no conscience.

We are always at war; at war against Islamic extremists, at war against Christian extremists, at war against Hindu extremists, at war against white supremacists, at war against drug gangs and cartels.  One group’s madman is another’s hero.  Many of the horrible deeds are done by psychopaths, but some are done by thoughtful, introspective intellectuals.  The human psyche is still a mystery.

We make heroes out of killers, because they further our cause.  Is a Navy seal who kills whomever he is ordered to kill under any circumstances a hero or a villain?  He is both.  We are all capable of becoming killers.  I would kill to protect my family, or perhaps even to avenge it.  And so it goes on.

How many potential Islamic extremist killers are out there, waiting for the opportunity to wreak their mayhem on our society?  How many Christian extremists, or anti-government nutjobs are sitting in their gun-filled basements, preparing for mayhem and destruction?  We just don’t know.

But one thing we do know:  only a tiny, tiny fraction of the Muslims in the U.S. will ever commit a violent act, and only a tiny, tiny fraction of the Christians in the U.S. will do the same.  Will we allow ourselves to abandon our principles of fair treatment, multi-culturalism and a free society in a desperate and futile attempt to feel safe?  I hope not.  The world will never be totally safe.  We are infinitely more likely to die young from an auto accident or an illness than from a terrorist act.

In the end, we must choose love over hate, while doing our best to stay safe and prevent these tragedies from occurring.  We are awash in weapons, in hateful speech and uncontrolled emotions.  We must learn from the best models available how to preserve our democracy while being vigilant. Compromise is in order - let's allow the NSA to listen more closely so that we can identify potential terrorists of any stripe (and put safeguards in to avoid misuse of that data), but let's also get rid of every military style weapon in the country.  Australia and Scotland did it and they have reaped the rewards.  Let's learn from others!

John Lennon is Dead

As the 35th anniversary of John Lennon's death approaches, I thought I would post something I wrote in the days after his shooting:

John Lennon is Dead

That the death of John Lennon would first reach my ears through the rasping medium of a Howard Cosell monologue is a droll footnote to a sad tale. I don't know why I was watching Monday Night Football. It was one of those evenings that shatter one's pretensions of self-discipline and purpose.  I had probably contemplated reading a good book but ended up giving in to the addiction of my youth.

It was the week before final exams, and Boston had grown very cold and subdued.  The initial gaiety of the post-Thanksgiving preparations for Christmas had already subsided and the city was caught in that funny period between the two holidays.  No matter how hard the merchants and admen try, they cannot obliterate that dead zone in early December.

But Monday Night Football was impervious to the subtleties of the season, and Howard and Dandy Don Meredith were still in their heyday.  When the announcement was made, it reached millions of people and its stunning effect swept across the country.

My first reaction was shock.  Assassination was not an end I could imagine for John Lennon.   Rock stars had not fared well in the 70's, but they generally died from drug overdoses and motorcycle accidents, which were more like a professional hazard.  Being stalked and gunned down by an assassin cast Lennon's death in a very different light.

The initial shock began to transform itself into focused emotions, the most striking of which was a deep aching melancholy. I began to phone friends, passing the grim news and sharing memories of a youth that seemed suddenly to have ended.

My earliest associations with music centered around the Beatles.  In 1964 I was ten years old.  My sister was an authentic screaming-teen-beatlemaniac. Every day after school she would drag me down into our basement and we would play Beatle 45s until Mom yelled down that it was time for dinner.

Sometimes we would dance and she would show me the latest moves - the monkey, the jerk, the watusi. And always we would memorize, song after song, verse upon verse.  I can still sing along with scores of Beatle songs, rarely missing a word.

After the Beatles' conquest of the U.S., I left the tutelage of my sister and forged my own relationship with the Fab Four. In school I was a recognized Beatle expert. I led the Beatles songs in the bus on field trips. Three friends and I joined together as a pretend Beatles group, and the girls in our class were willing to pretend right along with us, so powerful was the elixir of Beatlemania.

By the end of 1965 the album Rubber Soul had come, and with it a transition out of the cuteness and innocence of their early image.  I was horrified by their longer and disheveled hair and the unabashed display of smoking on the album cover.  But the new sound in their music enchanted me and soon I was growing and changing too, just a few paces behind the lads from Liverpool.

Junior high, with its painful initiation into the rites of social intercourse, was the time when music first became a solace to my oft-injured soul.  And though I did not understand the details of their own quest - their age and sophistication were well beyond my tender years - somehow the combination of rebellion and truth-seeking in the Beatles music was comprehensible and comforting to me. I was searching too.

By the time I reached high school and began grappling with the issues of war, civil rights and social justice, the Beatles were in the final stages of collapse as a group. I have never regretted their breakup.  The Beatles had been able to stay one step ahead of the "rock impressarios" up to that time, but it was inevitable that they would have become yet another big business band and a monument to self-parody had they continued.

I continued to listen to Beatle music through college and beyond.  Though my interest in rock music offered up other heroes it was never the same. Other groups might capture my feelings for a few months or even a few years, but the Beatles were like lifelong good friends.  We had learned about the world together and nothing would ever change that.

Those four British boys were uniquely gifted as a group, creating songs and a sound that were far greater than the sum of the parts.  Their solo efforts never came close.  There was plenty of individual talent, and a generous portion of charm and wit, but their incredible impact on this world was circumstantial - a perfect union of those mystical forces that create an historical moment.

The day after the shooting, I walked over to MIT and found that Lennon's death was the topic of every conversation.  All of my friends and co-workers were grieving in some fashion. Radio stations played nothing but Beatle music and stores were quickly sold out of every Beatle album. In a review session that I attended, an Iranian graduate student announced, with eyes glistening, that he was dedicating the session to the memory of John Lennon.

Throughout that day and the next few, I wrestled with my memories of the Beatles and tried to reconcile sentiment with reason. John Lennon, whatever his faults or vanities, had stubbornly spoken for the idealist in all of us.  Why can't we just give peace a chance?  Why can't we imagine a world without war or hatred?

On the Sunday following his death, a rally and candle vigil was held in downtown Boston at Copley Square - timed to coincide with a worldwide ten minutes of silence for the fallen legend. The day was brutally cold, but still thousands came.

The embers of the 60s had smoldered and glowed throughout the 70s. Many had hoped that the gentle integrity of Jimmy Carter might fan them into life again, but it was not to be. Then, suddenly, a reaction of cynical pragmatism gripped the nation. Dreams of social equality and international peace were abandoned in a frenzy of greed and nationalism.

The year 1980 rang the death knell for the innocent questing spirit of the 60s.  The Soviets were in Afghanistan, the hostages were in Iran, and a disgruntled public voted in Ronald Reagan as president a month before the death of John Lennon.

The Beatles had served as an alter-ego for our generation. And now, a part of them was dead, shot down as if to exclaim once and for all the absurdity of believing that love could change the world.

The cold and the wind forced the crowd to huddle together for the ten minutes of silence.  The closeness had an electric effect, and I could see many around me weeping, yet smiling through their tears. I felt those twin currents of hope and despair surging through the crowd, but somehow the mood was triumphant. It was the end of an era, but love would carry the day.

Vanity, Envy and Competition, Part 4

We have explored how our vanity and insecurity are the yin and yang of our praise addiction.  But how do envy and competition fit into this psychological constellation?

We are all familiar with envy – it is a reflex feeling almost as natural as breathing.  We envy the rich; we envy the famous; we envy the guy next door with the Tesla.  We envy our friends who take exotic vacations, or whose kids are going to better colleges.  We envy people who are taller, or thinner or smarter or more athletic.  We envy our classmates who have risen higher on the corporate ladder.  We envy the guy who gets the pretty girls, or the girl who gets the pretty guys!

Sometimes we are able to talk ourselves out of feeling envious.  Intellectually, we know that the rich are often not very happy, and that money and possessions are not the source of well-being.  But our culture celebrates wealth – the more the better – so our gut reaction is to be envious of those who have it.  And envying physical attributes is another lovely side effect of our cultural baggage.  Perfect bodies and faces stare out at us from every corner of the media and chip away at our self-image.

Is envy a character defect?  Are some people able to overcome the insidious urge to envy by strength of will and confidence in their own accomplishments and life situation?  I suspect that everyone falls prey to envy on a fairly routine basis.  In moments of weakness or uncertainty, at times of depression, at times when we feel that ache of regret for opportunities squandered or lacking, or even just in the routine of daily thought, the temptation to wish for something that others seem to have is poised to creep into our consciousness unsolicited, unwanted and even dreaded.  No one wants to be envious, but we are powerless in the face of so many stimuli that awaken the feeling.

Why is it so difficult for us to be satisfied with our lives? Most of us live like kings compared to much of the world.  We should feel triumphant in the amazing good fortune that has been thrust upon us.  Yet envy is always lurking, ready to poison our hearts in a weak moment.

But perhaps a certain amount of envy is a good thing?  Is envy a precursor to ambition?  Is it envy that seeds our competitive drive and enables us to strive for ever higher goals?  Is it indeed envy that is the engine for human progress?  Or is envy a weakness that corrupts our character and paralyzes us?

To investigate these questions we must go back once again to look at human activity and analyze its motivations.  Human beings are so incredibly diverse in their energy levels and drive.  Some people are in constant motion, with a seemingly inexhaustible ambition to accomplish things.  Others seem permanently lethargic with almost no discernible goal or interest.  Are these innate attributes, or are they the result of our interaction with the world and the way that our ego responds to it?

We observed previously that some part of our lives is focused on the banalities of daily existence – sleeping, eating, basic chores and so on - and some part on pleasurable activities.  A third part is comprised of the endeavors that set us in competition with our fellow human beings – work, sports, education, the arts and many others.

Some of the effort we expend for these activities is certainly motivated by the pure joy of doing them.  But we soon encounter the competitive aspect and our motivations become mixed.  And the more successful we are in these activities, the more the competitive urge dominates.

Are we competitive because we envy the success of others or is there a basic drive independent of envy?  We speak of the competitive urge as though it were an innate quality.  An athlete is a ‘real competitor’.  A successful businessman has ‘a strong competitive instinct’. 

We laud these qualities in our culture.  The more competitive the better.  We develop our children’s competitive nature from their earliest days in sports, games and school, then later in business.  Competition is so integrally bound with praise, vanity and envy that it is almost impossible to isolate the pure quality of competitiveness.

I was recently watching a PBS special on how the chemical elements were discovered.  In interviews or writings of each of the famous scientists it was edifying to note that their initial fascination and activity was prompted by intellectual curiosity, but that their later almost obsessive hard work and tenacity was characterized by a desire to become renowned, to make their mark on the world of chemistry and have their contribution acknowledged by one and all.

It is clear that competition is interwoven with vanity, envy and praise in the complex web of human endeavor.   But it may also be that we are driven to compete by some basic biological imperative for survival and propagation of the species.  Competition has been the engine of human progress, hasn’t it?

But competition also leaves much human misery and heartache in its wake.  Is that inevitable?  Is the world always to be populated by winners and losers?  Is competition necessary to prevent human beings from descending into sloth and indolence?  Or is there an evolutionary process toward cooperation and community that may one day replace competition as the primary motivation for humankind?

That is the question we shall explore in the final segment of Vanity, Envy and Competition.  Stay tuned!

On Refugees and Migrants

One of the profoundly unsettling consequences of global communication and social media is the way it shatters our illusions about how compassionate we are and shines a spotlight on our own selfishness and impotence.  The entire world was heartbroken at the sight of two drowned boys and a despairing father from Syria, but our despair seems to have no outlet, no path to right these horrible wrongs or to prevent them from happening over and over again.

We donate money to various aid organizations, but this tiny gesture seems sadly anemic in the face of the horrific political and military forces that shatter the lives of so many human beings.  Is it our fate to become inured to the misery that this world so often causes, to close off our hearts in an effort to shield ourselves from pangs of conscience?  Can we assuage our guilt with modest sympathetic declarations and monetary contributions?

It is particularly frustrating that years of economic development and steady improvement of living conditions can be wiped out in a few months by a despot or a rogue militia group.  The world looks on in helpless outrage, but short of sending in ground troops and undertaking major military operations – an operation that few are willing or able to undertake after the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan – there is almost nothing to be done other than to try to be compassionate to the desperate souls who flee.

We try to distinguish between refugees and migrants, but I would argue that when we look deeply at the causes, these descriptions become a distinction without a difference.  In theory, a refugee is someone fleeing because it is no longer safe for them to remain in their country.  A migrant is someone who is ‘merely’ seeking a better life – migrating to a more prosperous country than the one they inhabited.

But both refugees and migrants are risking their lives and what little fortune they have managed to accumulate in the same desperate and dangerous voyage.  And they are both almost always the victims of corrupt political systems that have squandered the country’s economic resources, or of anarchic, civil war conditions that make normal commerce impossible to sustain.  Almost all of the significant migrations are in the end the result of politics and/or war – Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Mali, Sudan, even Mexico and Central America.

Is a migrant with no opportunity to improve his life so different from a refugee fleeing for his?  If you cannot put food on the table in your native land and have no hope for improvement because of years of political corruption or civil war, is your quest for a new life any less worthy than that of a person whose life is similarly devastated but perhaps in more immediate danger?

The statue of liberty and Ellis Island stand as symbols of America’s long history of accepting immigrants and transforming them into the engine of the U.S. economy.  But these immigrants were never really ‘welcomed’, were they?  Every immigrant group that came to these shores suffered tremendous hardship and prejudice – the Irish, the Germans, the Jews, the Italians, the Chinese and so on.  There were always concerns that the ‘pure’ nature of American society would somehow be diminished by these ‘hordes’ of new citizens. Yet we prospered by the infusion, and still do.

As long as the gulf in this world between rich and poor nations is so large and the incidence of mayhem and war so great, there will be large movements of people willing or forced to risk all to find a better life.  And it is only human that those who are already enjoying the peace and prosperity of a favored land will jealously guard their treasure and good fortune from new aspirants.

But sadly, this refugee and migrant crisis is now even more complex because of an increasing skepticism by many that assimilation is not really occurring for many ethnic and religious groups, and that countries willing to host them are taking a risk for future conflict and possible terrorism within their borders.

Germany has been the rare example of a courageous voice for setting aside suspicions and reservations to do the right thing.  It is an historical irony, but an inspiring one, that the country whose past was the very essence of ethnic purity and intolerance is now the leading advocate for humane and charitable treatment of the many different groups looking toward it as a beacon of hope.

In the end we must all overcome our fears and doubts and welcome the stranger if we aspire to our better natures and a better world.  For we are the fortunate ones who won the random lottery of birth and circumstance.  In no situation it is more accurately stated: there but for the grace of God go I.  But it will require all of the humanity that we can muster to embrace the spirit of the poem that adorns our Statue of Liberty: 

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Vanity, Envy and Competition Part 3

We have talked about how vanity and insecurity are the poles of our daily wrestling with our ego, and about how our unquenchable thirst for praise drives it all.  We are creatures that need to be loved, and we can only imagine being loved if we are praiseworthy.

But what about unconditional love?  Doesn’t almost every religion and every self-help philosophy stress the concept of unconditional love or self-worth?  Aren’t we told that we are beautiful creatures who deserve to be loved regardless of our faults and weaknesses, independent of our achievements, wealth and fame?  Of course we are, but do we believe it?

How can we possibly believe it when we are assaulted on every front by the merciless score keeping of the culture around us?  Intellectually and rationally we may convince ourselves in a quiet moment that the world’s values are wrong, that we should be content with our lives and ourselves, that God loves us equally.  But the reassuring tranquility of that moment vanishes in a heartbeat when the long-cultivated habits of our striving are awakened by a simple pretentious comment from an acquaintance or a quick perusal of one’s class notes in a college alumni magazine.

Expressing one’s vanity is sometimes viewed very positively.  We call it self-confidence.  But there is a fine line between self-confidence and arrogance.  An athlete can be a little bit ‘cocky’, but too much is considered bad form.  The line has been drawn ever farther on the side of cockiness since Muhammad Ali declared to anyone who would listen (and isn’t it amazing how we all did!) that he was the greatest.  I remember the old bromide ‘no brag just fact’, which supposedly justified bragging when one was truly capable.  But why brag even then?  Who really cares and what is one accomplishing?

Expressions of cockiness and other less attractive forms of braggadocio seem mostly to reek of insecurity and a desperate need for praise.  In our society bragging has been elevated to an art form, often best described as pretentiousness.  Its subtleties are mastered over a lifetime, though it is a skill that in the end gives only the most tenuous of pleasures and often leaves one feeling disgusted with oneself.

But we also prize humility, which is in itself a very elusive quality.  The minute we seek humility, it often eludes us.  For in seeking humility we may succumb to the temptation of feeling superior to others who are not so humble!  One of my favorite joke-illustrations is the story of the two priests praying at the altar in the church.  The senior priest prays out loud ‘Have mercy upon me, Lord, I am nothing . . .’.  The younger priest, much affected by the older priest’s humility cries out ‘And have mercy upon me, Lord, for I too am nothing’.  In the back of the church, a janitor who has witnessed the prayers of these great men of God falls to his knees and joins in ‘And upon me, Lord, for I am also nothing.’   The younger Priest looks at the older Priest, rolling his eyes and says ‘Look who thinks he’s nothing!’

The quality of true humility must be almost an unconscious attribute, or at least one must be exceedingly careful in adorning oneself with it.  Vanity often cloaks itself with humility.  If the quest for humility is to avoid the endless sparring of social bragging and to pull away from all the nonsense of comparisons, then it is indeed a ‘consolation devoutly to be wished’.  But beware, soon your friends will be describing you as humble.  Then you may find that you are inwardly thrilled to be praised in such a manner and make the sad discovery that your humility has fled!

Demagoguery, Anger and Politics

I have often wondered what it was like to live in Germany during the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, to see the tentacles of Nazism wrap themselves around daily life and begin to control all social and political discourse.  We see Hitler and his henchmen as such evil and detestable characters today that it is difficult for us to imagine how they could have seized power in one of the most educated and sophisticated countries in the world.

Was Hitler a ridiculous figure at first to most people?  Did everyone find his ravings amusing and good fodder for parody?  At what point did people become aware that his following was growing rapidly and that his brown shirts were a real and terrifying force?  Did ordinary people shrug their shoulders and acknowledge that Hitler had tapped into a deep anger and frustration, never thinking that he might actually force his way into the halls of power?  At what point did they begin to realize that this was not just humorous political theater?

Donald Trump leads the polls for the Republican nomination.  When he announced his candidacy, politicians on the left and right smiled patronizingly and predicted that he would provide good entertainment, but certainly no serious threat.  Recently, Jeb Bush acknowledged that Trump was ‘tapping into anti-establishment anger’, but his campaign staff is apparently delighted by Trump’s strong showing, believing that the more successful and poisonous Trump is, the more Jeb will be cast as the ‘serious’ antidote candidate.

What is all this anger about anyway?  Political issues have always sparked emotional responses, but the anger and the paranoia these days seem to be at fever pitch.  Are people angry about the economy, about slow job growth?  Well, certainly the economy could be better and there are not enough middle class jobs, but the economy doesn’t seem to be in the kind of horrible shape that would cause deep anger.  Is the anger all about our foreign affairs?  Does anyone think there are easy answers to the morass of international issues any administration faces?  Perhaps the anger is about social issues - gay rights, promiscuity, religion or abortion?  Or perhaps about the changing face of America – the immigration of Hispanic, Asian and African people, legal or illegal.  But all of this seems manageable, not justifying the very visceral anger that seems to lurk under the surface across America.

It is almost as though people enjoy being angry, even about issues that are abstractions and far removed from their daily lives and pleasures; that there is an insidious temptation to look for the dark side and revel in rumors of plots, conspiracies and apocalyptic events.  I have seen blogs and comments that indicate an unfeigned joy at the thought of armed struggle in the United States.  Over what?!!

I suspect that identifying with a demagogue and his or her associated causes is a way to find meaning in an otherwise banal and uneventful life.  It is a means to deflect self-hatred or regret and to aim this energy and fury at perceived enemies.   It is also a way to escape the relentless change that our society is undergoing and the huge effort required, both intellectual and emotional, for people to adjust – the change in our cultural identity, the change in technology, the change in sexual mores, the change in employment models, etc. etc.

It seems alarmist to worry about a Nazi type of demagoguery and anger taking hold in the U.S. today.  We have a long history of peaceful political dialogue that resists violence even when tempers and passions are at meter pegging levels.  But is it really that far-fetched?  It is difficult to discern whether Donald Trump is a harmless buffoon or a dangerous megalomaniac.  People who are so certain of themselves and so unwilling to accept ambiguity and nuance in the world are unpredictable.

I take comfort in the fact that most likely Donald Trump will self-destruct in the coming months and be recognized by the good American people for the blowhard that he is.  But there is just enough charisma in the man and just enough wingnuts in the land to make one wonder whether this could be the beginning of a very strange and very frightening odyssey.