Liars, damn liars, and the possibility of truth

Not too long ago, I responded to a article in (I think) the Huffington Post.  In my response, I wrote:

The good doctor writing this article assumes that political discourse is (or even can be) rational discourse. Don't misunderstand me. It is probably a good thing that the doctor makes this mistake. Rational discourse begins with an assumption or hypothesis that can be supported or falsfied by verifiable evidence. Falsification is by far the most important. If the evidence does not support an assumption or hypothesis, that same assumption or hypothesis must be modified or in extreme cases abandoned. Rational discourse searches for truth, and it's probably a good thing that our medical practices are based on a search for truth. Political discourse too begins with an assumption or hypothesis, but unlike rational discourse, it cannot ALLOW itself to be falsified. Evidence that would falsify the claim MUST be dismissed or suppressed. Political discourse searches for advantage and power, not truth, and so it shouldn't surprise anyone that evidence is distorted, ignored, or suppressed -- Clinton's email, Trump's taxes.

The latter, however, takes political discourse to a new extreme, and the very sad thing is this: his supporters don't seem to care and don't seem to see the danger in it. Democracy depends upon an infusion of rational discourse as a check and balance on poltical discourse. The press, even a biased press, has traditionally served in this role -- fact checking the opposition so to speak -- and HuffPost does a reasonably good job of it. Hence this article. Trump, however, has been called out time and again, and again, and again, ad nauseum. I frankly do not feel his appeal, but he clearly enough appeals to enough of the American populace that he is where he is and he is clearly enough immune to fact checking. He is a super bug and the antibiotics are no longer working. He may well be elected, but his tweet storms have shown him, despite his immunity, to be adverse to pressure and criticism, almost pathologically so for a politician in a decmocracy, who really should expect as much. He has attacked critics and reporters, threatened new libel laws for the press, et cetera, and so he has clearly enough demonstrated the thin-skinned willingness to take the first step of every potentially dictatorial demagogue once in power, crack down on and elminate the free press. The second, third, and fourth steps should be clear enough, but what would it mean to a free society to vest CEO like power in the president, which his followers seem more than willing to do?

The precise nature of the article didn't much matter.  The same applies to discussions of climate change, the Zika virus, just about anything where one more or less expects those in power to make informed, data driven decisions for the good of the people as a whole, but what one gets is continued political discourse, the real motivations for which are often obscure and vigorously denied when they are held up to the light of day.

Within our day to day lives, we abjure "lying," not categorically, but "selectively."  We do differentiate between those "lies" which are primarily designed to protect others from a "truth" that might be injurious to them, and those "lies" which are primarily designed to protect our own interests.   Consider, for example, the moral dilemma of a person who has had an affair.  The person is confessing the affair to a friend, asking "should I or should I not tell my spouse."  The answer often hinges on whether the person intends to continue or has discontinued the affair.  If the former, the "moral" answer becomes "yes, you should tell."  Hiding the information would protect the spouse from emotional trauma, but the primary motivation is clearly enough to protect one's own interests.  If the latter, the "moral" answer becomes "no, what good would it do to tell?"  Revealing the affair might, perhaps, release one from the obligation to keep a secret, but it would cause emotional trauma that has now become unnecessary.   

I give this example merely to illustrate that the sorts of categorical biblical injunctions against lying -- e.g. thou shalt not lie -- are parsed within our day to day lives.  I give it also as a way of illustrating a difference between rational discourse and political discourse.   Let me take just one example, climate change.  Rational discourse would search for the "truth of the matter."  There are more or less supportable answers to the principle questions:  "Is human activity contributing to climate change?" and the follow on, "if yes, what then is the best course of action?"  The process of arriving at an answer can, of course, be "adversarial," not unlike a jury trial, where competing points of view present evidence, which is in turn deliberated and a provisional "truth" determined.  I say "provisional," of course, because additional evidence might well over-turn an original determination -- e.g. the use of DNA to demonstrate the innocence of the falsely convicted.  The process of arriving at a scientific proof is likewise "adversarial."  Competing theories are tested against the evidence, which is in turn "juried" or "peer reviewed" and a provisional theory determined.  Again, I say provisional because additional evidence might well cause reconsideration and modification of an existing theory.   At the moment, the jury has returned on the first question, and the answer is "yes, guilty, human activity is contributing to climate change."  New evidence might relieve us of our responsibility, but at the moment new evidence seems to all point toward the answer "yes, guilty, human activity is contributing to climate change."  

We could apply the standards of rational discourse to the answer to the follow on question, "what is the best course of action?"  In answering this question, however, we are confronted right up front with a particularly onerous difficulty in the form of definitional and value questions -- e.g. "what counts as best?" and/or "best for whom?"  There is no avoiding these questions.  To suggest, at one extreme, that we do nothing, that we continue on the present course, assumes that it is better to preserve the economic status quo, for the current generation, and leave future generations to their own devices.  To suggest, at the other extreme, that we do everything, that we ban all green house gas production, assumes that it is better to preserve the current ecological status quo, for the benefit of future generations, and disrupt the lives of the current generation.  The two answers, it would seem, are mutually exclusive.  Preserving the economic status quo will destroy the ecological status quo.  Conversely, preserving the ecological status quo will destroy the economic status quo.  Were I discussing this in class, one student would inevitably make a pseudo hegelian point that "surely there is a course of action that preserves BOTH the economic and ecologic status quo," but that does not seem to be possible insofar as the current economic status quo is heavily dependent upon fossil fuel production and consumption.  The two extremes represent mutually exclusive and competing values, but a decision between the values must be reached before any course of action or inaction can be taken.  It is this decision that throws us into the realm of political discourse.  

Before I go on, however, the discussion in the previous paragraph assumes that all "agree" on the provisional verdict, "yes, guilty, human activity is contributing to climate change."  The evidence continues to mount in its favor.  One could, however, simply step outside the realm of rational discourse entirely and throw out the verdict itself.  One way of doing this is to discredit rational discourse itself.  The verdicts of rational discourse are always adversarial, always provisional, always subject to falsification by additional evidence (and there is always SOME evidence that points in another direction).  Consequently, we can discount the whole enterprise of arriving at a verdict because it has not delivered unassailable truth, and go on with our lives.  There are, however, difficulties with discrediting and rejecting rational discourse itself, not least that such rejections are always very selective.  We ACCEPT the results of rational discourse when it cures our cancer, REJECT it when it requires us to give up our SUV.  It seems at best an ironic hypocrisy, at worst a self-motivated lie -- that is, they actually believe in the validity of the verdict, but it is in their interests to pretend otherwise and convince others of their pretense.  

Basically, this is the stance of the republican party today, and it is morally indefensible.  When confronted with hypocrisy, the "moral" response is to resolve the disparity.  One cannot accept the results of rational discourse in one domain, reject it in another, just because the mounting evidence for a position proves inconvenient.  One cannot subsist in a known hypocrisy without engaging in a morally indefensible lie -- a lie designed, not to protect others, but to benefit oneself at the expense of others.   Along the same line, in rejecting the results of rational discourse in just this particular domain, they are in effect making a value decision.   They are, in effect, answering the question, "what is the best course of action?" with "do nothing."  If we were to ask the follow on value questions, "best for whom?" the answer seems to be the conservation of the power and economic structures implicit in the current status quo. This too is morally indefensible.  If we "know" that a particular course of action is likely to have catastrophic effects on the next generation, then it would seem, within the normal course of human morality, to be indefensible.  We must "do something," even if the something is compromised or incremental, and there are plenty of compromised or incremental steps that can be taken between the to extremes of "do nothing" and "do everything."  The republican party, however, cannot "so something" without, to one degree or another, disrupting the power and economic structures of the current status quo, and those who benefit most directly from the current status quo are likely to object and the objections throw us into the realm of political discourse.  

Within political discourse, truth does not count as the final arbiter.  Consequently, neither revelation of hypocrisy or the revelation of more blatant, morally indefensible lies count for much.   What does count is "persuasion."  Plato would have banned the sophists from his republic because the sophists were concerned solely with persuasion, with "rhetoric" understood as Aristotle understood as "the best available means of persuasion." Of course, the "truth" can be persuasive, and for some only the "truth" is ultimately persuasive.  I would like to count myself a member of that party, but I alone can't be the final arbiter of my allegiance to "truth."  If I alone could be the final arbiter of "truth," then we must accept a solipsistic and morally relativistic universe -- one, that is, where "truth" for me may not be "truth" for you, and there is no point of arbitration outside of me or you to determine which of us holds a better, more defensible "truth."  If we cannot accept a solipsistic and morally relativistic universe, if there are standards of right and wrong that transcend my own or another's particular set of beliefs, then we must accept a point of arbitration outside of me or you to determine which of us holds a better, more defensible "truth."  There are a number of ways that we can create a "point of arbitration," and I will talk about a couple.  Here, let me just say here that political discourse, at fundament, accepts a solipsistic and morally relativistic universe -- one where there is no "point of arbitration," where there is no real possibility of "truth," where persuasion in the form of "branding" is the only means available to bridge the differences between thee and me.  

It is interesting to see the Washington Post headline that reads, "Donald Trump's dangerous, nonsensical energy plan."   The Post assumes that one would want to "make sense," but that also assumes that we are engaging in rational discourse, but Trump has simply set aside rational discourse.  There are, perhaps, two "points of arbitration" for rational discourse that have had world significance.   The first, and most enduring, but least relevant to climate and energy, is religion.  If one accepts the premise that religious revelation provides a standard against which to judge truth or falsity, then one has a point of arbitration that transcends the solipsistic.  The early rejection of Trump by religious conservatives, including the likes of Ted Cruz, and Mitt Romney, is telling.  Although he gives lip service to christianity, there is little in his past or his present behavior that would suggest a traditional christian orientation, quite the opposite.  His peccadilloes with women would likely make Bill Clinton blush, or envious, and he certainly does not demonstrate christian humility at all.  He has never, to the best of my knowledge, given god credit for his good fortune.  He has, rather, taken it all upon himself.   

The second, and more recent, and most relevant to climate and energy, is science.  If one accepts the premise that experiment and factual observation provide a standard against which to judge truth or falsity, then one has a point of arbitration that transcends the solipsistic.   Here's what Trump said about wind energy: "wind is very expensive.  I mean, wind, without subsidy, wind doesn't work.  You need massive subsidies for wind.  There are places maybe for wind.  But if you go to various places in California, wind is killing all of the eagles."  The Post, again, assumes that Trump would want to "make sense," or at least his auditors would want him to "make sense" against observable, verifiable facts.  They write in response, "wind power, including U.S, subsidies, became the cheapest electricity in the US for the first time last year, according to BNEF," Bloomberg reported last fall.  "Solar power is a bit further behind, but the costs are dropping rapidly, especially those associated with financing a new project."  Also, about those eagles, "it's true; turbines are often situated in places with good wind currents, which birds also like to use.  The Audubon Society estimates that between 140,000 and 328,000 birds die each year from turbines.  Some of them are eagles -- but not hundreds.  One assessment published in 2013 counted 85 dead eagles over a span of 15 years." Although again he gives some lip service to the "facts," but there is little in his rambling that would suggest a fact based orientation on the world, quite the opposite.  He has mastered "assertion without evidence."  

Trump, however, is not about "making sense."  Trump has thoroughly internalized the solipsistic and morally relativistic universe.   Trump has, in effect, transcended rational discourse -- that is to say, traditional concerns with parsing the truth or falsity of a claim, and the moral implications that hinge upon telling the truth.  His statements are neither true nor false, and consequently, they are not so much moral or immoral, because that implies a standard of truth that could provide a point of arbitration whether the particulars of his statements are self or other serving.  Ultimately, the Post article concedes this point.  Trump claims, "despite that" -- the demise of eagles -- he is "into all types of energy," but he is "into all types of energy" so he can universalize his "brand."  He is for fracking and solar, coal and wind, and against nothing.  No doubt he is also for clean water and air, though there's mounting evidence that one cannot be for fracking and for clean water at the same time (not to mention the earthquakes) -- that one cannot be for coal and clean air at the same time.  The mounting evidence, however, means nothing, because Trump is engaged solely in selling a brand.  He has mounted a hostile take-over of one brand, the "republican," and is now selling a transcendent brand, "Trump." 

Let me end with an anecdote.  I am a Cubs fan.  Although I lived for a number of years in the Chicago metro area, there is no rational basis for being a Cubs fan.  I could have as easily been a Sox fan.  One cannot, however, be both a Cubs and Sox fan.  When the two teams play their inter-league series, one finds oneself rooting for one over the other, despite any rational peregrinations around team stats, and for me that has been the Cubs, perhaps because they are the perennial underdog, the perennial "wait until next year" team, and perhaps because they are in the right league, the national league.  Most, however, want to back a winner.  The fan base for most teams expands if they are winning, contracts if they are losing.  The brand Trump is selling is not unlike the brand of a sports team.  There is no rational basis for being a Trump fan.  He is, however, positioning himself to be the "home town team."  His blather about a wall and a muslim ban, for example, are all about "america first."  Having brown skin or wearing a hijab is not unlike wearing a Sox jersey to a Cubs game, and if you don't think it matters, try it out sometime.  His discourse has all the gravitas of "trash talk."  His followers are not choosing one rational platform over another, they are choosing a "sports team," and right now Trump is presenting the best and most entertaining team.  He is a (mostly self-professed) winner.  His fan base has expanded as he has won, and even if you were opposed to him in the play offs, well, he's in the republican league.  Now that it's coming down to the world series, better to root for the republican league team even if they are the Mets. 

The difference, of course, is this: when the Cubs win the world series this year (yes, hope springs eternal) they will all go home, they will watch football and basket ball, and wait for the next year's spring training to do it all over again.  When the donald wins, he will actually have to govern.  When he comes to a fork in the road, he cannot, Yogi Berra style, just take it, he will need to turn to the north or to the south.  He will need to make actual decisions, and those decisions will have real consequences beyond bragging rights in the bars surrounding Wrigley.  If the decisions are "bad," he cannot simply declare bankruptcy and close down the United States ala Trump University.  If the decisions are damaging to a wide range of people, as they were for the people who signed up at Trump University, and there is a  "class action" suit, how will he respond?  With derogatory tweets to the American people?  Probably, but will a demagogic ego like Trump's allow himself failure, or will he project blame on his "haters" as he did on the judge hearing the Trump University case?  To what extent will he restrain himself in his retaliation?  The first step will be to shut down the "haters," the second step will be ... and that is how democracy in the US ends.

Land Ownership and a Militia

The other day the Post published an article entitle "'Patriots' Primed to Fight the Government."  As the article put it, "those in the movement call themselves patriots, demanding that the federal government adhere to the Constitution and stop why they see as systematic abuse of land rights, gun rights, freedom of speech and other liberties."  It might be worth a moment to clarify, at least for myself, what something like land rights might mean.

First, of course, imagine a world with no government what-so-ever.  One could, I suppose, talk of land ownership in such a world.  Any "rights" in such a world would be essentially squatter's rights -- the land is mine because I am here, on it, and I say it is mine.  Of course, one would necessarily need to "protect" that land from others who might also want to squat on it, a likely scenario insofar as one would tend to squat on "desirable" land.  This need to "protect" takes us quickly to the need for guns and the "right" to own them.  Without guns, the squatter would, of course, be vulnerable to the "land grab" of those with guns.  With guns, they would need to be eternally vigilant.  While they may be secure in their possession within the small coterie of family and friends, security gives way to suspicion the further out one extends that circle.  Hence the eternal fear of strangers.  When Hobbes talks about a state of nature and a war of all against all, this, essentially, is what he is describing.

We do not, however, live in a state of nature, nor is there a "frontier" over the hill where land is unpossessed, and one can, if one chooses, take ownership through squatter's rights.  I use the word "frontier" advisedly.  It would appear, historically, that there was a time when one could, like Huck Finn, "light out for the territories" in search of freedom, adventure, new opportunities, and land to which one could lay claim.  The land never really was "unpossessed," if one takes into consideration the native Americans who occupied the land, but they held it, through squatter's rights, in a sort of tribal trust.  Prior to the arrival of the europeans, they warred among themselves.  After, they warred against the the US Army for possession of the land, who ultimately took it by force.  It wasn't a fair fight, but in a state of nature, fairness is irrelevant.  Strength IS relevant, and the US Army ultimately was stronger and prevailed.  The US Army and its employer, the US government, took possession of the land through the assertion of squatter's rights.  They have owned it since -- but I will come back to that.

A sort of frontier mentality, nevertheless, persists in the west.  When one lives in the west, or even drives through, it's not difficult to imagine why the frontier mentality persists.  It amazes me, even today, at how much land is simply "open," but it is a mentality sustained by a mythology and any number of false assumptions.  We are familiar with the mythology, but if not, watch the Revenant. The film has most of the elements, the most pertinent of which is the greater "good" which resides in those who live closer to a state of nature, who are motivated by a sense of "honor," while the greater "evil" resides in those who live within "civilization," who are motivated by greed and proceed with rapine and rape.   Straddling, but outside of both is the white man who has married an Indian woman and who simply wants to be left in "peace" to pursue the life he has chosen.  The frontier mentality might be summed up as a "leave-me-the-f**k-alone."  There are thousands of variations on a theme, but the fundamental desire is for the world to "leave-me-the-f**k-alone."   When the world frustrates that desire, and it always will, one must "restore" peace, and on the frontier, there is only one way to seek revenge and restore peace, with a "peace maker."

The first false assumption is that of "personal ownership of property."  Aside from squatter's rights, there is no such thing as "personal" ownership of property, particularly land.  I have to say this point is a bit difficult to explain, but it comes down to this:  the rules are set within the legal system of the government for what does (and what does not) count as "ownership." Likewise, the rules are set within the legal system of the government for what does (and what does not) count as "fair use" of land.  I say "rules" rather than "laws" because it all ultimately comes down to a game of sorts -- an important game, one with consequences within our lives, but ultimately a game one is expected to play.  Perhaps the easiest way to explain is with a personal example -- my own home.  There isn't a square inch of "untitled" land.  Someone, somewhere, holds title to the property.  In my personal case, a title search verified it was another citizen.  In order to take ownership of the property, he must "release" the title to me, a legal act defined under the rules of the game, and he agreed to do so in exchange for a sum of money.  We initially paid cash for the property, so the title was transferred to me and it became "mine."   Ownership in this case and in all cases is a legal state of affairs guaranteed, so to speak, by the government under the "rules of the game."

Were we to go on vacation and come back to find squatters in our living room, they have no right, again defined under the law, to say "finder's keepers, looser's weepers" and take pot shots at us to protect what they now consider their living room.   At this juncture, I could, of course, reply in kind.  I could fetch the rifle under the back seat of my pick up (if I had one), engage in a fire fight, and "forcibly" remove the squatters.  In many locations, particularly here in the west, such an act is permitted and might even be applauded by my neighbors, but it would still come under the scrutiny of the "rules of the game."  The police would eventually show up during or after the shoot out, and I would still need to prove that I had "legal" title  to the property.  Or one could call the police in the first place.   They are charged with enforcing the rules set out within the legal system of the government.   To do so, they would come, remove the squatters, and restore the existing "legal" state of affairs.   Regardless, I do not need to "protect" my rights to the property.  The government is charged to do so.  If one believes the government is ineffectual in doing so, then what one needs is better government.

Beyond that, when I say that a piece of property is "mine," I can do with it pretty much whatever I want -- within limits.  I cannot use it to cook meth, ala Breaking Bad, because that is otherwise illegal, and would allow the government to invade and in many cases seize the property.  I cannot use it to house underage sex slaves, regardless of the pretext for doing so,  because such acts are otherwise illegal, and here again would allow the government to invade and in many cases seize the property.  In both cases, a warrant would be required, stemming from the constitutional protection from "unreasonable search and seizure," but here again the rules for granting (or denying) a warrant are set within the "legal system" of the government.

I have to say, I do not want my neighbors cooking meth, because it's dangerous and poses risks to my property.  But, for the sake of argument, let us say I personally feel the drug laws against marijuana are wrong, and partly for my personal use, partly as a form of protest, I start to grow weed in my backyard.  In the state of Idaho, such an act would be illegal and, regardless how I might feel, would allow the government to invade and seize my property.  If one believes the government is wrong in doing so, then what one needs is a better government -- better defined as one that decriminalizes marijuana production and use, which is relatively benign as drugs go, but leaves in place the criminal sanctions against meth and meth factories, which have a tendency to go boom and could very well set fire to my house as well as theirs.  All would be good, for me, if we had "better" laws.

I have to say again, I do not want my neighbors housing underage sex slaves, because children should be protected, even from their parents and pastors.  We are thrown into a quandary whenever religion is used to justify what might otherwise be seen as "aberrant" practices, but some practices are simply barbaric, damaging, and shouldn't be allowed, even if one's god condones or demands such acts.  The forcible circumcision of women might be one such example.  The marriage of children under the legal age of consent might be another.  The history of the Branch Dividians at Waco has become as much a matter of myth as reality, and it is truly unfortunate that the police, the ATF, turned them into martyrs, but the "siege" was started as a result of two things.  First, in February of 93, the Waco Tribune-Herald published a series of articles alleging that Koresh was committing statutory rape by taking multiple underage brides.  Second, there were allegations surrounding the stockpiling of illegal weapons with sufficient credibility to issue a federal warrant.  I won't dispute that the matter was handled with incredible ineptitude on the part of the ATF.  I won't dispute either that David Koresh acted with stubborn and reckless disregard of his people and their safety.  Having said that, however, if one believes that a fringe religious practice justifies polygamy with underage brides, if one believes that no weapons should be illegal, including militarized automatic weapons and grenades, then what one needs again is a better government -- better in this case being defined as one that sanctions such behaviors and ownership.

When I say, then, that a piece of property is "mine" and I can do with it pretty much what I want -- within limits -- the "limits" will always be questioned, but they are there because our elected officials, top to bottom, have put them there.  I have no interest in housing weapons prohibited by federal law.   I would, however, like to raise "chickens" in my back yard.  There's the matter of eggs, but I am less interested ultimately in laying hens, more interested in certain varieties of roosters.  The feathers of certain breeds are useful for fly-tying, are rare and are expensive.  Having said that, I am prohibited by local ordinance from keeping roosters, who crow and disturb the peace, within the city.  The limits are placed "top to bottom," from the halls of congress to the city hall.  Beyond those limits, however, I can do pretty much what I actually want to do on my property free from government scrutiny or concern, though I'm pretty sure the neighbors are keeping a watchful eye on us.  I really have no interest in growing marijuana either, but we do have a houseplant that bears a vague resemblance to a marijuana plant and we set it out on the porch during the summer.  Inevitably, the police will come, park across the street, and scrutinize our porch for several minutes looking for the reported marijuana plant.  Because the plant only bears a vague resemblance to an actual marijuana plant, it probably takes a few minutes for the "oh, for pete's sake" revelation to sink in and they drive off.

The real issue, the one that started this post, however, is the question of who actually owns "federal" land.  There is, of course, an argument that it belongs to the "people" and, in a very abstract sense, it does.   This does not mean, however, that Mr. Strop or Mr. Bundy, as people, are entitled to use the land for their own purposes, particularly commercial purposes.  Like all things governmental, the "use" of the federal lands are set out in the law, or the rules of the game, and the government is charged to enforce the law.  In the case of the national parks, for example, "the most important statutory directive for the National Park Service is provided by interrelated provisions of the NPS Organic Act of 1916 and the NPS General Authorities Act of 1970, including amendments to the latter law enacted in 1978," or so their Management Policies suggest.  According to the law, "the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."  It goes on to quote from the General Authorities Act of 1970, which reads in part:

Congress declares that the national park system, which began with establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, has since grown to include superlative natural, historic, and recreation areas in every major region of the United States, its territories and island possessions; that these areas, though distinct in character, are united through their inter-related purposes and resources into one national park system as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage; that, individually and collectively, these areas derive increased national dignity and recognition of their superlative environmental quality through their inclusion jointly with each other in one national park system preserved and managed for the benefit and inspiration of all the people of the United States; and that it is the purpose of this Act to include all such areas in the System and to clarify the authorities applicable to the system. Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System, as defined in section 1c of this title, shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title [the Organic Act provision quoted above], to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed

and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. (16 USC 1a-1) 

So, yes, as the bolded statements imply, the land is there for all the people of the United States, but as such, it would seem to preclude the private use and the private benefit of any particular rancher.  

One might argue, however, that the NPS is not fulfilling its obligations under the law, but this is an argument, not for the abolition of government, in whole or in part, but for a better government -- better in this case being defined as more effective enforcement of existing law and regulation.  Also, one might argue for a particular use -- e.g. grazing commercial cattle -- but there are provisions within the law for the use of federal land for livestock.  One must obtain a "permit," and in the absence of a "permit," one's "livestock trespassing on park lands may be impounded and disposed of pursuant to the provisions of 36 CFR 2.60, with the owner charged for expenses incurred."  There is discretion involved in the issuing of permits, and one might argue that the park management is inconsistent or prejudicial in the issuing of permits, but here again this is an argument, not for the abolition of government, in whole or in part, but for "better government" -- better in this case being a government that is more consistent and transparent in "permitting."  Finally, one might argue that "permitting" itself is unnecessary and governmental over-reach, -- that grazing cattle does not in any way endanger the scenery, the natural and historic objects, or the wildlife  -- but here again, this is an argument, not for the abolition of government, but for a better government -- better in this case being defined as a change to the law and the set regulations that would indiscriminately allow for the grazing of commercial cattle on federal lands.  So on and so forth.  Unless one is willing to forego ALL law, every critique ultimately comes back as an argument, not for the abolition of government, but for a "better" government, but in all such cases, one should ask the question, "better" how and for whom?  There really is no neutral ground.

At fundament, what Strop and Bundy argue, however, is that the "federal government" has no right what-so-ever to own property, and they behave as though the land in question were open frontier, free for the taking.  By occupying the land, they are essentially asserting so called squatter's rights in the absence of government assurances, and in doing so, they must, as all squatter's must in the absence of legal title, defend their property against "invaders."  This is either a deep stupidity, or a deep hypocrisy, or both.  The deep stupidity comes in the defense of their newly acquired property under  "squatter's rights."   Do they really believe that they are a match for the "government?"  They might be a match for the NPS, but their armed occupation would not stand up long against the US army.  If one asserts the "right" to seize property by force of arms, then one must at least contemplate the possibility that it might be re-taken by force of arms, in which case the government can escalate much more quickly and much more effectively than the Bundy clan.  The deep hypocrisy comes as an assertion that the "government" has no inherent right to re-take the property.  There is some real sympathy that goes with the "little guy" standing up to the "big guy."    We have some retrospective sympathy too for the Native Americans who initially occupied this land.  They were no match for the US Army that asserted "squatter's rights" to the land and took it by force, though I see no particular movement to give it all back.  In a world where one can seize property by force of arms, where "might makes right," it is deeply hypocritical to assert "government overreach" when they take it back by force.  Bundy, ultimately, wanted what HE wanted, and was frustrated enough to wave guns around when he didn't get it, and was petty enough to play the victim when the very predictable response occurred.      

Strop, and those like him, however, may get their wish.  The federal government may well collapse under its own weight.  There are signs that the federal government cannot sustain itself.   The ideological divides within congress reflect regional divides, and there are signs that the country is "balkanizing" and coming apart.  The movements for succession in Texas and elsewhere are a case in point, and one guesses that those calling for succession are, like the south of yore, willing to fight for it.  Then too, the zombie apocalypse may well occur.  Some genetically modified organism may well escape the lab, and the world may well descend into a war of all against all in the ensuing epidemic.  At such time, the blind poets will sing around the campfire, praising the  foresight of those who stockpiled provisions and the arms to defend them, commending them for their courage and cunning.  In the meantime, however  ...

Trump

Again, I have to confess to a morbid fascination with the Republican party of late.  Here again, I am not the first to say it, and I probably won't be the last, but it is difficult to "normalize" Donald Trump as a candidate.  He has played the republican party for a sucker, and they didn't exactly fall for it, but couldn't quite believe "it could happen here."   It has now happened, or is coming closer to happening, and their scramble to "unify" the party at one level points to a deep pathology that would be pathetic were it not, mostly, irrelevant.  While I might revel in their disarray, I don't know that the American public much cares if the republican party is united or not.  They continue, as it were, to miss the point of Trump.  He is not the result of party politics, but he has transcended party politics.  He doesn't have a "platform" on the issues, and whatever he has said in the past, is now "just a suggestion."  It is, of course, by definition, "just a suggestion." Anything said by a candidate is "just a suggestion," but it is either a direction that will be pursued or it is not.  One believes that Clinton or Sanders will do their best to take the country in the direction of their "suggestions," but with Trump the whole matter of platform is irrelevant.  He is the Nietzschian messiah, the one who has transcended the corruption of the politics and has "sacrificed himself to make American great again," to use the words of one responder to a critical Post article.  

The idea that Trump has "sacrificed himself," is ludicrous, but one cannot help but hear the resonance of the responder's language.  In the end, we have to remember that Trump is the presumptive nominee for the Republican party, not because the party elites selected and promoted him as such.  He is the presumptive nominee DESPITE their promotion of others, DESPITE their denigration of his candidacy, and he is where he is because "republican voters" have put him there.   The Trumpian theme song should be Megan Trainer's "it's all about that base, 'bout that base, no treble," because the shrill voices of the republican elite have had little or no effect on the Trump ascendancy, and he is where he is because the "republican voter," the "republican base," have put him there.   The Posts, both Washington and Huffington, Politico -- really all the more conventional news sources, even Fox News -- want to treat Trump as a "candidate" for a constitutionally defined "office" in the US government.  The office happens to the be presidency, and so has outsized importance, but they really want to cast the election as a run for "office."  Trump is not running as a "candidate" for a constitutionally bound "office," whose policy platform will help put America back on track, but as the new messiah, as an American savior.  The office, and the constitution that defines it, will be irrelevant.  Once elected, once given a mandate of the people, Trump and only Trump will be relevant.

Trump, of course, is a "huge" narcissist, a narcissist's narcissist, but to diagnose his core pathology is just too easy.  It's credible, for example, that he called a news source, posing as someone else, to sing his own praises and boast of his sexual prowess, among other things.  He believes, and so too should you believe BECAUSE he so absolutely believes in himself.  He is Trump.   I want to believe, however, that it will all prove to be a monumental practical joke.  There was a season of American Idol, where a truly awful singer was put forward by the "voters" in the audience.  As the field narrowed, and more and more were "in" on the joke, they continued to put him forward, not because they believed he was a good singer, but because they could.  In the end, he didn't become the next American Idol, and one hopes the idolatry of Trump is just as shallow, but one suspects not.  It may be a monumental practical joke, but it's altogether too credible that he is where he is because the "republican voter," the "republican base, actually WANT him there.  Beyond his core pathology,  it is again just too easy, based on past statements, to diagnose his attendant pathologies.  He is a racist, a xenophobe, a misogynist, among other things.  The evidence in support of his pathologies is just too extensive, and again just too credible, to be ignored.  Those pathologies SHOULD matter to the republican voter, the republican base, but in the end they just don't seem relevant, but why?

It is heretical to suggest that his pathologies reflect the pathologies within the American public, but the conclusion seems to be inescapable.  Trump gives license to our baser impulses in ways that a comedian like Andrew Dice Clay could not give license to our baser impulses, but was "entertaining" nevertheless because he gave himself license to parade those baser impulses.   He is just so BAD, and falls for some into that camp of the villain we love to hate, for others a vicarious wish fulfillment.  Andrew Dice Clay, after all, is JUST a comedian, nothing to be taken too seriously, and it might have been possible to view Trump as JUST a reality show celebrity, nothing to be taken too seriously, except he was not delivering stand-up punch lines fraught with irony.   He was delivering what to many, altogether too many, was a "serious" response to the sorry state of our nation,  devoid of irony, but rife with those attitudes expressed all too apocalyptically on talk radio, and only slightly less so on Fox News, again devoid of irony.   The nation's savior would come, wearing a big R on his chest, and lo!  he appeared, not only with the R, but a ball cap that promised he would make America great again.  It is not surprising that the republican voter, the republican base, filled with a steady stream of fear and loathing by the paranoid ranting of talk radio and only slightly less paranoid ranting of Fox News, responded.  It would be surprising if they had not responded.

The Alter of Wealth

So, on to the heresy.  He is Trump, our savior, first and foremost, because the American people worship at the alter of wealth.  Americans have always had a complex relationship with wealth.  Max Weber traced it brilliantly in the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.  Although a broad brush, in the absence of the catholic assurance of salvation that came through the authority of priests and their absolution, one had to look for "signs" to assure one's self that one was saved, one of the "elect."  First among the "signs" was, of course, wealth.  Here, I should probably distinguish between monies sufficient to "earning a living" and "wealth."  It is one thing to earn enough money to live, even to live comfortably.  It is quite another thing to accumulate capital in excess of a comfortable life, money that can be saved or invested.   In the protestant ethic -- and this should sound familiar -- one was simply expected to work hard enough at one's calling to "earn a living."  It was a minimum condition.  We weren't in Eden.  We were fallen men and women, cursed with the original sin to labor, and so we should labor.  Those who did not labor were damned, both in this world and the next, while those who did, fulfilled God's command.  If one followed one's god given calling with enough zeal, enough faith, then one would not only "make a living," but accumulate wealth.  It became the principle sign of one's "election," one's favor with God.  Although there were prohibitions against ostentatious display of wealth among our early christian forebears, it didn't hurt that wealth was also brought with it social recognition and power.

How easily this connects up with the more contemporary idea of "meritocracy."   Although Jefferson's phrase, "pursuit of happiness" opened the door a bit to secular "signs" other than accumulated wealth, behind it nevertheless lay the notion of labor in the "pursuit."  Again, as a sort of minimum condition, one was expected to labor in order to "merit" or deserve one's happiness.     Labor, of course, differentiated the "aristocracy," those who inherited their happy condition, from the "meritocracy," those who labored with greater success and accumulated the sorts of wealth that brought social recognition and power -- those who "merited" or "deserved" their happy condition.     Hard work, in other words, was a minimal condition, but those "labored with greater success" had, one assumed, personal characteristics that allowed them to do so.  They had "intelligence" or "grit," to use the popular term for dogged perseverance, that allowed them to gain wealth along with the social recognition and power wealth bestowed.  Their wealth was a sufficient indication that they were more "meritorious" human beings, a "natural" as opposed to an "inherited" aristocracy, and so deserved their happiness.  One hears the converse of this as well.  The coal miner who has just been laid off saying, "if god had given me the smarts and I'd gone to school, I could've been boss."  One hears the resignation, not only to one's inferior status, but one's inferior "merit" as a human being.  They "merit" their poor fortune.

Trump, first and foremost, is wealthy.  He believes so thoroughly that he labored with greater success than virtually anyone else that his wealth becomes for virtually everyone else a sufficient indication of his inherent superiority, his inherent greatness.  He believes so thoroughly that were he to labor on behalf of the American people, then clearly the American people should believe, have no reason to doubt, that they would benefit.  Position and policy are irrelevant.  Trump is bestowing himself on the American people.  Trump, of course, won't release his tax returns for a variety of reasons, or so we can speculate.  They might reveal, for example, that his business interests are the sort that allowed for "out-sourcing" of American jobs, denying otherwise good Americans the opportunity to meet the minimal condition, to labor and "earn their living."  They do not want a "hand out," and despise those who do, but they DO want the opportunity to have a job and profit from their labor.   They might reveal, for example, that his accumulated wealth isn't quite what he makes it out to be -- that he might not be so "naturally endowed" as his hubris might want us to believe.  Though he portrays himself as the consummate "deal maker," his powers are already under question.  For the bumper sticker crowd, it's not so much "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"  It's more, "if you're so smart, why aren't you richer?"  He started with a fortune that would make most power ball winners envious, and whatever his labors at the deal might have been, they were not as wildly successful as he would have us believe.  Had he invested in an indexed mutual fund, or so it is estimated, he would have had the same gains.  Finally, they might reveal, for example, that he labored essentially not at all -- that most of his accumulated wealth came not from his vaunted "deals," many of which led to well publicized bankruptcies, but from simple capital gains on his inherited wealth.   His tax returns, in short, might prove to the fatal pin-prick to his inflated, fatuous (and one suspects flatulent) hubris and the confidence of his worshipers.

At the Alter of Hate

The other day, for reasons that are mysterious to me, I was thinking about the Salem witch trials.  Perhaps because they're reviving Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" on Broadway and they interviewed the director or one of the actors on PBS.  Something of that sort.   It was written about the Salem witch trials.  I won't summarize the plot.  The historical events are familiar enough in broad outline, and it is easy enough to poo-pooh something like the witch trials as a wholly historical aberration,  something that couldn't possibly happen today, because, well, we have moved beyond witches and such things.    I am not so sure we have, and we find politicians, like Cruz, or his father, literally "demonizing" Obama and Clinton, seeing them and their agenda as nothing less than the work of satan.  That Cruz was held to be the last hope to "stop Trump," itself says something.  It also says something that the republican base rather roundly rejected him for Trump, along with key members of the so-called republican elite.  Turn about is fair play, I would guess, and we have Boehner supporting Trump and calling out Cruz as "lucifer in the flesh," though one suspects Boehner meant "lucifer" metaphorically, not literally.

The play was intended as an allegory, and Miller, as is widely recognized, used the Salem witch trials to make a point about McCarthyism and the "rooting out" of communists and communist sympathizers during the early 50's.   Here again, it is easy enough to poo-pooh something like McCarthyism as a wholly historical aberration, something that couldn't possibly happen today, because, well, we have moved beyond our fear of communists.  Here again, I am not so sure.  One of the reflex charges against Obama, one that will certainly be leveled at Clinton, is "socialism," a charge that is held to be self-evidently "true" and self-evidently "bad."  This too has its religious roots, but they are obscured by a more secular discussion of economics.   Man's original sin condemned him to "labor," both as a punishment for the sin, but also as a means of redemption.  Our puritan forebears were, consequently, not big on charity.  The destitute were destitute for one of two reasons, either they were "out of favor" with God or they lacked sufficient character to knuckle down and go to work, either of which was sufficient reason to withhold charity.  If one gave charity to the destitute, it would only reinforce their lack of character, remove the incentives to self-reliance.  "Socialism, "of course, is government "charity" writ large, and anything that smacks of an "entitlement," a benefit bestowed without the redemption of labor, is just self-evidently "bad."  Obama-care is "bad," not because it is ineffectual at providing American's with health coverage, but because the subsidies that make such coverage "affordable" are an entitlement, a government hand-out, that comes without the redemption of labor.

Hence, at least in part, the emphasis on "jobs."  Hence too, at least in part, the revolt against "taxes," or at least certain forms of taxation.  If one suspects that their tax money -- money that came as a result of their labor -- is being used to support the indolence of others, well then how "wrong" is that?  I doubt that even the most vehement of fox news commentators really believe that Obama plots in the back room to destroy America, but I don't doubt that they believe, really believe, that any "entitlement" whatsoever undermines the character of the American people, to include medicare, medicaid, and social security.   Here's the turn.  The republican base, those who have signed up with Trump, those who might be classed as the so-called "angry white men," don't want a government handout, and as I said, they despise those who do.

So who is getting the government hand-outs?  This would be an occasion for facts, and the facts are readily available, but it's not about facts. It's about how one "feels," which normally comes with an unapologetic apology, "I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel."  There is a level of hypocrisy involved.  Many of the angry white men get, or will get, their entitlements.  They'll take them, or scam the government if they can get away with it, but they do so with a deep sense of sanctimony, "I am just getting back some of what shouldn't have been taken in the first place."  If they are thieves, they are thieving from the biggest thief around, the taxing government.  "I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel."  The one's they truly despise are those who take from the system never having been a contributor to or victim of the system, and we all know who they are, don't we?  It's the blacks, and the hispanics, or at least the urban blacks and hispanics, those who live their whole life sponging off  the American tax-payer, those taking their welfare checks and food stamps.   "I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel."

Some of the republican base and those supporting Trump are simple racists, as his endorsement by the KKK indicates, and it is perhaps convenient for the actual bigots that lines of poverty and lines of race correspond.  More are likely have complex racial attitudes.  For them, it seems that every government action designed to alleviate out and out racism, or what might be called "systemic" or "institutional" racism, has the flavor of an entitlement or a preference.  Here again, this would be an occasion for facts, and the facts are readily available, but  here again, it's not about facts.  It's about how one "feels."  The entitlement is galling enough, particularly when it seems perfectly apparent that their lack of self-reliance, that their dependence on government hand-outs, has contributed to the moral decline of the black community.  "I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel."  The preference, however, goes over the top.  I suspect every one of the "angry white men" can tell how he was passed over for a job or a promotion because the employer is trying to meet some "quota."  I suspect every one of the "angry white men" can tell how he was "more qualified" or "better suited" for the job or promotion than the one who actually got it.   It might actually be true, but to continue with the "past preference" for white men insures that white men would be better qualified and better suited.  "I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel."

Whether out and out racists, or simply those who want to reset the clock to the social setting of the 1950s, it makes little difference.  The racial and ethnic resentments remain, and Trump has, in every sense of the word, capitalized on this resentment throughout his campaign.  The so-called republican elite has been ineffectual in addressing his more outrageous, his more overtly racist remarks, not to mention his misogynistic remarks, in part because they too have been capitalizing on this resentment for at least the last three decades.  It will fall on deaf ears to suggest, as one should, that any real gains toward equality for minorities, to include women and the disabled, came as a result of government action and legal protections.  It will also fall on deaf ears to suggest, as one should, that there is considerable hypocrisy among the republican elite's McCarthy like witch hunt of the slightest "socialist" tendency.  The base, as a matter of course, expects the so-called elite to be hypocrites.  Of course they want tax cuts and of course they want to make up the difference by a corresponding cut in entitlements.  The base responds with a resounding "so what?"   The base too wants tax cuts -- doesn't everyone? -- and yes, they should cut entitlements, especially those that contribute to the moral and economic lassitude of the "undeserving."  That Trump might be as cynical as the republican elite is irrelevant.  He clearly understands and gives unpolished voice to their resentments.

At the Alter of America First

As I have been thinking about this over the past few days, there is curious division within the American psyche.  On the one side, there is the "gated community" mentality, which finds various expressions within the Trumpish camp among the republican base, but perhaps the most infamous is his promise to build the wall along our southern border and to ban muslims from entering the country.  Behind the gates, of course, is wealth and a way of life that must be protected.  It pre-supposes, of course, that one's wealth and way of life is "enviable" -- that it creates not only "desire" to have what those behind the gates have, but also the self-loathing that comes of the unfulfilled envy of the unattainable.  The walls and gates are built out of fear, not of rapine, but of rape and murder -- the spree killer's urge to rise above their self-loathing by destroying that which rejects and humiliates them.  It also pre-supposes that normal civility among members of a community and the community police no longer be trusted to provide much in the way of protection.  They must create their own "security forces" and take matters into their own hands.

The phrase, America First, of course, is historically evocative of the America First Committee before the advent of the second world war.  Its most famous spokesperson was Charles Lindbergh, but it was a "principled" movement, supporting four basic ideas, all of them "gated community" in effect.  The first principle was self-defense.  The second and third, avoid entanglements in foreign affairs and the expenses associated with such entanglements, both of which weaken one's ability to provide for self-defense.  The fourth, if strong enough, in part due to our geographic isolation, no foreign power can successfully attack the US.  The attack on Pearl Harbor put an end to the America First Committee, but its thinking is endemic. The popular expression goes something like this:  "we have enough problems here at home, and should attend to them."  Just as the American First Committee expressed sympathy for the plight of the jews in Germany, the popular expression today goes something like this:  "I'm not sure why our troops have to solve YOUR problems."  Unlike Pearl Harbor, the attack on the World Trade Center, aside from the desire to go forth and punish the perpetrators, reinforced the need for better self-defense, and the Trumpian call to disentangle ourselves from NATO and the "unfair" expenses associated with our entanglement in European affairs, would free up the cash to bolster our own security forces and build a higher wall.  The Trumpian base wants a stronger military, not so we can more successfully defend Europe or Korea, but so we can more successfully keep the hordes on the other side of the wall.

As an aside, there is also a popular belief that we are "enviable" -- that we do not need a wall, like the Berlin wall, to keep people IN.  We do, however, need a wall to keep people OUT.  There is a normal human tendency to resent those who resent us, and another popular expression of anti-entanglement and anti-interventionist thought goes something like this: "We go in, help them out, but are they thankful?  Do we get gratitude?  No, they hate and envy us all the more."  I have been re-reading many of Tony Judt's essays of late, and in one, "It's Own Worst Enemy," he tells us, "the 'cultural' anti-Americanism is shared by Europeans, Latin Americans, and Asians, secular and religious alike.  It is not about antipathy to the West, or freedom, or the Enlightenment, or any other abstraction exemplified by the United States.  It is about America."  It is, he tells us, a function of "our self-assurance, the narcissistic confidence of Americans in the superiority of American values and practices, and the rootless inattentiveness to history -- their own and other people's."  It is, perhaps, more galling to all the rest of world, who might actually prefer that we hunker down behind our wall, in part because they need us.  American occupies a unique position of uncontested strength within the world, both militarily and economically, and does so despite all the  fox news talk of imminent armageddon.  As Judt put it, "America is indispensable."  The foreign reaction to Trump  as the "leader of the free world" stands as a case in point.  He exemplifies "self-assurance, the narcissistic confidence in his own superiority, and his benighted inattention to anything that might be called a "fact," and yet they will need him.

And for what will he be needed?  Much, but let me start with a simple observation.    If there is anything Trump knows, he should know that we cannot have modern communication and transportation technologies and a modern capitalist economy and live in isolation.  Although the mostly rural, mostly blue collar base that Trump draws upon might live in the illusion of provincial isolation.  They might believe that they can enhance the isolation by "building the wall," not simply to keep out the job stealing Mexicans, but also the imminent threat of the jihadist muslim.  The world is far more deeply interfused than any one person could begin to detail in a single lifetime, much less a single paragraph or two, so let me make another simple observation.  Our current military "doctrine," such as it is, might be called a "unilateralism."  Obama would prefer, I think, more bilateralism, or even a multi-laterism, but that would require behaving with a humility sufficient to compromise our interests on behalf of others. We more often than not do retreat to unilateralism, mostly because we can.  Our geography has given us unprecedented internal security.  Neither Canada nor Mexico could be remotely considered a "military" threat to the US homeland.  Neither would or could conceivably mount a war of territorial aggression.  Our military is not and never has been a "defensive" force, but a military force designed for intervention across the globe -- designed, that is, to project force where needed to protect "American interests."  If the wars in the middle east are, as some suggest, "all about oil," well, to be honest with ourselves and others, we have an interest in securing a steady flow of oil from reliable and stable partners in the middle east.  Reliable and stable does not mean "nice."  I doubt that Trump's base gives a rat's ass about which abusive dictator runs which subjugated country in the middle east, but they do care about a steady and cheap supply of fuel for the suburban that takes Johnny and Mary to football and soccer practice.  We are, as some suggest, usually with some disparagement, the world's police force.  Not unlike the traffic cop on the corner whose presence causes passing cars to check their speedometer, not without resentment, our over-whelming military presence causes the world to check their "interests" relative to the US, again not without resentment.  So long as we are willing to project force to protect our way of life here at home, the world will continue to check their "interests."  Do we really want to withdraw from that role?

Apparently, if we have a quick and easy way of dealing with such "threats" -- nuclear weapons.  They are not, I should add, military weapons.  They are instruments of mutual terror, and to use them would be the equivalent of strapping on a suicide vest with the intent of wiping out life on earth as we know it.  So long as we are not so desperate as a species to commit suicide, we have lived and will live with the nuclear terror, in part because we cannot "un-invent" them.  We are concerned with nuclear proliferation because there may well be those who believe, really believe, that strapping on the nuclear suicide vest might be a good idea within a war of genocidal aggression -- a quick and easy way to wipe out the indigenous population that is always of the "wrong" ideology or religion or ethnicity.  It is also a quick and easy way to wipe out a "problem" -- BOOM! -- it's gone.  The bellicose talk regarding ISIS and Islamic extremism during the convention cycle may have been just that, bellicose talk, of the sort one hears from a local red-neck three beers into his diatribe about the "towel heads" when he suggests we should "just nuke the f---kers."  If Islamic extremism is a problem, don't mess around with "troops" or "regime change," just deal with it, wipe the problem off the face of the earth -- BOOM! -- it's gone.  In an interview response to Meet the Press, Trump straps on the suicide vest to fix a problem with a nuclear war of genocidal aggression.  As commander in chief, he would authorize the use of nuclear weapons to combat Islamic extremism, adding "and thanks to Obama's failed policy in Iraq and Sytria, they're beheading Chrisitans all over the world."   Although it could be argued that the second Bush used 9/11 along with an illusory threat of WMDs cynically as a pretext for other more conventional middle east ventures, the non-proliferation doctrine nevertheless stood.   Like the gun control adversary who sees "more guns" as the solution to gun violence, Trump has suggested that even more nuclear weapons are the solution to potential nuclear threats.  In response to North Korea's program, he has suggested that South Korea and Japan obtain nuclear weapons, in part so we can withdraw the troops stationed in South Korea and Japan. Here's the thing.  Do we believe if Kim Jung Un is a rational actor?  He has said  North Korea "must always be ready to fire our nuclear warheads at any time" because enemies were threatening the north's survival.   Although one can doubt the overall capacity, there is some capacity, and if he really believes South Korea has or will have nuclear weapons, and can use them independently of the US, do we trust them NOT to act preemptively?   Do we respond in kind if one or the other does?  Here again, our over-whelming military presence assigns us the role of the world's police force against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMDs.   We are the world's deterrent.  Do we really want to give up that role?

The answer in both cases is a qualified "no."  I say "qualified," in part as a recognition that it is always possible to serve either role "better," and it begs a question of what exactly would count as "better," which in turn begs the further question of just exactly how one would go about achieving "better."  This is a matter, however, not for demagogic bar room diatribes, but rational democratic debate.  Not unlike Great Britain in the 19th century, we are currently the first among nations, and our military prowess guarantees it, but the ostensibly christian base should remember matthew 20:16.

Reality Show

I suppose I should admit that I'm as obsessed with Trump as any of his followers.   This morning the Post has run a piece by Sheldon Adelson endorsing Trump.  In it he writes,

I’ve spent time talking to Donald Trump. Do I agree with him on every issue? No. But it’s unlikely that any American agrees with his or her preferred candidate on every issue.

Sheldon Adelson's endorsement does nothing for me.  He's one casino owner endorsing another casino owner.  One could talk about the morality of the casino as a business model, or his endorsement of a nuclear detonation to get the attention of the Iranians in the negotiation of the "nuclear deal," which he put forward, then retracted claiming it was merely a metaphor for "actions speak louder than words."   Not unlike Trump, he switched party allegiance, and seems quite willing to say outlandish, frightening, repugnant things, then back away without any contrition.  In other words, Sheldon Adelson's endorsement is the anti-endorsement, another call to resist the donald.  

Here's the fundamental question -- how can one agree or disagree with Trump on an issue?  Trump is nothing if not protean.  Consider, for example, his stance on abortion. What exactly is his position?  Consider, as another example, his stance on banning Muslims.  If you watch the videos of Trump announcing the position, and read the statements now, you'd think he was retreating from a radical position he had once held as a college student, not something he said, forcefully, to cheers, just a couple months before.  What exactly is his position?  Consider, for example, his tax returns.  Is he, or is he not, going to release them?  Again, Trump is nothing if not protean.

He has been called out on this, repeatedly, time and again, redundantly, by the Post and others who continue, time and again, to award him four pinocchios for his statements.  Yesterday, in an editorial I cannot find, a writer for the Post lamented his lamentable lack of clarity and ideological position.  I wrote a response to it.  Sometimes, I just can't help myself -- so I DO have some empathy for Trump's need to tweet.  My response went something like this:

Trump's position, I believe, has been clear all along.  To use his own word, he is "unpredictable."  In an almost paradoxical way, he does have an unambiguous ideology, his unpredictability, which he demonstrates repeatedly.  Paul Ryan cannot "come together" with Trump.   Paul Ryan is an ideologue.  He has a set of positions which can be examined and understood.  One can mostly accept or reject those positions centered on one's understanding of their potential effects.  Hillary Clinton too is an ideologue, or perhaps more precisely, a policy wonk.  She has a set of positions which can be examined and understood.  One can mostly accept or reject those positions centered on one's understanding of their potential effects.  I choose to reject Ryan, accept Hillary, based NOT on their personalities, but the direction promised in their positions, though I do not honestly believe Hillary would not make much of a difference.   If Ryan is waiting for Trump to arrive at a set of ideas or positions around which the republican party can be united, he will wait forever, and he should.  Trump asks that we support him, not as a democrat, only marginally as a republican, but as Trump himself.  He offers, not a platform, certainly not a party platform, but no more, no less than Trump himself in all his glorious Trumpness.

In other words, he is the ultimate post-modern self-reflective ideologue for the age of the selfie, the ultimate Kardashian-like "celebrity because I am a celebrity" candidate, the ultimate "reality show" contestant for the be-all, end-all of "reality shows."  It is, perhaps, ironic that many of the "reality shows" ask the American populace to vote for their "favorites" to produce an ephemeral  winner, and so many do.   Voting on the next "American Idol" has morphed into the next "American President," and it is just expected that we will lavish on Trump, in all his Trumpness, the idolatry he believes he so justly deserves and make him the next president.  It is discouraging and disheartening that anyone has voted for Trump, anyone at all, but it shouldn't be surprising.   Trump is not playing the political game, but as we have known all along, the "reality show" game, and watching carries with it a sort of morbid fascination -- a can't look, but can't look away obsession -- in part because no one believes, really believes, the stakes are as high as they are.  It's just a "reality show."        

The Borg

As much as I fear mentioning it, I am a Star Trek aficionado.  When the Cubs are not playing, and Lora is at work, it's my go-to binge.  There is something ultimately very hopeful about the future it portrays.  Robert Reich, unwittingly I think, picked up on the theme that runs throughout Star Trek in his Saving Capitalism.  He asked us to imagine an iEverything, a device that could produce anything one wanted more or less instantaneously.  It seems, yes, we are trending in that direction.  The combination of the internet and Amazon, along with 3D printers and virtual reality consoles, all seem to be the primitive versions of the "replicator," the iEverything imagined first on Star Trek.

There are two ways to think of this, one utopian, one dystopian.  On the utopian side, the rhetoric is familiar.  Having the "replicator," along with a panoply of devices that free us from routine tasks, will free us to become the human beings we are destined to become.  We no longer need to scramble to "make a living," because everything we need and want is there, poof, for the asking, and so we are free to fulfill our destiny as individual human beings with unique and unlimited potential.   On the utopian side, that destiny, of course, is always imagined in halcyon ways, but mostly centered on the "creative" potential of mankind.  In some respects, this seems to be the future that Star Trek portrays.  The crew of the Enterprise or the Voyager is enthusiastically in pursuit of "exploration."  Of course, it being fiction and our fictions require conflict to drive their plots, the crew of the star ship does run into trouble along the way, but as their non-interference prime directive reminds us, they are not seeking new worlds to conquer, simply new worlds to know and understand, new worlds to explore.   It is a world, it seems, where everyone is either an artist, an engineer, a scientist, or an explorer -- someone who freely contributes their bit to the gigabyte of human "creativity."

On the dystopian side, the rhetoric is equally familiar.  One of the principle villains in the Star Trek series is the Borg.  The Borg are the ultimate totalitarians, a species that assimilates everyone and everything into their "technology collective."  Direction is important.  For the crew of the Enterprise, humans have intentionality, but the technology remains "instrumental."  It is distinct from and used by human beings to achieve their ends.  The technology that achieves "sentience" (Data on the Enterprise series, the Doctor on the Voyager series) want, like Pinocchio, to become more, not less like individual human beings with intentionality.  The crew of the Borg "cubes," however, are "drones."  Everything, including the bodies of those they assimilate, are enhanced with an infused technology and become part of the technology collective.  The Borg, in other words, free us from our individual humanity to become what we are destined to become, adjuncts to the technology collective.   The Borg, in other words, have freed technology to become all that it is destined to become.  The technology collective has intentionality and the humans, as such, are assimilated to and used by the collective for its ends, which seem to be nothing more than the assimilation and use of additional beings.  

We are, of course, somewhere between the crew of the Enterprise and the Borg.  I want to suggest that the driver of our current economic malaise is technology driven.  Before I can make that point, I need to  to make an heretical statement, but I would ask that you bear with me.  Both opportunity and potential are limited for the vast majority of human beings.   Opportunity is necessary to the fulfillment of potential, but not sufficient.  Put another way, one will never become Michael Jordan or Steven Hawking if one is not afforded the opportunity to develop one's athletic or intellectual skills.  To claim that one "makes one's own opportunities" is perhaps true, but only in a very, very limited sense.  Some obstacles simply cannot be overcome.  Assuming one is born with the genetic endowment that would allow one to become the next Michael Jordan or Steven Hawking, insufficient nutrition and education in the formative years trumps that endowment for good and forever.  The potential is lost.  Beyond that, assuming one is NOT born with the genetic endowment -- that one is an average, or even slightly below average human being -- no amount of "opportunity" will take one's jump shot or one's math skills to the level of a Michael Jordan or a Steven Hawking. The potential, both physical and intellectual, is limited from the outset.

We are accustomed to thinking of our physical potential as limited, but the heretical statement is, of course, that intellectual potential is limited from the outset.  We accept physical limitations, but we want to believe, and go to great lengths to believe, that we are all somehow equally endowed intellectually.  My wife, the other day, reminded me, for example, that I have a lot of "book smarts," but that she has "street smarts" and/or "common sense."  I would grant a couple of things.  First, if empathy is a form of intelligence, then she has it in great abundance over me.  This may mark me as a sociopath, but my "empathy," as such, is abstract.  I understand how others might feel, and so I can behave more or less appropriately, but I don't ever "feel" another's pain.  My wife clearly does "feel" their pain.   From a moral perspective, that is a greater gift than my abstract and analytical intelligence, and may even make her more human, but no amount of tutoring, no amount of education will bring her math skills up to mine.  Second, if we accept the compartmentalization of intelligence, (e.g. empathy vs analytic intelligence) then it might be possible to do some form of accounting where we all, in the end, are somehow equally endowed intellectually.  Having said that, however, I have known people, too many people, who lack both empathy AND analytic skills.  We would need to do some real digging to find the "intelligence" that would balance the books.

So, back to my point.  Our current economic malaise is technology driven.  Here's the axiomatic statement: "to the degree that our technology is 'instrumental,' to that same degree it displaces the need for human beings.'  Consider, for example, a "simple" technology, Archimedes lever and the "wheel."   Imagine a large stone block of the sort that goes into a Greek temple, about the size of a small car.  How many men would it take to lift and carry that block?  How many men would it take to  lever it up onto a series of logs and push it across a distance?  The answer is fewer.  Consider, for example, a "complex" technology made possible by digital technologies.  Imagine Amazon's warehouse with stacks upon stacks of goods waiting for distribution.  How many people would it take to person that warehouse before the advent of digital and robotic technologies?  How many people would it take to person that warehouse after the advent of digital and robotic technologies?   The answer again is fewer.  Think books.  How many are engaged in the production land distribution of a book.  If we imagine the supply train for a physical book, it involves not only the writer and publisher of that book, but also the printer, the suppliers to the printer, the driver who delivers it to the book store, the cashier in the book store, among others.  Think ebook.  How many people are engaged in the production and distribution of an ebook?  The writer, the publisher, those who maintain the commercial delivery platform.  The answer again is fewer, far fewer.  

Don't misunderstand me.  I personally have benefited enormously from the production and distribution of ebooks.    Almost anything I want is immediately available to me, and books in the public domain are available pretty much free of charge.   The technology has been enormously instrumental to me, but it has also displaced the need for human beings -- not the "writer" or the "technicians" who manage the delivery platform, but all those other people who performed tasks less demanding of "creative" or "analytical" skills -- the printers, drivers, and such.  Insofar as Amazon is a relatively "new" enterprise, it might even be possible to think of those who maintain the commercial delivery platform as "new" jobs, but that too is both true and misleading.   Those jobs are simply the assimilation of several physical jobs into a technology.   Amazon is less Enterprise, more Borg.  It has served me and many others through enhanced "opportunity" to access to explore the available intellectual inheritance.  Whether by doing so it has allowed me personally to fulfill my "creative potential" is another matter.  I doubt that ultimately it has made much of a difference.  There is only so much life available for reading, and I am relatively selective.  Its technology has, however, undeniably assimilated livelihoods, reduced the number and types of "jobs" available, and curtailed the overall opportunity for many to reach their economic potential.

I am not the first to say this.  I will not be the last.  I will, however, add a corollary to the axiom: "resistance is futile."  Trekkies will recognize the phrase.   Once one's livelihood has been assimilated by the  technological Borg, there is no "un-assimilating" it.  The prevailing winds of capitalism drive the enterprise, any enterprise, toward improved "profit."  There might be several ways to think of "profit," but right now, within the existing economic system, it means an improved monetary return on capital.   This can be accomplished in two ways, both of which are facilitated by technology.  

First, improvements in efficiency or productivity.  If a task can be automated, it can be performed with greater speed and reliability than humans.  The machines don't get bored, don't check out the ass of the worker next to them, don't worry that their kids might be experimenting with drugs, don't fantasize about the new "camper," don't ... the list of distractions is nearly infinite.  They do, however, attend to their task with relentless mindlessness.  Consequently, if a task can be automated, it will be automated.  Those charged with improvements to the profit margins of any large corporation today will automate whatever can be automated.  Failure to do so will mean the loss of competitive edge and profit.

A side note: this includes tasks that until very, very recently required "human" intelligence.  Think surgery.  It wasn't that long ago that surgeons were elevated to the status of demigods, and the accumulated "wealth" of a Ben Carson stands as a testament to the value our social systems placed on surgical skill.  Having said that, however, surgery is now being displaced with technology, or to use the definition of the Mayo Clinic, "robotic surgery, or robot-assisted surgery, allows doctors to perform many types of complex procedures with more precision, flexibility, and control than is possible with conventional techniques."  The technology will only improve, and a future without a broad cadre of surgeons is more than conceivable, it inevitable.  Insofar as the technology is proprietary, it is unlikely to decrease the cost of surgery by much, any more than the advent of the ebook decreased the cost of new books, but it will eliminate the need for very expensive surgeons and improve the profit margin of our increasingly corporate health care systems.  

Second, economies of scale.  Think ebooks as described above, or better think "education."  At the present, education is still a relatively "labor intensive" occupation.  I won't touch primary and secondary education, but consider "higher education" for the moment.  Nation wide, state legislators have cut back on their support to higher education, and in consequence there have been compensatory increases in tuition.   I say "compensatory" because those same state legislators often have veto power over any tuition increases, and often the tuition increases are not sufficient to cover the loss of state tax support.  The result has been an increasingly "privatized" higher education system subject to all the pressures of "private" business, particularly improvements in "efficiency" -- more "units of production" (i.e. "graduates") per dollar spent.

The first level of efficiency was achieved through "local outsourcing" and the hiring of  "adjunct" instructors.   Adjuncts are poorly paid period (about $15 per hour), but especially given their level of educational attainment (Masters+).  They are part time, without benefits, and strictly limited in the amount of work they can undertake at any particular school, so many travel between schools piecing together work -- hence the description "road warriors."   That so many are so willing to take on this work probably speaks to the over-production of advanced degrees in many fields, but that is a topic for another post.

The second level of efficiency is being achieved through "on-line" education.  Higher education hasn't quite arrived at this level of efficiency, in part because initial forays into "on-line" education attempted to replicate the old industrial model of the "classroom experience" with an on-line instructor with a "virtual" classroom of 30 or so students.  It has achieved, however, one level of efficiency.  It displaced "bricks and mortar."  Think of it this way.   For 1,000 students, it takes about 35 classrooms to house them in traditional face-to-face instruction.  To have 35 classrooms, one must have a relatively large building, with all the janitorial and other supports that a building requires.   At my last institution, we "educated" approximately 7,000 on-line students, or the equivalent of 7 relatively large buildings of 35 classrooms.   For our on-line classes, most of which were taught by adjuncts, we required a relatively large room in a small building for the servers and a row of administrative offices.

The "real" efficiencies in "on-line" education, however, will come with the automation of faculty roles.  We are seeing this already with the advent of things like the Kahn Academy, where a YouTube clip viewable by millions has replaced the "lecture" viewable by 30 in a classroom.  If one thinks of education as the dissemination of relevant information, you are looking at the demise of faculty, particularly when one "expert" instructor out of Harvard or Stanford can reach hundred of thousands through a well produced, well supported "instructional experience."  Such is the MOOC, or the Massive Open On-line Course, the "open" indicating that one need not be "admitted" either to the institution or the course to participate superficially as a matter of intellectual curiosity.  Those wishing "credit" toward a "degree" from a MOOC, however, will "pay for" admission as well as tutorial and testing "services," almost all of which can also be automated.  If the MOOC model of education becomes real, not only will faculty everywhere simply fade away, so too will the institutions that support them.  Our state universities can become what they want to become, subsidized research facilities and/or minor league sports franchises for the NFL and the NBA.   Already well subsidized research facilities, our "elite" universities can also go on providing an interpersonal "elite" education to the sons and daughters of the "elite" -- that is to say, for those that can afford it - generationally replicating and reinforcing the emerging class structures.                

I am, of course, just brushing lightly over the surface.  Most of the standard remedies won't work to improve the lot of Americans.  Although MOOCs might extend opportunities for a version of a Harvard or Stanford eduction to thousands, just extending educational opportunity won't work.  Only a limited number of people have, I suspect, the innate capacity to achieve the sorts of education necessary.  Even so, assuming that we haven't yet reached the "limit," that a greater number of people could achieve the sorts of education necessary if racial and cultural barriers to "educational attainment" were systemically removed, it still doesn't follow that "educational attainment" equates to "employment opportunity."  There is an ever shrinking pool of jobs that require higher levels of "educational attainment."  A degree remains necessary, but it is not sufficient.  Investing in an education is like buying a lottery ticket with ever increasing odds against winning, particularly if there is no way of "guessing" up front whether the technological Borg will assimilate the livelihood.    How many physics PhDs does it take to drive a taxi?  None, if the Google "driverless" automobile comes fully into being.

Seven of Nine aside (again trekkies will recognize the reference) one cannot go back.  Once one's livelihood is assimilated, it is always assimilated.  There is a sort malthusian pessimism behind all this.  We cannot continue down this path indefinitely.  As more and more human jobs are assimilated to the technological Borg, as fewer and fewer people can "earn a living," there will be fewer and fewer people able to pay for the goods and services produced by the Borg, no matter how efficiently produced, no matter how well protected by the assimilative power of sheer size and "intellectual property rights."  At some juncture, we will reach a point where there are too few people with a livelihood, with the ability to actually pay for something.  Of course, Malthus didn't take into account "innovative agricultural technology" that allowed food production for the most part to keep up with population -- that is to say, an "agricultural technology" that allowed for the expansion of arable land and a simultaneous contraction of the numbers needed to cultivate it, freeing up the population for the rural exodus to the urban factories of the industrial revolution.  Now that "innovative industrial technology" is allowing for a similar expansion of industry with a simultaneous contraction of the numbers needed to person it, where will the "excess population" go?   If we are beyond the industrial age, and the so called information age has proved to be something of a bust (at least insofar in the gainful and meaningful employment of actual people) then what?  If the "excess population" cannot move from the country to the city, then perhaps we need to reconsider the space-age?  We could send them where no man (or woman) has gone before.  We could begin our "colonization" of Mars and parts beyond.   We have the technology, and the possibilities are even more limitless than western frontier of yore ...