Thoughts on the Change in the Presidency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

The Role of Religion Must Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Day for Republicans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Conservatives Get Right (and Wrong!) About Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

Who Has Really Become More Radical?

Observers and pundits commenting on our current political strife often declare that both the left and the right are being held hostage by their more ‘radical’ elements, preventing us from reaching a bi-partisan consensus on many issues.

The term ‘radical’ is used to label opponents and create an image of an extreme, out-of-touch political movement.  Other name-calling is often used in combination with radical – Marxist, socialist, racist, white supremacist – to associate the opposition with specific historical bogeymen.

Have the left really become more radical in recent years?  What are the policy platforms and how radical are they in historical context?  Let’s take a look.

Taxes, Wealth, Income and Big Government

The left is pilloried as being radically anti-business, anti-wealth, anti-private property and pro-big government.  Recent proposals by democratic presidential candidates have included raising taxes on the wealthy and businesses.  The fact is that income and wealth have skewed dramatically toward the top since the 1970’s (https://rvgeiger.blogspot.com/2020/09/wealth-disparity-and-billionaire-lottery.html ).  To argue that this is not a healthy societal condition is hardly radical.  The US had a much more aggressive taxing policy from the 1940’s to the 1960’s, a time when our economy was very robust and successful.  Even the most aggressive new proposals for taxing the wealthy do not approach the levels that were in place during those years.

Not a single significant voice on the left is arguing for true socialism (the state owning all sources of production and capital) or abolishing private property.  To argue for some redistribution of income and/or wealth from the super wealthy to use for infrastructure, education, childcare, public transportation, healthcare, renewable energy initiatives and other important components of a modern, socially harmonious state is hardly radical.

It is of course a difficult challenge to determine how much government, with its inherent bureaucracy, is too much government.  But America has had significant governmental intervention in the economy and in business since the Progressive Era of Teddy Roosevelt and it is hardly radical to acknowledge the need for government to play a strong role.  We are no longer the nation of freeholding farmers and tradespeople that our founders had in mind as they crafted our constitution and government

Guns and Gun Control

One of the rallying cries of the right is ‘the radical left is coming for your guns!’  But the fact is that there is less gun control in the U.S. and fewer restrictions on gun ownership than at anytime in the last 50 years.  Furthermore, a majority of US citizens approve of stricter gun controls, including banning automatic and semi-automatics weapons and large magazines (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/22/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/ ).  No one is advocating taking all guns away.  This is a politically charged issue, but the call for stricter gun control is only radical when seen through the eyes of a minority of strident gun owners.

Abortion and Birth Control

This is another issue where it is the right who have become more conservative.  Roe v Wade has been in place for almost 50 years.  The majority of Americans have long believed that women should have the right to have an abortion under all or most conditions (https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ ).  Anti-abortion fanatics are a small portion of the electorate, but they have had increasingly significant political clout.  Republican legislators have become far more conservative on this issue over time, fearful of the wrath of anti-abortion political action groups.

Racial Issues and Police Reform

The recent BLM protests and calls for police reform are seen by the right as a radical move toward a society that will have less law and order and more violent criminal acts.  The term ‘defund the police’ is understandably unsettling and a poor choice for a slogan, however, questioning the efficacy of our increasingly military-style policing in high crime areas and the heavy burden it places on minority neighborhoods is not radical. 

There has been bi-partisan concern for some time about the high incarceration rates and racial profiling that characterize our approach to public safety and drug problems. The US has more of its population in prison than any other developed nation. There is clearly a need for new strategies.  It is not radical to propose changes.  Some of the recommendations are more radical than others – it is up to legislators and experts to analyze the problem and come to agreements on a measured response.

Healthcare

The right views healthcare as an area that has become radicalized by the left.  The call for a single payer system is seen as an extreme and potentially catastrophic change to our current system.  However, a fairly significant percentage of healthcare is already provided under a single payer system - medicare, medicaid, military and government healthcare is all single payer and accounts for over 30% of all healthcare.  The USA spends much more on healthcare than other developed nations with single payer systems (https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2019/us-health-care-spending-highest-among-developed-countries.html ) and has worse outcomes according to a recent Johns Hopkins study (and numerous others).  

While it is true that our unique private employer-assisted insurance scheme would be complex to reconfigure into a single payer system, it is also clear that we desperately need to look for ways to provide better healthcare for all of our citizens.  It is not radical to seek improvement, and healthcare is an area where government must play a substantial role because it does not fit into a classic free market scenario. (https://rvgeiger.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-market-based-healthcare-fallacy.html ).

Climate Change and Energy Policy

The AOC-led Green New Deal has been used by the right to portray the left as naively radical on the subject of energy policy.  This is an issue where the right’s dogmatic refusal to acknowledge scientific consensus will eventually come back to haunt them.  Some of the proposals to address climate change are indeed radical, but the threat from a continued reliance on hydrocarbon energy sources is even more radical.  The problem is existential, and there is certainly no simple solution, but putting one’s head in the sand is clearly a catastrophic mistake.

What is indeed radical here is the right’s rallying cry of ‘drill, baby drill’.  That is a death wish.  Time is running out and we need global solutions to this problem.  Radical proposals to completely eliminate coal and oil may not be feasible immediately, but they help define the scope of the problem and push us to address it.

Who Is More Radical?

When people first observed Ronald Reagan vying for the presidency, there was a general opinion that he, like Goldwater, was far too conservative to win.  But he did win and thus signaled the rightward trend of the republican party.  When Newt Gingrich first came to congress, he was viewed as a reactionary, an extreme conservative whose hyperbolic rhetoric seemed almost comical.  His subsequent rise to power in the mid-90’s signaled a further lurching of the republican party to the right.  The tea party movement of the late 2000's, a reaction in great part to Obama’s election, moved the party even further to the right and created a whole new universe of right-wing pseudo-media, social media conspiracy lunacy and deep state hysteria.  The republican party is substantially different - less traditionally conservate and more reactionary - today than it was in the 70's.  

As for the left, the current democratic party has not changed significantly since the 70's. There may be a few more radical left wing representatives in congress, the Squad being the most prominent, but the great majority of democratic representation is very similar to what has existed for many decades. 

To equate the evolution of the left with that of the right is simply pure nonsense and a classic example of post-Trumpian false equivalence.

The New Day!

I retired at the end of 2019.  Anticipating a life of travel and adventure, I did not foresee the coming pandemic or the isolated life I would experience for most of 2020.  I have been fortunate to avoid contracting COVID-19 and have led a relatively sedate and pleasant life for most of the year, other than worrying about the state of the world and the political turmoil that has seized our land.

My routine quickly became well-defined and consistent.  I awake each morning around 6:30 or 7 without an alarm.  Either Karen or I walk into the kitchen and turn on my espresso machine.  I wait 10 minutes for it to warm up, lying in bed and enjoying the sensation of the last moments of slumber departing from my body.

As I head to the kitchen to begin my cappuccino ritual, a quickening of spirit begins to animate my mind and body. The caffeine preparation is my first creative act – grinding the carefully weighed 18 grams of coffee; tamping it into the hefty portafilter; firmly positioning it into the machine; watching as the golden liquid emerges and fills the cup; carefully positioning and adjusting the milk pitcher under the steam wand to produce that perfect balance of milk, froth and microfoam; pouring a random, free form latte art.   An almost giddy anticipation possesses me as I carry the two cups back to the bedroom and take a first sip of the sublime nectar I have adored for so many years.  The new day has arrived!

No matter what has transpired in the previous day or days; no matter how well or poorly I have slept; no matter what worries or joys have burdened or lightened my mood;  the new day brings hope, optimism and excitement in a bafflingly resilient manner.  Like the dawn sweeping away the night’s darkness and foreboding, the new day is my daily resurrection.  It is filled with possibility, and opens up like a fresh canvas before me, to be filled with anything that I have the courage and energy to undertake.

Some days I will quickly be bogged down in a quagmire of insubstantial activities that diminish that initial feeling.  Other days I will be swept along in the ever-expanding delight of some new project or enterprise.  But no matter what happens on any single day, I have only to submit to the nightly seduction of sleep, whether deep or fitful, and some hours later I will magically emerge from my slumber with the most precious spiritual treasure in all the world – the new day!

What Does It Take?

I thought some of Trump’s cult following might finally come to their senses when he abdicated all responsibility for the pandemic, labeled it a hoax, said it would disappear, and urged defiance of precautions established by the medical and scientific community.  His actions were clearly a cynical ploy to protect the economy he felt was the key to his re-election. The irony is that it led to his downfall.  There is no way for any reasonable person to view his handling of the pandemic as anything but corruptly incompetent. 

I understand that religious and free market zealots love the fact that he littered conservative justices throughout the judiciary.  I understand that being told constantly by Trump that we had the greatest economy in the history of the universe before the pandemic hit is enough to convince his fan base, even though every serious economist considers it a gross exaggeration.  I understand that his inept foreign policy moves can somehow be interpreted as ‘putting America first’.  I even understand that some of his absurd tweets and speeches, with their paranoia, mean-spiritedness and immaturity, can, in gymnastic feats of rationalization, be understood as standing up to elites and political correctness.

But the pandemic!  The President of the United States, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, allowed a virus to kill 250,000 and what will certainly be 350,000 people or more, while other nations in Asia and Europe were able to meet the challenge and limit deaths to a tiny fraction of that number.  There is no excuse imaginable for this failure in leadership.

And now, the world looks on in a mixture of horror, schadenfreude and pity, while the nation that since its founding has been the strongest advocate for democracy spirals into banana republic style election denial with a sad, pathetic dictator wannabe holding the nation hostage.

What does it take?