To Impeach or not to Impeach, That is the Question

First of all, let’s just acknowledge outright that Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice by any reasonable interpretation of the law.  The Mueller report makes it very clear.  But Mueller also makes it clear that he doesn’t have the power to indict a sitting president.  So the question is whether congress, and more importantly in the long run, the people of the United States, believe that Donald Trump’s actions that have been publicized to date constitute ‘treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors’ as defined by our constitution and therefore should be impeached.

Richard Nixon was never impeached but the House Committee on the Judiciary recommended three articles of impeachment – obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt for congress.  He resigned before impeachment could be voted upon in congress.

The three articles that were recommended for Nixon also seem tailor-made for Trump.  It is instructive to remember that Nixon seemed likely to escape the impeachment process for most of 1973 and half of 1974.  His supporters in congress, with their antenna tuned as always to their own self-interest and survival, initially ridiculed the investigation as a ‘witch hunt’.  Sound familiar?  

But when the white house recordings were released and the veritable ‘smoking gun’ of Nixon’s complicity in the cover-up, as well as a pathetic litany of paranoiac and dark ramblings of a clearly corrupt and depraved president were on display, the game was up.  The noble Republican senators and congressmen, now scrambling for cover and expressing righteous indignation, made it clear that resignation and a Ford pardon were the best deal Nixon could get.

So where does that leave Trump?  The Republican-led Senate is clearly not going to convict him in an impeachment trial unless something new and more damning emerges.  The Mueller Report was unable to prove collusion with the Russians on election interference, so he is absolved in their eyes. 

To them, the fact that he obstructed justice, paid off prostitutes with finance funds just before the election, belittled and insulted his way past their colleagues to obtain the nomination, and is now proving to be the most chaotic and divisive President in at least 150 years is not nearly enough to justify the potential damage to the Republican power base that his downfall might cause.  On the contrary, they are doubling down on Donald. They see more energy and momentum in their core constituency than they have seen in years, even if it is a rather dark and ominous kind of energy.

Time will tell whether more obviously impeachable offenses waft out of the dung heap that lies in Donald Trump’s wake.  Would anyone honestly be surprised to find some incredibly egregious offense lurking there?  Even his most ardent political sycophants are no doubt holding their breath (as well as their nose).  The gift of rationalization is one of the great survival skills that politicians cultivate.

It is hard to be patient in the face of Trump’s assault on civility and decency, but patience may yet bear fruit. Trump’s army of lawyers, tax accountants and various other protectors will eventually make a mistake in their cover-ups and even the slightest sparkle of truth from his misdeeds may be enough to start the unravelling.  And once it starts, oh what a show that will be!

Climate Change and the Ostrich Syndrome

There is very strong evidence and almost total scientific consensus that climate change will have dramatic impact on planet earth over the next century.  We are already experiencing some of the first effects.  What we don’t know yet is how quickly these effects will multiply and how devastating they will be.  But up to now, the greater part of the world has put its head in the sand and hoped that either the science is wrong or that somehow we will survive.

The U.S. would be the logical choice to lead an international effort to meet this challenge, but climate change denial has become a litmus test for every conservative politician, and the idiot Trump has charged off in the exact opposite direction.

Climate change denial is beginning to weaken, as real-world events that are undeniably linked to climate change begin to pile up.  But most conservatives still believe that predictions of massive devastation in the future are exaggerated and part of the left’s political agenda. 

MIT’s publication Technology Review just had an issue with the front-page title ‘Welcome to Climate Change’.  The issue listed three phases of human response to climate change:

• Mitigation – the attempt to diminish or reverse the effects
• Adaptation – the attempt to adapt to the new climate conditions
• Suffering – the likely social, economic, political consequences and the human suffering that will ensue

MIT is not an institution known for hysteria or melodrama, but this issue of their technology magazine made my blood run cold.  The editor stated that the options for mitigation are running out rapidly and that the issue would focus more on adaptation and suffering.  The articles were, frankly, terrifying.

For most of my youth and early adulthood the specter of nuclear annihilation loomed over the world.  We envisioned a single day of cataclysmic fury that would end human civilization and leave at best a dystopian future of a limited number of homo sapiens.  The world breathed a sigh of relief when the cold war faded away and human beings appeared to be on a path to globalization with economic prosperity and sociopolitical harmony as real possibilities.

But now we face an even greater challenge, one that makes managing the nuclear standoff seem like child’s play.  China, the U.S., Europe and India are responsible for 27, 15, 10 and 7 percent of the world’s carbon emissions respectively, a total of 59%.  Growth in carbon emissions necessary to allow developing countries to reach a middle-class standard of living will certainly overwhelm any efforts by developed countries to reduce emissions unless massive international efforts are made to subsidize renewable energy projects in the poorer nations. 

To mitigate and manage the growing carbon emission crisis would take an international collaboration on a level that has never been achieved before.  Sadly, the international political landscape seems more inclined toward unilateralism than cooperation, so the prospects of any future international plan for mitigation are very slight.

What we will see instead is frighteningly portrayed in the MIT magazine and multiple other articles, as well as fictional predictions in various art forms.  As the slow, but accelerating climate ‘events’ begin to take their toll, nations will act in their self-interest to minimize the damage.  The biggest impacts will be felt first in the poorer nations.  The mass immigrations that we are seeing today will pale in comparison to the tsunamis of desperate people fleeing barren or flooded landscapes in the future.  The richer nations will build walls and become increasingly heartless in their response to world suffering and crises.  After all, they will be afflicted with their own costly wildfires, hurricanes, droughts and floods.

It doesn’t take much imagination to conjure up images of the devastation and the unraveling of civilization that will occur even under a fairly slow advance of climate change.  Is it possible that human beings will rise to the occasion and find a humane and dignified path through the conflagration?  It is often said that the worst of times can bring out the best in people.  But I fear that only applies in a single disaster event.  When the events roll in like endless breakers in a stormy sea, how steadfast will we be in our humanity?

Now would be the time for us to recognize that our ostrich complex is leading us to certain doom and destruction.  Now would be the time for us to put together a global plan to mitigate as much as possible, and then adapt to the changing climate.  Now would be the time for us to band together. 

And so it goes.

The Socialism Bogeyman

Politicians are masters at employing hyperbole, deception and simplistic generalizations to get noticed.  One of the more popular themes for conservatives these days is socialism.  With the ascendancy of several new charismatic and progressive house members, AOC being the most visible, conservatives have gone into a frenzy of name-calling, and their favorite is ‘socialist’.  A couple decades ago it would have been ‘communist’, but communism has lost its luster and relevance, so the right has pivoted to the next best bogeyman.

The primary definition of socialism is: ‘any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods’.  No serious politician is proposing true socialism for the U.S.  The use of the term is provocative and stirs up images of bomb-throwing radicals or soul-killing centralized economies.  Branding the progressive movement as ‘socialist’ is a cynical ploy to get publicity and to scare the highly impressionable public, who sadly don’t understand the details. 

A popular tactic these days is to invoke the horrors of Cuba or Venezuela as a way to discredit any progressive ideas.  This is an absurd comparison for many reasons.  Both of these countries’ ills have more to do with despotic leaders, authoritarian regimes and corruption than anything else.  One can point to multiple developing countries with so-called capitalist economies who are similarly devastated and broken.

Every industrialized country has some form of what is generally known as a ‘social democracy’.  The economic basis is capitalism with private ownership and entrepreneurship, but the government plays a role in the economy by regulating some aspects to provide a reasonable level of social justice and services and to avoid some of the historical pitfalls of raw capitalism.

The debate in modern politics is how much of a role the government should play in influencing the economy and how it should react to various economic trends or problems.  In the EU, many of the countries have embraced a stronger role for government to ensure that social services and wealth are more equitably distributed.  This is the model of government that many American progressives would like to see applied here. 

It can be argued that the EU countries have better health outcomes, longer life expectancy, a higher average standard of living, far less crime, shootings and incarceration, and a higher level of happiness than the U.S.  In my many trips to Germany I have been impressed by the spirit of social contract that most Germans feel.  They are willing to bear higher taxes and a more significant government role in their lives in the spirit of social harmony.

The U.S. clearly has a different mindset than Europe, for many reasons.  The ‘rugged individualism’ and outright fear and resentment of government that are classic American traits play against any spirit of social obligation.  And of course there are the complications of racial and ethnic disharmony that play a major role as well.

But there are challenges ahead that will not go away and will probably become more serious in short order – income inequality, under-employment, globalization, automation, big tech domination, a decaying infrastructure and climate change consequences to name a few.  These are not likely to be solved by the invisible hand of the free market.  And invoking the bogeyman of socialism at every attempt to address clear and present dangers in our society is an irresponsible and reckless ploy.

On Being Selfish, Self-Righteous and a Hypocrite

Oh, where to begin?  The topic is so rich that one struggles to find a starting point.

So let’s start with me.  I am selfish, often self-righteous and a bit of a hypocrite.  I accept and embrace the incredible good fortune that has come my way by birth and circumstance, knowing full well that I probably do not deserve it any more than the hapless millions in this world that struggle through life with little or no good fortune.  Yet I do relatively little to rectify this.  

I also espouse and defend fairly liberal arguments for a more equal society, yet I fully enjoy my privileged status and take advantage of it at almost every turn.  I am not quite a classic limousine liberal, but I flirt dangerously close with the concept.  I am also at times self-righteous - more passionate about being right and being indignant at others’ refusal to acknowledge my wisdom than in the actual idea or cause I am advocating.

I know of some liberals who clearly have the courage of their convictions and are working tirelessly to change the world.  But most are like me – believing that there should be a better world yet not quite ready to pull the trigger on changing our lives to match that better world.

I have this thought experiment:  if you could press a button and God would re-order the world in a perfectly fair way to reflect the work rate, ethics and humanity of all its inhabitants, would you do it?  I know I wouldn’t – I fear the outcome.  It’s not that I am a bad person.  I am actually a nice person and I work pretty hard and have pretty good ethics.  But I know that my status and ‘comfort’ level in life would drop significantly in that scenario and I am simply not noble enough to push the button.

And what about conservatives?  Liberals may for the most part lack the courage of their convictions, but conservatives have managed to convince themselves that they somehow deserve everything they’ve got.  They do intellectual gymnastics to justify the inequities in this world and then they fume in almost apoplectic rage at the accusations that they lack compassion or empathy.  So the liberals live with their guilt-turned-to-apathy and the conservatives live with their guilt-turned-to-rage.

Now I know of course that the world is not a simple place and that human relations are complex and that economics is the ‘dismal science’ and that guilt is not all that productive and that fate is pretty damn arbitrary.  So I will not beat myself or others up too energetically on this theme.  But I do feel just a little bit better acknowledging the whole damn mess and how pathetically impotent we all are in this aspect of the human condition.

Democracy is for the Good Times

Democracy is for politics as capitalism is for economics: a flawed system that is justified only because it is generally a little less flawed than other systems.  When times are good, democracy is an affirmation of the best in humankind and a noble effort to enlist everyone in the goal of achieving a higher form of civilization.

But much of the world is currently experiencing one of the great weaknesses of democracy – the ease with which the majority is hoodwinked by a demagogue.  From Trump to Duterte to Erdogan to Putin to Netanyahu to Orban, strong man demagogues are back in vogue, using false bravado, fear and  nationalism to gain and maintain power.

The formula for their success is heavily based on uncertainty.  Even as the world enjoys one of the longest periods of economic stability in the last hundred years there is a pervasive sense that ‘winter is coming’.  The signs are out there – massive immigration, natural disasters due to climate change, power struggles between nations, Brexit and the unsettling social and economic changes that globalization has wrought.

When people are unsure of what the future holds for them they soon adopt a bunker or siege mentality.  The openness and magnanimity that have been slowly nurtured over the decades disappear in a flash.  Hard-eyed realism and a calculated self-interest take over.

Today’s uncertainties are legion – cultural changes, waves of immigration, automation, globalization, climate change, new superpower conflicts – and they rapidly erode the fragile good will of the majority.  And once that thin veneer of hope and optimism is gone, they are easy prey for the most despicable of leaders who will cynically probe and inflame their deepest fears and shamelessly encourage their basest instincts

.

We need Plato’s Philosopher Kings now more than ever, but sadly there is little hope for their arrival.  The only Kings available now are the money-bloated plutocrats whose wealth and power have imbued them with massive confidence and arrogance but none of the wisdom, asceticism and humility that Plato specified.  The majority may see these megalomaniacs as realists and strong voices on their behalf, but the world has become too small for such unilateral strutting and bombast.

Democracy is ultimately at the mercy of the herd instinct.  And there is nothing more frightening than a herd gone amok and stampeding out of fear and ignorance.

Broken Countries and Immigration Woes

Sadly, the world is full of broken countries.  At the risk of generalizing, I would characterize most of Africa, Central and South America, and a good portion of the Middle East as seriously broken.  Some of these countries are broken because of war and terrorism.  Some are broken due to natural disasters and limited natural resources.  Some are broken because of tribal and ethnic hostility.  Almost all are broken by political corruption and plundered by oligarchies, plutocracies and military elites.

The wealthy, developed nations have contributed substantially to this brokenness.  The long history of colonization and imperialism by Europe and the United States has tragically altered the evolution of much of the developing world.  It is of course impossible to say how these areas would have fared had they been able to develop independently of the imperialist nations, but it seems clear that there are significant burdens that are a legacy of this earlier exploitation.

There is also a legacy of war and turmoil.  The Middle East and North Africa have been strategic battlegrounds for hundreds of years.  European powers, the Ottoman Empire, Russia and more recently, the U.S., have all contributed heavily to the morass that is the present Middle East. 

Africa and Latin America (not to mention Southeast Asia) were all proxy hot war sites for the cold war.  Every left-wing movement within these countries was met with strong opposition by the U.S., and we often supported incredibly ruthless authoritarian regimes, both politically and militarily, in our frantic efforts to stop the expected domino effect of world communism.  Ironically and sadly, this was a fear that proved to be entirely unwarranted, but it had a dramatically negative effect on many countries.

And then there is the drug war.  The U.S. and, to some extent, the European thirst for drugs has fueled criminal and political anarchy throughout Latin America, Afghanistan, and, to a lesser degree, other parts of Asia.  Central America is currently a dystopian nightmare as a result of five decades of U.S. drug demand and the unending debacle of our related military, law enforcement, immigration and judicial policies.

Central and South America were for the most part dysfunctional long before the drug wars.  The legacy of Spanish colonial oppression and the long and shameful history of U.S. economic imperialism and gunboat diplomacy doomed Latin America to an almost continuous trauma of coups, counter-revolts, military juntas, puppet governments and U.S. military or CIA intervention.

All of these countries have similar characteristics:  a weak middle class, incredible extremes of wealth and poverty, massive political, economic and judicial corruption, an interventionist military elite, and fragile economies that are heavily natural resource-based and/or internationally manipulated.  They may also be torn by racial, ethnic, religious or tribal strife.

They also have the common attribute that many of their citizens are fleeing them in the hope of reaching a less broken country.  Some are refugees from war or other types of conflict – Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Myanmar are examples.  Some are fleeing crime and gangs – Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua come to mind.  And many are leaving because of a desperate economic situation.

When broken countries show no sign of improvement and no logical scenario for relief is on the horizon, is it any wonder that mass emigration occurs?  In an age where information about other worlds and opportunities is readily available, and travel is no longer quite as daunting, the decision to leave must be much easier to make.  In many cases, there is no option – war and desperation force one’s hand.

In the last ten years we have witnessed a worldwide wave of immigration from broken nations to advanced economies – mainly Europe and North America – that has unleashed a xenophobic counter reaction and resulted in dramatic shifts away from liberal democracy and globalization such as the Brexit movement, the Trump ascendancy, and the rise of neo-fascist and nationalistic organizations. 

Large scale immigration has often been met with hostility.  The United States touts its unique status as a country that welcomes and thrives on immigrants, yet it has had wave after wave of anti-immigrant fever and has often legislated aggressively against various aspects of immigration.

The fact is that most people will ultimately shed their humanitarian inclinations when they sense their own good fortune threatened in any way.  Jesus said welcome the stranger, but Christians throughout the western world have found it convenient to ignore or water down this exhortation.

Not only are developed nations severely limiting the immigration of desperate people from broken nations, but they are also skimming off the cream of the crop of those nations by offering educational or employment opportunities that later turn into permanent relocations of the best and brightest from the broken lands.

It is capitalism 101 to compete for the best talent in the world to strengthen one’s technical and industrial might, but this only contributes to the shocking further decline of the broken countries.  In some things there is indeed a zero-sum game, and the world may be careening recklessly toward unintended consequences of a very apocalyptic nature.

Is there hope for these broken countries?  Some have called for a Marshall Plan for Central America.  But the Marshall Plan’s biggest beneficiaries (the U.K., France and Germany) were countries that had a long history of industrial and middle-class success as well as political and judicial institutions that were conducive to a positive recovery.  Any aid sent to broken countries is likely to be squandered in great part and end up lining the pockets of the corrupt leaders and oligarchies.  When there is no institutional stability, it is almost certain that aid will fail, as it has so often in the past throughout the developing world.

Fixing broken countries would seem to require a more complete intervention by the world community, which of course smacks of paternalism and would be anathema to those countries.  Furthermore, the United Nations and other global organizations have tepid support from the most powerful nations, who are increasingly seeing their future in terms of aggressive and bellicose unilateralism, the United States under Trump being a prime example.

 And so we once again find ourselves impotent in the face of global problems, and immigration joins global warming, war and revolution, and genocide as cataclysmic issues that the world needs to solve jointly, but has neither the will nor the wisdom to do so.

Happy Easter!

Our Fascination with Celebrity

Read a good book lately?  Seen a good movie?  Listened to a compelling song?  Did you feel the need to research the author, the actor, the musician?  Most of us do.

We human beings are curious creatures.  We will endlessly inquire about the biographies and lives of celebrities while knowing relatively little about those close acquaintances, friends or family we meet on a daily basis.  Why do we find the lives of the rich, famous and powerful so fascinating?  Why do we feel compelled to investigate the background of total strangers?

It is true that biography has value sometimes in helping us understand certain aspects of our history and the development of human traits, foibles, and achievements.  But are the endless number of biographies and Wikipedia entries, with all their infinite detail, in any way necessary for a deeper understanding of the world?  Is it curiosity, sincere admiration, intellectual rigor, or is it simply a shared voyeurism that causes us to read hundreds of pages about some historic figure or a rock star?

Is it not enough to enjoy the artistic output of a singer, a musician, an actor or an artist?  Does it really add anything to our enjoyment to know about their childhood, their marriages, their divorces, their political beliefs?

Are we eager to put people on pedestals, or is it that we are hoping to find some tragic character flaw, some whiff of scandal that will make our own ordinary lives not such a damning indictment?  Or perhaps in some cases we are hoping to deepen our relationship and feel somehow closer to a cherished artist or leader.

Perhaps it is the mystery and the allure of celebrity that spurs us on.  Do we hope to obtain a tiny taste of this exalted status by reliving in detail the ascendancy of some famous personage?

Think of the many ways we worship at the altar of celebrity.  We are thrilled to find a famous person at the same restaurant or on the same airplane and desperate to relate the story of our encounter to others.  We have developed name-dropping into an art form and shamelessly exploit the tiniest association with anyone rich or famous in conversation with others who no doubt are either rolling their eyes or frantically searching their own internal rolodexes for a counter-name-drop.

Perhaps it is fitting that we become such sycophants to the famous, for it creates a wonderfully ironic living hell for them as they are forced to hide themselves from the public and endure endless incursions into their privacy.  It evens things out a bit, doesn’t it?  Poetic justice!