Suffering is Real

The standard, high-school English definition of irony is "saying-one-thing-meaning-another."  From there, it gets complicated.  Satire is one form of irony, and perhaps the iconic example is Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal."   In it, after describing the economic plight of the Irish and dismissing many viable solutions to their plight, he suggested that they could solve all their problems by selling their children as comestibles to the much more prosperous British.  Or, as Swift himself put it, "A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."  The satire works, in part, because there was a sort of factual "truth" to the economic plight, and a sort of metaphorical "truthiness" to the solution -- the British were already consuming the children of Ireland, if not at table, then in other ways.  The satire also works, in part, because it could be taken at face value.  Those who do, of course, are outraged at the suggestion.  Having taught the essay on a couple of occasions, I can attest that there are those who DID take it at face value, despite its outlandishness, and who WERE consequently outraged.  There were also those who took it at face value and dismissed it as irrelevant to their current concerns -- "who cares what they did in 18th century Europe?  We wouldn't do that today, would we?"  My goals in teaching the essay were historical and technical, with perhaps an emphasis on the latter -- this is how satire works -- but the forces of ignorance and apathy were too powerful for my uninspired teaching. 

Nevertheless, from there, it gets even more complicated.  The very outlandishness of Swift's proposal signals that we are not to take it at face value or, as the vernacular today might have it, "seriously."   The outlandishness signals, in other words, that we are to interpret it as something other than a straight forward proposal, but the signal depends on the possibility of a straight forward proposal in the first place, one that actually means what it says.  It assumes, in other words, the possibility of a direct representation of an "actual" proposal, one that we are to take "seriously" at face value -- one that can be debated, its potential merits analyzed and  ultimately implemented in the "actual" world where we share space.  There is, however, a vein of post-modern philosophy that would suggest every statement should be treated ironically, that we can REALLY take nothing seriously or at face value.  For those statements that are "intended" to be taken at face value, there is a sort of subversion or deconstruction of the "intended" meaning.  I wrap "intended" in scare quotes because the whole notion of "intention" is problematic as well.  In a freudian scheme, for example, my superego might intend one thing, only to be subverted by my id.  In a nietzchian scheme, my Apollonian intent might be one thing, only to be subverted by my Dionysian will to power.  I am not necessarily aware or conscious of the subversion.  To the extent that I am aware, I buttress argument to fortify my intent, but ultimately the attempt fails.  Once written, the text floats free of my "intent" and the astute reader will see and reveal the irony of my argument, reveal how it says one thing but means another.   One should be cautious in suggesting that the astute reader reveals the "hidden" meaning of my argument, nor does he reveal the "true" meaning of my argument.  If there is "truth" in the revelation of irony, it goes no further than the truth of subversion's inevitability, the impossibility of an actual proposal that is free of irony and can taken "seriously" simply at face value.

And from there, it gets yet even more complicated.  I mention this, in part, because the internet troll, particularly the alt-right internet troll, is the apotheosis of the post-modernist philosopher.  A recent  Vox article delves into the realm of the internet troll.  They define the troll as "web-speak for that one rude commenter on a forum who just wouldn’t shut up or go away; the one who kept trying to goad the average reasonable person into a fight — and often an absurd one based on absurd logic, or a twisting of your assumptions regarding the basic principles you were arguing about."  At one level, they are merely the merry prankster's of the internet generation, providing an on-going satirization of the "establishment," goading those who have fallen prey to "political correctness" in much the same way that Swift goaded the establishment of his day with the absurd logic of eating children. Though it can be very annoying at times, it's not necessarily a bad thing to be confronted with a gad-fly, to have one's basic assumptions challenged.  The provocations themselves, however, are not to be taken "seriously," except insofar as they serve to discredit basic assumptions that are equally absurd, and consequently  initiate an more nuanced examination of the issue at hand.  

At another level, however, something more pernicious, more nihilistic may well be afoot, particularly among the alt-right trolls.  The Vox writers go on to suggest that their use of irony creates "a sincerity-proof chamber of distortion" and  "they do this by pretending that what they’re really doing is satirically spoofing how progressives and members of the media view conservatives."  They give an example:

For example: say I Photoshop a picture of Hillary Clinton so that she’s being chased by rabid wolves [or worse, facing a firing squad, or wise yet dangling from a rope]. You come along and claim that my image is alarming and sexist. I might then claim that the joke’s on you, because my image was really just a way to bait and skewer liberal hysteria and “the media’s” hyperbolic, distorted image of how the alt-right treats women and Clinton in particular. 

Such a claim puts one in a double bind.  If you continue to insist that the image is alarming and sexist, by "reacting to it and getting upset, you fell for it, proving that liberals are overly sensitive crybabies who habitually whine about trivial or nonexistent issues."  You, like so many other Americans, are irony deficient, but if you capitulate and say, "ok, I get the joke," and ask, "what is the more accurate, undistorted truth?" -- what exactly is the alt right position on women and what is their view of Clinton in particular? -- one never quite gets an answer, just more hyperbole, more goading, more ironic satire.  As a consequence, the Vox writer claims that the irony itself, the satire, is the ironic pretense.  The troll's comments taken at face value, ironically, ARE the "real" point.  The provocations themselves, ironically, ARE to be taken "seriously," and the "picture of Clinton and the wolves, and many more like it, continue to promote violence against women and a hatred of Clinton."  If that "was, of course, [the] real goal all along," the Vox writer, as an astute reader of internet trolls, has revealed the real meaning of their posts, hidden in plain sight all along.  If that was the goal, the ironic subversion of irony with "sincerity," albeit a noxious "authenticity," I would suggest that we are left nowhere, with only the inevitability of subversion, with irony subverting "sincerity" and "sincerity" subverting "irony," endlessly vacillating between "oh my god, they can't be serious!" and "oh my god, they're serious!"

Here I want to completely change the subject, but then again, not so much.  I want to say "suffering is 'real,' and the only legitimating purpose of any political action is to reduce suffering."  Of course, a good deal follows from that, not least the questions "for whom?" and "how?"   There are any number of nuanced conversations that follow -- on the notion of utility and utilitarianism as one such conversation.  If the purpose of political action is to reduce suffering, then shouldn't we aim at those actions that reduce suffering for the maximum number of people, even if it induces suffering in a small minority?  For those more attuned to popular culture, it's Spock's admonition that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."  The answer is yes, but only contingently so, and the contingency is always changing.  We would want to respond to the contingency and attend to the needs of the many, but if we are aware that our action induces suffering, even in a small minority, then morally our actions are imperfect, and it is our moral duty to seek perfection, no matter how difficult or unattainable it may seem.  The conversation does not end when we have satisfied the needs of the many.  Language is a tool for conversation, no more, no less.  It is an important tool, one that creates social consensus, and worthy of a great deal of thought in that regard, but in the end it is only a tool with pragmatic value.  Just as a hammer can be used to drive nails in the creation of a homeless shelter, or smash a skull in the perpetration of a robbery, language itself can be used to alleviate or create suffering.    

In this respect, Swift's satire held a moral purpose.  Its provocations were aimed, ultimately, at the reduction of suffering among the Irish people.  The satire of the alt-right, not so much.  Perhaps someone wiser than me can point to it ultimate good, but I have difficulty seeing it, with perhaps one exception.  It aims to further an ideological goal, which is taken to be "good" among those who adhere to the ideology, and so the actions are justified against that future "good."  For those more attuned to the popular culture, it's the admonition that one has to break a few eggs to get an omelet.  For the alt-right, who clearly advocate racial and ethnic and gender hierarchies, that ideological goal has long since been discredited. Indeed, although there was a strong vein of sympathy for the national socialist party within the US, particularly among the executives of many major US corporations, we nevertheless fought a world war to prevent the dominance of just such an ideology.  Although that ideology may attend to the needs of the majority, we cannot feign ignorance that the sort of apartheid social structure they imagine does not induce suffering in the minority.  Clearly it does, and so, just as clearly, it is imperfect, and we have a moral duty to develop a more perfect union, one that addresses their suffering, no matter how difficult it may seem.  Anything less shirks our moral duty, and if it does so intentionally, it is actively immoral.  

The conversation, in short, does not end when we have satisfied the needs of the dominant racial and ethnic majority.  The language of the alt-right, however, aims not at a continuation of the conversation, not at social consensus, but solely at contention.  If it has a satirical purpose, and is aimed at the over-bearing sanctimony of the liberal left, OK.  At times it can be over-bearing in its boo-hooing over "victimization" when so many of the victims seem to have brought it on themselves.  The alt right does not, however, propose an alternative conversation, one that actually does address the real suffering of racial and ethnic minorities, or for that matter the real suffering of the dominant racial and ethnic majority, and it ends smugly with the contentiousness.  If the satirical purpose is a ruse and the real message is a sort of apartheid social structure, it directly advocates for the suffering of the few and does so for the benefit of the racial and ethnic majority.   In either case, their trolling is ultimately immoral.  They are using the hammer of language to smash skulls, little more.

Having said that, part of the difficulty lies in the whole notion of an "ideological goal."  If they are smashing skulls in the furtherance of an "ideological goal," which is taken to be good, the brain spatter is justified, even called for, as a step in the direction of that good.  The white nationalist ideology simmering under the surface of the alt-right has long since been discredited, but I would suggest ANY set of end-game, ideological goals are a problem.  Perhaps I should clarify and suggest ANY set of ideological goals that purports to put an end to "contingency" once and for all are the problem.   I have suggested in previous posts that there is only the status quo, and the only question that arises against a political proposal, no matter how modest, is this: "who benefits and how?"  Phrased in that way, it simply reveals my own enduring cynicism and skepticism toward those in power, insofar as they tend to act in ways that benefit themselves, often at the expense of the broader public.  As a positive justification for the proposal, I might add that the only question is this: "does it alleviate suffering?  for whom and how?"  Implicit in both statements is an ideology of sorts -- the a priori assumption that we, together, have an moral duty to alleviate suffering, to form a more perfect union, and there are .  "More perfect" implies an on-going struggle against the  suffering implicit to the existing status quo, but I refuse, more or less on principle, to imagine the end game, the final state of perfection.  Implicit in any such imagined perfection is the "if only everyone" syndrome -- as in "if only everyone were white and christian and gladly followed biblical  law, then what a wonderful world it would be" -- as in (you can fill in the blank with your own imagined implausibility or impossibility).  Implicit in any such imagined perfection is a limited world where suffering is eliminated by eliminating those who would suffer under the imagined perfection.  What to do with the blacks?  What to do with the muslims?  What to do with headstrong women and overt gays under a biblical law that would repress and demonize them?  The national socialists of yore had an answer, and it is not an answer that we should resurrect.

So, in the end, I am, like Richard Rorty,  I believe that "the task of the intellectual, with respect to social justice, is not to provide refinements of social theory," though the on-going critical examination of the status-quo, can help  "sensitize us to the suffering of others, and refine, deepen and expand our ability to identify with others, to think of others as like ourselves in morally relevant ways."  Critique implies change, which often has unintended consequence, and necessitates more change.  To change one status quo, even for the better, simply creates another status quo, with its own set of beneficiaries and sufferers.  And there will always be the on-going moral imperative to address the needs of those who suffer.  Consequently, like Rorty, I am "a self-proclaimed romantic bourgeois liberal, a believer in piecemeal reforms advancing economic justice and increasing the freedoms that citizens are able to enjoy."  Not unlike Rorty, I am "sceptical toward radicalism" and the radical solution.  It plays well, particularly in the appeal to simplistic solutions, in the outraged appropriation of frustrated idealism and too often justifiable rage, but the simplistic solution rarely acknowledges the full complexity of any problem.  The insistence on complexity, on examining the problem from multiple perspectives and deliberating on the moral and technical merits of various potential solutions, all seems like obtuse pedantry to idealists who really want to believe its really that simple -- to the angry who want retribution, want it now, and want it in full measure, and want someone or something to take retribution against.  

Nevertheless, "political thought purporting to uncover hidden, systematic causes for injustice and exploitation, and on that basis proposing sweeping changes to set things right," always -- at least within human experience through the 20th century -- go awry.   Still, it is difficult, as Spock might tell us, to insist on LOGOS, the on-going critical examination, when there is so much PATHOS, so much misdirected and malignant emotion to overwhelm the mere pedantry of logic, and the outsized ETHOS of the latest demagogue to orchestrate it.  It takes little moral strength of mind to believe in to those who insist that the problems really are simple, when they are not -- to capitulate to one who believes that he and only he holds the keys to their solution, when he does not -- and to feel that THEY are the impediment to the imagined paradise, whether it be the jews, the catholics, or the muslims -- whether it be uppity blacks, or women, or their elitist sympathizers -- when they are not.  Democracy ends when the on-going critique is silenced to maintain the illusion of simplicity -- when we give over our own rational insight and moral authority to another -- when we allow ourselves to ignore and perhaps even celebrate the suffering of others.  

The "faithless" media and Trump

There's a front page story in the Washington Post this morning headlined "a defiant Trump meets the TV news crowd in private -- and let's them have it."  For anyone who followed the campaign, there's nothing particularly surprising in it, neither Trump's criticism of the press for being "unfair" and "dishonest," nor his lack of graciousness.  "One participant asked Trump for his definition of 'fair,'" the post writes, "noting that part of the news media’s job is to critically examine a candidate’s words and background. Trump replied that his definition was 'truth.'”  For many of us, this assertion has been (and remains) somewhat baffling, particularly coming from someone who has been called out by "fact-checkers" more often than "lying Ted" or "crooked Hillary" combined.  It would seem that Trump's version of "truth" comes back to a certain sort of image that he holds of himself and that he wishes to project to the world.  One could delve into the self-image, his selfie-self, but it would have to include assertions like "no one respects women more than I do" and his "I called it" prescience.  Neither stands up well to "fact checking," and there is almost always evidence to contradict the assertions, but nevertheless the "truth," the only truth that counts, is Trump's revelation of himself.  And so, "the truth is no one respects women more than he does" and "the truth is Ford kept jobs in the US because he called out their Mexican plant," never mind that Ford planned all along to "repurpose" the US plant and that their plans were well publicized and well reported.  Anything that contravenes his revealed truth is "unfair" and "dishonest."  

Trump is right about one thing, however, the press did not understand him well, or his appeal to the American public.  That much, however, is patently obvious in the fact that he won.  Only a few called it, and those who did understood something about Trump that most missed.  One of the more prescient, as it turned out, was Richard Rorty.  A rather contentious philosopher in his own right, he wrote a defense of an European style democratic socialism in Achieving our Country, and a part of that defense came in the form of a warning that is now circulating in social media.  He wrote:

[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers — themselves desperately afraid of being downsized — are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for — someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. …

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past 40 years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. … All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

If that doesn't sound prescient, I'm not sure what does.  Whether it was a result of his "big brain" or just visceral instinct, Trump's hammering of Ford's plan to open a plant in Mexico drove home the point that neither big business nor the government had any real allegiance to the American worker -- that neither were trying prevent wages from sinking -- that both were, "in truth," conspiring to export jobs through trade agreements and sink wages through foreign competition.  If ever there were a symbol of American industry, with the possible exception of Chevy, it was Ford, and so the Mexican plant had the acute sting of betrayal.  Trump's "truth" had nothing what-so-ever to do with the particular business decision at hand, which, it turns out is easily fact-checked and easily debunked.  Trump's "truth" was the symbolic revelation of betrayal and no amount of fact-checking, no amount of debunking, will dissuade those for whom the symbolism of betrayal resonated.  Trump's truth is a different kind of truth altogether, and by all accounts it resonated with a "non suburban" electorate.  Like Zarathustra's prophecy come to life, Trump descended on his golden escalator to promise that, once elected "the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen," not to mention the entrenched politicians and the Clinton News Network that facilitates them, "will no longer be calling the shots."

There is a cultural clash, of course, between Trump and the press, many of whom want to believe that they are observant of "truth," in both senses of the word observant.  They have not only a commitment to truth, but the sort of truth that can be verified through multiple sources.  (Metaphorically speaking, the reporter may see a ghost, may be absolutely convinced he sees a ghost, but nevertheless nudges his companion and asks, "do you see that?"  If the companion says, "no," the reporter thinks to himself, not "what is wrong with my colleague?" but rather "I wonder if I need to lay off the bourbon?")  Symbolic truth is fine, of course, but only if it accords with the facts, and the facts are available to everyone who cares to look.  Trump, however, is appealing to a revelatory truth, and Trump is the prophetic revealer of truth.   It is one thing for Joe Dirt to call out the tricky lawyers and entrenched politicians, quite another thing for the likes of Trump, who has all that any American could want and then some, to call out wall street and the coastal elites.  He is, if not exactly an "insider," nevertheless someone who should "know," and has come to "testify" on behalf of the common man.  He is speaking to an audience long observant of "truth," who have not only an on-going commitment to the revealed truth of the Lord, but one should note it is always the sort of truth that comes from on high and is revealed only to those blessed to receive it.   Trump clearly has been blessed.  If Joe Dirt were to imagine heaven, it would look a lot like Trump tower, and while Melania may not be one's cup of coffee, there are plenty of other super-models to imagine in her place. Trump is, perhaps, more Zarathustrian than Christian, and some evangelicals were queasy in their support for him, but the archetype is clear.  Trump clearly sees himself less as a "strong-man," per se, more as a messianic figure, descended from heaven as the singular revealer of a truth that cannot be contravened. 

Within this frame, it seems almost silly to ask, "can Trump tolerate dissent?"  The answer is clearly, "no," and not only "no, but hell no."  The first commandment is always, "thou shalt have no other gods before me," and Trump touches on something basic.  For those who found it odd that Trump, with more four-pinocchio and more pants-on-fire ratings than any other politician over the last two decades, could be seen as more "trustworthy" than Clinton.  She lied, of course, but she lied in ways that all politicians lie, to cover or obscure inconvenient or embarrassing "facts."  Trump's lies were of an altogether different order, and the first media mistake was to assume a false equivalency between Clinton's lies and Trump's lies.  His lies are a test of faith.  For those who find it odd that evangelicals can believe (really believe?) that the earth was created in a week with Sunday off, don't fully understand the nature of "faith."  If one chooses "faith," one has also chosen to believe that modern astro-physics and Darwinism are "lies," despite all the contrary evidence, as a demonstration of that faith.  It is not credulousness, or under-educated stupidity -- and to assume a condescending attitude, as I sometimes find myself doing, is insulting.  Faith, rather, is an act of choice, of will, and Trump's loyalty oaths, among other things, were no different in kind from the evangelical preacher who asks his parishioners, as a public demonstration of faith, to come forward.  If one has chosen faith, if one has chosen Trump, one must as an act of will believe (really believe?) the revealed truth that they are now blessed to receive.  The media are simply tools of a corrupt elite, and their truth is at best a distraction, at worst a seduction away from the deeper, more profound, more significant truth -- the truth with a capital T emblazoned in the golden glow one "feels" as the message resonates in one's heart.   Trump has asserted over and over that only he really knows, only he can really save us, and he demands nothing more than complete faith, then too nothing less than complete faith in the singular gift he brings to the American people.

Do I think Trump has tapped into this archetype cynically?  No, not really.  Personally, I think he's crafty, but I don't think he's smart enough to think it through as a plan.  Although the golden glow of Trump most likely conceals a profound emptiness at the core, and there is the narcissist's outsized need to be loved, I do think he believes (really believes?) in his own mythology.  He has been proselytizing his own exceptionalism throughout his life.  While his three a.m. tweets are perhaps the pathetic push of a man who cannot stop proselytizing lest the doubt seep through the cracks, he nevertheless WANTS to believe, and he REALLY wants us to believe, he is the messianic figure he presents himself to be.  So, no, I don't think Trump is setting out with dictatorial designs, but I do think, emphatically so, that he won't be able to help himself.  He will demand nothing more, but then again nothing less than complete faith.   If there is a lesson to be learned it is this: it's not simply, or not only, that faith cannot tolerate dissent and gets a bit pissy in tweets.  The whole point of choosing faith is the choice to purge one's self of the anathema of doubt, and to purge one's environment of those "satanic" forces that foster doubt, and it's easy enough to find those who are "faithless" -- they are the one's who dissent, the one's who reveal antipathy and skepticism, the one's who do not submit to the true authority -- and from there, in the history of "faith," bloodshed ensues and in the chaos that follows, more bloodshed in the efforts to restore order.  

Identity Politics and Voting Rights

In my post right after Trump's election, I made a comment that we should expect two things right up front, one of which was a continuing attack on "voting rights?"  I use "voting rights" in a generic sense to mean that all citizens should be able to vote without overt or covert attempts to impede their ability to do so.  Race should not be a factor.  Ethnicity should not be a factor.  Religion should not be a factor.  Only two factors should impede a person's ability to vote -- citizenship and having reached the legal age.  Any other marker that places individuals in one group or another, to include prior convictions for having committed a felony, should not be a factor.   It stands to reason, of course, that the minority party would want to suppress voting rights, more so than the majority party, and it would want to do so among those voting blocks that help create the majority.  In the current political landscape, the republican party remains a minority party in sheer numbers.  Despite her considerable flaws as a candidate, Clinton nevertheless won the popular vote.  Due to quirks in the electoral process, however, the minority candidate won the election.  Assuming we have another election, it still stands to reason that they would want to suppress voting rights among those who are expected to vote for the opposition.  Now, they want to retain power, and because they are in power, they have greater opportunity to rig the process in their favor.   I should say, "further rig the process in their favor," because in someways the process has already been "rigged" to favor the minority party.  David Daley outlines the history and effect of gerrymandering in his book Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy.  Although I took hope in Obama's re-election, the current election has drained me of any real hope in this regard.  The majority of state governments, the House, the Senate, and now the executive branch are controlled by republicans. Increasingly, we are living in a single-party country -- the republican party.  It remains a minority party, unreflective of the majority of Americans, but it has, admittedly, been much more successful at seizing and retaining power.

The Times today published an op-ed piece by Ari Berman that suggests something similar.  He points out that "In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that states with a long history of racial discrimination no longer needed to approve any proposed changes to their voting procedures with the federal government, as had long been required under the Voting Rights Act."  As Berman points out, "fourteen states had new voting restrictions in effect in 2016, including strict voter ID laws, fewer opportunities for early voting and reductions in the number of polling places. These restrictions depressed turnout in key states like Wisconsin, particularly among black voters."   This, of course, was a republican victory, and it will likely be replicated.  If as expected, a conservative justice is placed on the court to replace Scalia, and it could happen shortly after Trump's coronation, "there could be five votes to further gut the Voting Rights Act. Conservatives will target Section 2 of the law, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race or color."   The change will likely be subtle, a change in standard not statute.  As Berman again points out, "When the current chief justice of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr., was a lawyer in the Justice Department in the early 1980s, he led a charge against Section 2. He argued in a 1981 memo that the provision should block only those voting laws that were found to be intentionally discriminatory."  Intention, of course, is notoriously difficult to prove,  and mis-direct.  Trumps repeated claims that the election was rigged, for example, pointed away from the gerrymandering that actually rigs the elections, to the potential for machine era voter fraud, like ballot stuffing.  Of course, the dangers of "voter fraud" are themselves fraudulent, but it's easy enough to put in place measures INTENDED to reduce "voter fraud," whose RESULT is "voter suppression" of particular voting blocks.  To adopt Roberts position, and to confirm it with the 5th vote, would effectively kill he most important civil rights legislation.

As an aside, two electoral reforms would effectively end such efforts and make the one person-one vote more a reality.  Both are difficult to argue against from a "justice for all" perspective, but given the above, one could expect considerable opposition, and not just from the red side of the aisle.  The first reform would be "mandatory voting."  To vote, or not to vote, should no more be a question than to serve jury duty, though I appreciate the irony in my saying as much.  If citizen of legal age were REQUIRED to vote, and fined if they did not, the focus would change immediately from who we can get to or keep from the polls to creating systems that made it easy for EVERYONE to do their civic duty.  A blank ballot is fine, and shouldn't cause the consternation that it did for Saramago's burghers in Seeing, so long as it is cast.   I don't vote for each and every point on the ballot because I simply don't know enough to make an informed decision.  Although there are technical details to consider -- literally and figuratively -- nevertheless mandatory voting comes closer to insuring that ALL voices are heard.  It would effectively end the sort of hand wringing that David Leonhardt brought to the table in today's NY Times. 

The second reform would be proportional voting, particularly in the electoral college.  It is, perhaps too difficult to imagine a "stateless" United States, instead of the "winner-take-all" the electoral votes could be proportionate.  Using my own state as an example, the meager four electoral votes went to Trump, but if the vote had been proportional, Trump would have received 2.3 electoral votes, Clinton would have received 1.0 electoral votes, the remainder "at large" among the independent candidates.  In Texas, the 38 electoral votes went to Trump, but if the vote had been proportional, Trump would have received 19.9 votes, Clinton 16.4, with the remainder likewise at large.  Finally, just to be fair, in California, the 55 electoral votes went to Clinton, but had they been proportionate Trump would have received 17.9, Clinton 33.4, and the remainder at large.  It would end the "illegitimacy" of the election going to the minority candidate.  Also, as one might imagine, in an election as distasteful as the last, the small percentages that went "at large" might have grown, in part because it would take away the onus of having used one's vote into the outhouse.   If neither of the principle candidates received a majority, how the "at large" votes are ultimate cast would make a suspenseful difference.  

Of course, both reforms would be met with considerable opposition, if not dismissed outright, because the current gerrymandering and the electoral college actually favor the minority party.  It is worth noting that the last two "illegitimate" elections, where there was a disparity between the popular vote and the electoral college, it went to the conservative party.   Then too, though like many I would have liked to believe that we had come a long way toward overcoming outright racism, that the disputes were "technical" disputes over how best to eliminate "institutional" racism and remove "bias" from policing, this election cycle disabused me of such hopeful notions.  Altogether too many believe that blacks should simply NOT be allowed to vote, period, that their franchise was illegitimate from the outset.  Laws to suppress black votes are mere half measures toward an outright prohibition.  Many of the same people would also believe that muslims, among others, should simply not be allowed to vote because to BE an American is to BE first and foremost white and christian.  Trump may look in the camera and say "stop it," but there are any number of reasons to question the sincerity of his appeal to end the gloating of the white supremacists, not least his appointment of Steve Bannon as his chief strategist and Jeff Sessions as his Attorney General.  Both have a long been associated with racism.  One could take a "wait and see" attitude toward both picks, but me-thinks anyone who has to say "I am not a racist," protests too much and should perhaps examine their attitudes.   Even setting the appointments aside, clearly, we do not live in a post-racial America, far from it, and those who harbor racial and gender attitudes that I do find deplorable have come out of the closet, perhaps to make room for the gays once again.  Thus we have the NY Times reporting that white nationalists "have lurked in the web’s dark corners, masking themselves with cartoon images and writing screeds about the demise of white culture under ominous pseudonyms.  But on Saturday, in the wake of Donald J. Trump’s surprising election victory, hundreds of his extremist supporters converged on the capital to herald a moment of political ascendance that many had thought to be far away."

So, again, both electoral reforms would be met with considerable opposition, in part at least because "mandatory" voting would insure black turnout at the polls and many, of course, simply don't want to see blacks at the polls, period.   They certainly don't want to give their voice weight, not even a proportionate weight.  I say all of this, in part because I cannot help but agree with Mark Lilla's recent editorial where he writes "One of the many lessons of the recent presidential election campaign and its repugnant outcome is that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end."  Before I agree too strongly, however, a word or two of caution, one of which is captured by Lilla's remark that "Liberals should bear in mind that the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan, which still exists."  At the extremes, the deplorable irrationality of identity politics becomes readily apparent, and indeed, as Lilla suggests, the best response to blind bigotry is to assert the common humanity of their targets, their victims.  In the middle, however, the irrationality of identity politics becomes less apparent, more fraught.  The move to suppress the voting rights of minorities is not, or not necessarily, a "racist" move.  Insofar as black voters tend to vote reliably democratic -- that is, when they vote -- the move to suppress their votes can be seen as a purely pragmatic, purely rational "political calculation."  As such, it has nothing to do with race, per se.  If more and more of the black community were to slip into the conservative camp, the "political calculation" would lose its force and dissipate.  Not all, perhaps not even most, conservatives are "racist," and would be happy to welcome black votes into the party. Their own "political calculations," however, make that eventuality unlikely, in part because he move to suppress the voting rights of minorities does have an racist result, and it is this result that the white nationalists applaud and the liberals deplore.  I really would prefer NOT to have one more conversation about race, but there it is, in our face, and how do we even begin to talk about the "racist result" of a "political calculation" without some measure of "identity politics?"

I am not sure how to answer that question, but it does seem clear enough that Lilla has a point when he writes that liberals, to some extent, doom themselves in thinking that "Trump won in large part because he managed to transform economic disadvantage into racial rage — the “whitelash” thesis."  The "whitelash" theory is convenient on a number of scores, not least in that the omnipresent rhetoric of minority victimization has "encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored."  Indeed, and to confess, as a middle-aged white male, there have been times when I have felt the sting of discriminatory practice only to be informed that I was not a member of a "protected class."  At such moments, I don't resent the gains of minorities, but I have asked that ubiquitous, human question, "what about me?"  My neighbors are asking that question, and Lilla is correct when he writes that "such people are not actually reacting against the reality of our diverse America," or not necessarily reacting against the reality of our diverse America.  For them, the "reality" of our diverse America is mostly a fiction, and I mean that literally -- their representation and, yes, their self-presentation in popular culture, to include Fox News -- and it is a fiction that might as well be set in a foreign land.  New York, Chicago, LA  are foreign lands to most of my neighbors.   They do "tend, after all, to live in homogeneous areas of the country," Mountain Home being no exception, and many of those areas have declined significantly and have done so in the living memories of many residents, Mountain Home again being no exception.  The "whitelash" theory is "convenient because it sanctions a conviction of moral superiority," not to mention a whole series of sanctimonious talking points, and it allows liberals to ignore the inconvenient truth of what "those voters said were their overriding concerns."

Lilla suggests, a post-identity liberalism would

refocus attention on the main political responsibility in a democracy: to form committed citizens aware of their system of government and the major forces and events in our history. A post-identity liberalism would also emphasize that democracy is not only about rights; it also confers duties on its citizens, such as the duties to keep informed and vote. A post-identity liberal press would begin educating itself about parts of the country that have been ignored, and about what matters there, especially religion. And it would take seriously its responsibility to educate Americans about the major forces shaping world politics, especially their historical dimension. 

My hardly original suggestion of mandatory voting would emphasize that "democracy is not only about rights," but that those same rights carry a reciprocal obligation "to keep informed and vote."  Of course, there is a bit of "if only" wishful thinking implicit in this: mandatory voting would do little to insure that citizens "keep informed"  -- the forces of ignorance and apathy are tough to battle in a land of social media lotus eaters -- but it helps highlight the goal, committed citizens -- and that is something, at least on paper, that transcends personal identity -- something, at least on paper, that we all share in common.    

Mounting the Resistance

In today's Times, there is an article from Luigi Zingalis who outlines the right way to resist Trump.  He compares the election of Trump to the election of Berlusconi in Italy, and I do think there's some merit in the comparison.  He writes, "Now that Mr. Trump has been elected president, the Berlusconi parallel could offer an important lesson in how to avoid transforming a razor-thin victory into a two-decade affair. If you think presidential term limits and Mr. Trump’s age could save the country from that fate, think again. His tenure could easily turn into a Trump dynasty."  There are, of course, signs that he is already thinking dynastically.  Son in law and husband to Ivanka, Jared Kushner is said to be testing a legal path to a white house job, "a move that could violate federal anti-nepotism law and risk legal challenges and political backlash."  It would perhaps be too much to appoint Ivanka directly, so it is smart to usher her in through the back door, and should you think the "legal challenges" or "political backlash" might cause some of his advisors pause, think again.  "The president-elect’s sentiment is shared by Stephen K. Bannon, the chief strategist for the White House, and Reince Priebus, who was named chief of staff. Mr. Kushner accompanied Mr. Trump to the White House on Thursday, when the president-elect held his first in-person meeting with President Obama."  Trump's age would simply put a sense of urgent priority on his dynastic ambitions. 

Berlusconi's secret, according to Zingalis, was "an ability to set off a Pavlovian reaction among his leftist opponents, which engendered instantaneous sympathy in most moderate voters. Mr. Trump is no different."  Thinking back on some of my previous posts, I would have to give this argument some credit.  I absolutely DO find the prospect of listening to Trump over the next four years just short of intolerable.  Just as Obama's black face set off a Pavlovian antipathy among the deplorables, his rich boy bloviating sets me on edge in ways that are difficult to describe.  Nevertheless, he was elected, and to all appearances, fairly and squarely, and so in some way represents the will of at least half the people.  Zingalis reminds us that "Berlusconi was able to govern Italy for as long as he did mostly thanks to the incompetence of his opposition" and at the core of that incompetence was such a rabid obsession "with his personality that any substantive political debate disappeared."   The opposition "focused only on personal attacks," but personal attacks are a two-edged sword.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and we should remember that at least half the country holds a knee-jerk antipathy toward smug, culturally elite, limousine liberalism.  I doubt that any of the pontificating of the Times, or the Washington Post, did little but reinforce the notion that Trump was the anti-elite, limousine populist he claimed to be.  Just as the effect of  leftist attacks in Italy "was to increase Mr. Berlusconi’s popularity," so too on suspects the effect of our own hyperbolic liberal antipathy to the Trump personality -- his "fitness" for office, his autocratic tendencies, his odd off-fact stream-of-conciousness rants -- served only to ratify his anti-elitest bonifides.  

Let me be clear.  I DO think the real danger of a Trump presidency is ultimately personality, not policy based.  Trump's own dark core of insecurity allowed him to speak to the insecurities of a broad swath of the electorate, and his racism, his xenophobia, his misogyny -- the sorts of things I do find deeply and unconscionably deplorable -- were not "dissuaders," in part because those attitudes continue to affect (infect?) a broad swath of the electorate.  Those attitudes can be justified and rationalized in any number of ways -- blacks and crime, foreigners and terror, feminism and disrupted families -- but we forget that those justifications and rationalizations speak to the real fears of many.  His wealth, and the gaudy excess of its gilt plated opulence, is the guilty secret of too many Americans, those who buy lottery tickets hoping against hope and watch the Celebrity Apprentice. thinking "I'm smarter than they are."  They want theirs, feel entitled to at least a portion of the booty, and they don't REALLY want to work for it.  Trump has what they want.  He represents the working class idea of what it means to be "really rich," and for all those duped by his faux university, all those who voted for him thinking he will bring back an easy prosperity, he represents the sympathetic magic that will get them theirs quickly and easily.  Trump doesn't reflect the WORST aspects of the American personality, he simply reflects THE American personality, and for good or for ill, to reject that personality is to reject the attitudes and aspirations of altogether too many Americans.  Clinton, and those of us who share in the liberal sanctimony, did just that.  Emails aside, the real turning point of the election may well have been her "basket of deplorables," and Trump's response to his audience was not unlike someone instigating bar brawl -- "did you hear that?  Did you hear what she just said about you?  She just called you deplorable! You should do something about that."  And they did.  

So, yes, despite the fact that the real danger is personality based, the resistance should be policy based.  We should not replicate the republican strategy and question the legitimacy of his presidency, and we should not do so based solely on personality.  Let's face it.  That anyone would put themselves into the political life today probably shares in some deep pathology, and arm-chair psychoanalysis doesn't really much help.  So, yes, the first policy decision that should be resisted is the foray into creating a dynasty.  Although one can expect the republicans to pooh-pooh the concerns, the democrats should insist on the law of the land and resist the appointment of Jared Kushner to any post within the administration.  Although there is little that can be done about "informal" influence, he should not be given direct executive power.  There are reasons for anti-nepotism laws, and anyone who had worked for the boss' son understands at a visceral level why they exist, but they are particularly important in a democracy.   Nepotism is inherently aristocratic.  It perpetuates an inherited and consequently unmerited elite.  There was a sense of "nepotism" in the Bush dynastic ambitions.  There was a sense of "nepotism" in the Clinton dynastic ambitions.  The nomination and election of Trump was a rejection of both.  We ALL should reject now even his fledgling attempts to further his dynastic ambitions, but particularly those democrats who actually value democracy.

Additionally, we should resist any unconstitutional attempt to create a "muslim registry."  I have made little secret that I have little truck with religion, and I have not attended a church service for decades, but the idea of a religious registry of any sort is anathema.  As reported, On Wednesday evening, Carl Higbie, a prominent surrogate of President-elect Donald Trump, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News program to defend the idea of a national registry of all Muslims — an idea Mr. Trump floated repeatedly during his campaign, along with calls for an outright ban on Muslims entering the country, which legal experts said would be clearly unconstitutional."  I have to admit a growing admiration for Megyn Kelly.  She is clearly conservative, but she seems willing to call out complete and utter bullshit for what it is, like Sean Hannity and others of Fox News.  When she asked him to "defend the registry’s legality, Mr. Higbie pointed to the imprisonment of more than 110,000 Americans of Japanese descent following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.:  To her credit,  "Ms. Kelly expressed shock that anyone would approvingly cite one of the darkest periods in American history, Mr. Higbie backtracked. 'I’m just saying there’s a precedent for it,' he said. 'I’m just saying' — that sneaky, timeworn disclaimer allowing people to say what they really believe without taking responsibility for it."  No matter what one thinks of muslims, no matter the potential abuses inherent to their religion, the very idea of a religious registry contravenes the first amendment.  Should any steps be taken to create such a registry, break out the picket signs.  What comes next, a registry of atheists?  of Jews?  of Mormons?  We should not allow the republican party to create a religious registry of any sort nor should we allow a religious test on immigration without fully resisting in the courts and if necessary in the streets.

Conversely, we should support those aspects of Trump's so-called populist agenda that might actually have some salutary effects.  We should support, for example, his calls for improvement to our infrastructure.  As suggested, "Here’s how President-elect Trump could unify a bitterly divided America, provide well-paying jobs to many of the millions of disaffected workers who voted for him, and lift the economy, stock market and tax rolls.  All he needs to do is what he presumably does best: build something."  If the space program in its early years provided a focal point for national pride, and bolstered Kennedy's image, so too could the revitalization of our national infrastructure, particularly if among those projects is something "terrific," like "the modern-day equivalent of the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Lincoln Tunnel or the Timberline Lodge."   If Trump really is a "populist," and not a republican shill, then follow through on the new deal like promises to build something not only useful, but awesome.  As the Times suggests, republican opposition "didn’t stop F.D.R.  His Public Works Administration and Works Progress Administration, using combinations of public and private money, solicited proposals from states and cities, hired millions of workers and eventually built 78,000 bridges, 650,000 miles of roads, 700 miles of airport runways, 13,000 playgrounds and 125,000 military and civilian buildings, including more than 40,000 schools — in most cases to high standards of quality and design."  For all I care, they can all carry the Trump name.  If he builds them, I will applaud at the ribbon cutting.  And then too, there's the space program.  Why not be the first to put an on-going colony on the moon or mars?  Screw the tax break.  Most Americans, I think, would forego the $100 it would put in their pocket for safer bridges, better roads, improved airports, schools that aren't collapsing on the pupils, and the American flag firmly planted on the soil of Mars.  It's political pork of the most productive and inspiring kind. 

Likewise, we should support those aspects of Trump's so-called populist agenda to scale back our military interventions abroad, and put America first in the most generic sense of the words.   Our treaty commitments are one thing, and we should either follow through on them or negotiate our way out of them, but we do not need to continue our imperial role in the middle east.  It is not 1974, and we do have alternatives to oil that would allow us to continue our "way of life" with barely a hiccough, most of which come with the added benefit of decreasing carbon emissions.  Just as little or no good came from our intervention in Vietnam, little or no good has come from our interventions in the middle east -- indeed, if anything, the situation on the ground has deteriorated and it has provided a hydra-like incentive to terrorism -- cut one head off, and two grow in its place.  

His pick of Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor, however, sends something of a mixed message.  He is "a retired intelligence officer who believes Islamist militancy poses an existential threat in one of the most powerful roles in shaping military and foreign policy."  It is perhaps too soon to tell, but Flynn believes "Islamist militancy poses an existential threat on a global scale, and the Muslim faith itself is the source of the problem," and he describes it "as a political ideology, not a religion. He has even at times gone so far as to call it a cancer."  There is a good deal that is familiar in such a stance.  He would have come of age during the height of the cold war, where most in the military establishment believed that communism posed an existential threat on a global scale, and like many others, he has simply taken the cold war rhetoric, replaced "communist" with "jihadism and islamist militancy," and continued with barely a pause.  Will he continue the extreme interventionism of the cold war?  It seems likely, in part because the extreme interventionism creates a priority for expanding the so-called "military industrial complex." It also creates the on-going "emergency" that serves as a pretext for its use as well as the commanding presence of an imperial presidency exempt from a congressional declaration of war.  Not only Flynn's, but Trump's ego would seem to demand it.   Nevertheless, should we scale back, focus on protection of the homeland, and put America first, we should support Trump.  Should we escalate, send increasing numbers of troops abroad, and subordinate the interests of the American people to the interests of "internationalism" and the "imperial presidency," then we should dust off the placards from the sixties and seventies -- hell no we won't go.  The people have spoken, and have rejected this aspect of the Obama legacy and Trump should likewise follow through and reject it as well.

So it should go.  Issue by issue.  

Trumped

There  has been much hand wringing about the election of late.  I hear mostly an attempt to accept and normalize the results, but I do fear we have just voted to do away with American democracy.  There is a bit of a paradox involved in the idea of voting to end democracy, but as Andrew Sullivan and others have noted, it's a paradox that has been around since at least the time of Plato.  It's really not much of a paradox.  The people, the demos, willingly give up their rights to self-governance for security -- or rather the promise of security -- and we shouldn't be surprised.  From a Hobbesian perspective, the paradox is inherent to the very idea of government.  Arising out of a state of nature, which Hobbes sees as a war of all upon all, we give up individual autonomy out of weakness, out of fear, and pledge our allegiance to a sovereign, the great man, who promises nothing more, nothing less than security.

I am using the term security in its broadest sense -- a freedom from fear.  Although he may well be a reprehensible man, Trump promised security in ways that Clinton did not and could not.  The infamous wall promises security from the encroaching hordes of illegal aliens, while Clinton promised amnesty and a "path to citizenship."  His ban on muslims and rejection of refugees promise security from the intermittent threat of terrorism, while Clinton bore responsibility for Benghazi and pledged a home to more refugees.  His simultaneous isolationism of America first and his bellicose promise to rebuild the military promise the security of hearth and home, while Clinton's foundation and her political connections promised a global perspective.  His ostentatious wealth and the altruistic promise to use his midas touch to build national wealth promise economic security, while her own behavior seemed to use political influence for petty money grubbing.   The list could go on.  Those who have nothing, who are teetering on the war torn edge of penury and starvation, are not concerned with security.  They are focused on avoiding the next bullet and acquiring their next meal.  Those who have something, who fear losing even the little they have, are concerned with security.

In a perverse way, Obama in his person and his modest success paved the way for Trump.   His black face and his muslim middle name represented the sum of all fears for too many Americans, and so you have Alex Jones headlining an InfoWars piece with "Nation of Islam and New Black Panthers Directing Violent Protests in Ferguson."  Aging baby boomers who have no real memory of Hitler and his rise to power and the devastating insecurity he caused, but do have living memories of Huey Newton and the domestic insecurity he cause, are still fighting the culture wars of the 60s and 70s.  And no, it's not entirely the economy because the economy has been on the mend for some time -- modestly on the mend -- and not equally for everyone.  Although broad swatches of rural American have not been left utterly bereft, they are clearly losing the race.  The main streets of small town America are mostly derelict while the Walmart on the hill prospers selling cheap goods all of which are made in places other than America.  While small business and family farms give up the ghost, the more urban professional classes prospered in support of democrats, the global monied class prospered even more in support of the republicans, but the broad swatches of rural America see themselves in decline, fear they will decline even further.  They voted for security and the autocrat who promised it.

It is one thing to promise, another thing to deliver, and rarely can the autocrat deliver anything other than autocracy, and when that fails, more autocracy.  It is one thing to run for office, another thing to actually govern, and as I've said, as many have said, there is nothing in Trump's past that suggests that he personally is capable of actually governing.  There is little in Trump's past that suggests he can gather about him the "best and brightest" to assist in actually governing.  The editorial page of today's NY Times laments that "anyone holding out hope that Donald Trump would govern as a uniter — that the racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and nativism of his campaign were just poses to pick up votes — should think again."  They do so because Trump has selected Steve Bannon, his campaign strategist, "as his chief White House strategist and senior counselor, an enormously influential post."  Steve Bannon, of course, was the editor of Breitbart News, and one doesn't need to spend much time on the site to gather what it's all about -- fear.   While one may be vaguely anxious, and many Americans are anxious about the future, fear always has its immediate object.  Fear is always a fear of something, or someone, and Breitbart is quite willing to identify what should be feared, and, consequently, what should be hated.   As I and others have said, Breitbart's headlines reveal "a parallel universe where black people do nothing but commit crimes, immigrants rape native-born daughters, and feminists want to castrate all men."   One can read through the examples given by the Times, but on any given day, one can come up with plenty of examples for one's self.  

The Times, however, may have missed the point.  Trump is sincere in his pledge to govern as a "uniter."  Fear and loathing are powerful forces of "unity," and for all too many Americans the objects of a unifying fear and loathing can be easily enough identified by race, by ethnicity, by religion.  The Times imagines a "uniter" who will gather together all for a rousing, misty-eyed chorus of "We Are the World," but Trump promises another sort of unity altogether and it's not difficult to imagine because we have seen it before in Weimar Germany and we see it today in post-soviet Russia.  Trump is neither a democrat nor a republican.  On NPR the other day, Thomas Frank (pardon the inaccurate quote) marveled at Trump's single handed destruction of BOTH parties, and Michael Moore is correct when he sees Trump as a middle finger raised at both parties -- at the democrats for their feckless assumption that black voters would turn out for a white Clinton in the same way they turned out for a black Obama and her (somewhat shameless) courting of the global capitalists who contributed to the foundation and her campaign -- at the republicans for their equally feckless assumption that, with sufficient cash, "little Marco" or "low energy Jeb" would carry the day and their astonishing under-estimation of their  own "base" and the depth of their resentments.   There is a good deal of "if everyone" thinking -- that is to say, if everyone were just like me -- if everyone were white, christian, straight, fill-in-the-blank, just like me -- then what a wonderful world it would be.   If it is just wistful, wishful thinking, that's one thing, but when it becomes "programmatic," when it becomes a matter of "government," that's another thing.  Of course, not everyone is white, christian, straight.  Some are black, muslim, and gay.  And of course "it can't happen here," but nevertheless it is the fondest wish of every genocidal maniac to create "unity," by unleashing the forces of fear and loathing, by repressing or eliminating those who are not "just like me," if not from the world at large, then at least from the sacred enclave of the homeland.  

One must give Trump some credit.  I have heard said over and over again that this was the "change" election, -- there may be some desire for an over-throw of the existing "establishment" and "politics as usual" -- but if there is a desire for "change," it is a desire for regressive, not progressive change.  It is a nostalgic desire "to get back to where we once belonged," a small town "main street" nation viewed through the gauze curtain of a Norman Rockwell painting, a place where one could feel secure in one's person and one's future.  Although one can empathize with the desire to be great again, secure again, one cannot ultimately condone it.  That small-town, main-street nation was not so great for women, at least women who might have a modicum of "gumption," as the protagonist  in Sinclair Lewis' 1920 novel, Main Street reminds us.  Carol Milford at least "does not admit that Main Street is as beautiful as it should be!  ... that dish-washing is enough to satisfy all women!"  She herself  "may not have fought the good fight, but [she] kept the faith," and after the suffragettes, after the flappers, after "Rosie the riveter," there were a good many others after who picked up where she left off, imagining a different sort of future for women.  Of course we won't mention the "colored folk" who, not unlike women, seemed inevitably consigned to the  subordinate role of servant, but the civil rights movement has forever ended the separate and subordinate role of blacks in American society.   Bedford Falls may have provided "a wonderful life," but it did so for some, not all.  If we had been given even a brief glimpse of the inner life of George Bailey's maid, she may also have had her own insecurities about the future, and too, she may also have had her own set of resentments over how "impossibly unfair" her current condition.  It is easy enough to gaze back at a better, more innocent, and more secure time, but Citibank  has long since made George Bailey's bank economically and politically irrelevant, and Walmart forever put "main-street" Bedford Falls out of business while the internet hammered home the nails on the sheets of particle board covering its shop windows.

So what to do?  Trump is not the answer.  Like every other narcissistic autocrat who believes, really believes that he is the one great man, that he alone can solve the ills of the world, he will fail.  There is already evidence that he will fail, not just in the reported "firings and discord" that have put the "Trump transition team in a state of disarray." the real reason lies in his reported tweets where "Trump himself fired back at critics with a Twitter message he sent about 10 p.m. 'Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions,' he wrote. 'I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!'"  It is the sheer messianic scope of his self-esteem, it is the narcissism itself, that will lead him to ignore good advice, to favor sycophantic advice, and his narcissism will eventually lead to his demise, just as it has for every other narcissistic autocrat from Caesar to Milosevic.  Despite his professed admiration, he is not a fox, like Putin, with many ideas.  He is rather a hedgehog, with one idea, and that idea is Trump himself, and that singular idea makes him dangerous.  When his economic policies fail to produce the halcyon revival, when the disposables of rural and rust belt America remain red faced with anger, who will be to blame?  It will not be Trump, or his flawed thinking, or his failure to address present realities, it will be the jews controlling wall street, the hoards of illegal immigrants, the international muslim jihadist conspiracy, and the list will go on.  Trump has already demonstrated the tendency to attack, then double down personally on the attacks if he gets push back, and he is now attacking even his own sycophants, to include the disgraced Chris Christie, who do not sufficiently gild his image.  Of course, "it can't happen here," but those who let loose the demons are not immune to their own desire for security, their own fear and loathing, their own sense that others are perpetually conspiring "unfairly" against them. If one objects to the analogies to foreign dictators -- as Kristof objects because "they stop conversations and rarely persuade" -- then one can look closer to home.   Nixon came to power at a similar juncture in our nation's history, inheriting an intractable war abroad, no-win discord around the implementation of civil rights, and economic disarray sparked in part by a middle-east oil embargo.  According to Conrad Black, who should know, Nixon "thought that he was doomed to be traduced, double-crossed, unjustly harassed, misunderstood, under-appreciated, and subjected to the trials of Job, but that by the application of his mighty will, tenacity, and diligence, he would ultimately prevail."  He didn't.  His fear of being traduced trumped his mighty will, and led to the disgrace of watergate.  If that doesn't sound familiar, then perhaps one hasn't been paying attention.

So again, what to do?  Kristof's 12 step program may be good advice, but in some respects it asks too little and too much.  Nothing he suggests will fundamentally reform American political life, while everything he suggests will be impossible for the average American to sustain, no matter how deep their political convictions.  Life must go on, and we must admit that it continues with increasing insecurity for altogether too many Americans.  We need to fundamentally reform American political life, and the first step is acknowledging that we are a deeply divided nation.  One must admit one's alcoholism before one can engage the 12 step program, but then too, most must hit rock bottom before they can admit their addiction.  Does Trump represent rock bottom?  My own visceral fear for American democracy and loathing for the man who is the sum of all those fears directed my vote to Clinton, but in the absence of a four year "reprieve," I hope my predictions for the demise of American democracy, like most predictions, turn out to be overblown, but I see much harm coming in the next four years, and little good.  I share Chomsky's estimation of the GOP as the "most dangerous organization in human history," but given the democratic party's failure to speak clearly and forcefully to the dangers, I do hope my own paranoia is misplaced.  After the drunken orgy of this election,I hope we can all wake up, shower, and go about our daily lives without some new and virulent STD, but with sufficient shame to take steps.

The first step is reform of our electoral system.  I am not sure how we go about doing so, in part because those who SHOULD have the debate WON'T have the debate -- the congress -- but there are a number ideas that need to be seriously considered.  Imagine, for example, a system where every man and woman, who is a citizen and has reached the age of majority, is REQUIRED to vote -- where the failure to vote is a breach of civic duty and punishable by fine. The ballot, in whole or in part, may be left blank, but it must be acknowledged and submitted.  There are technical details to be worked out, but such a system, would eliminate the need for "turn out the vote" ground game, the need for "voter registration" laws that target minorities, and the like.  It is not without precedence.  Austrailia has such a system, and could provide the model.  Also, imagine, for example, a federally funded system for national office.  There would need to be some way of determining who does and who does not get funding, and the technical details are perhaps a bit more onerous than mandatory voting, but again it is not without precedence.  Canada has such a system, and could provide a model.  Overall, the intent is to make government accountable to the plurality of voters.  An election should the beginning of governance, not the next round of fundraising necessary to the next election cycle.  Whether we have the humility to accept the idea that Austrailia or Canada may have a better system is a question without an answer, but despite my antipathy to the Citizen's United decision, it should be clear enough that the scotch and cognac of big money didn't much help Jeb Bush in the primaries and didn't much help Clinton in the general.  Whether we have hit rock bottom hard enough to end the intoxications of big money is another question without an answer.

As an addenda, which harkens back to the first step and looks forward to the second step, we need to consider the real divide in this country, and return to first principles.  I am not an astute enough reader of the Federalist Papers to engage the debate fully, but the division between the house and senate is a kind of case in point.  The house was intended to provide proportional representation, the senate state representation.  Large, more populous states would have greater representation in the house, smaller states would have at least equal representation in the senate, each "checking" abuses by the other. and creating an overall balance.  Although it is impossible to imagine the US as anything other than the colloquy of states, the hand wringing over red-states and blue-states is something of a distortion of the real divide between the more urban centers scattered throughout the US, but concentrated on the coasts, and the more rural portions of the US expanding across the heartland and the inland west.  The Times published maps illustrating the divide.  Clinton could win the popular vote, or the plurality of actual people living in the US because more people today live in large metropolitan areas.  Even in the reddest of red states, Utah, its capital, Salt Lake City, with its increasing diversity, its increasingly "urban" problems, is blue.  The same might be said of Texas, with Dallas, Houstan, San Antonio all trending democrat.  What is true of the US as a whole, however, is not true considered state by state.  To the north and south of Salt Lake, one finds Ogden and Provo, suburbs that have expanded rapidly and have done so most because of "white flight" from Salt Lake City, flight motivated in part by insecurity over what it might mean to schools and property values should their neighbor be less than "white."  Outside that, one finds rural America, scattered, small, homogenous, religiously conservative communities who understand the world as it is "presented" to them on the media, meaning the hyperbolic worries of Fox News.  The democrats of Salt Lake, considered within the expanse of the state as a whole, contribute to the national plurality, but cannot conceivably become a "majority" in the state.  Ditto Texas.

Much of the "issue" divide can be explained by this one rural/urban divide.  Consider, for example, guns and gun rights.  A gun in rural America means something different than it does in a city like Chicago.  In rural America, guns are seen not only as a deterrence to crime (you never know who's packing so you mind your p's and q's) but as a tool.  The deer they shot last week provides not only sport, not only an affirmation of their independence and grit, but sustenance.  It is, in that respect, an "income" supplement, and for those who didn't have the desire or the skills to "educate" themselves out of rural America, who live in areas that are clearly in decline, that supplement is increasingly important.  The threat to "take away our guns" leaves them insecure on two fronts, both physically and economically.  In urban America, having a gun in the house does little to "deter" the gang member whose drive by bullet misses its target, passes through a wall, and kills a child sitting on a living room sofa.  Indeed, having a gun puts one at greater risk for break-in and theft.  The gang member might see the gun as a tool, and an affirmation of their independent bad-ass machismo, but its an affirmation that cannot be condoned.  Gun control in the city allows police to confiscate weapons, but so long as there is no control outside the city, they are easily replaced with "imports" from places like Idaho.  Consequently, the inability to enact workable gun control measures leaves the urban resident insecure on a number of fronts.  Gun control needs to be national, beginning with national criminal background checks at the very, very least.  

So, pick an issue, and one's position on that issue might have a lot to do with whether you live in urban or in rural America, and what is good for the rural "goose" is not so good for the urban "gander," and vice versa.   I am suggesting, of course, that the state-based system of checks and balances seems to be antiquated, and along with it the state-based electoral college, and should be reformed along with other electoral reforms.  In at least two recent elections, the results have not reflected "the will of the people," if by that we mean an outright majority of the people, but a simple majority vote on many "issues" would simply not be fair to those who live in less the populous expanses of rural America.  On the other hand, the current state-level "gerrymandering" in places like Utah and Texas, reflect a "geographic" majority, and now have stacked the cards in favor of the rural expanses, but they are simply unfair to those who live in the more densely packed urban areas.  There are distortions laid on top of rural and urban divide, some of them originating in the outsized influence of the donor class, some of them originating in the darker angels of our psyche, some of them originating in an increasingly partisan media, but the fundamental question is this: how do we create checks and balances between rural and urban concerns.  In the current structure, no matter who wins, it is clear enough that at least half the population will be left out of the equation, and that is unconscionable.