One of the troublesome aftermaths of a nationalist electoral victory continues to be that the victors, especially those who used to occupy the fringes of society, now feel emancipated and entitled to act on their nativist impulses and begin to attack minorities, immigrants, and basically anyone they don't like. Back in June, when many voters in the U.K., upset over what they believed was an unrestricted inflow of migrants, voted to leave the E.U., racist abuse increased almost 100% overnight. Much of this abuse was directed at Polish immigrants, many of whom had been British citizens for generations. Pamphleteers spread the word that now that the U.K. was leaving the E.U., its citizens no longer needed to tolerate "Polish varmint." Kids in school were told that they would be deported. Casual racism spread unchallenged.
Fast forward to our own post-election period. Two days after the election results were in, USA Today headlined: "Rise in racists acts follow elections." Educators were quoted suggesting that feelings that had festered for years in private were now coming into the open. A swastika was scrawled on a softball field dug-out in Wellsville, N.Y., accompanied by the slogan: "Make America White Again." In Maple Gove, Minn, messages on a high school bathroom wall included: "#gobacktoafrica," and #whitesonly." White students in De Witt, Mich. formed a physical wall of students to block Latino kids from entering school. A Muslin woman had a knife pulled on her in a bus by a Trump supporter. Several California Mosques received threatening letters stating: "Trump will do what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews." And a personal friend, who immigrated many years ago, who built a successful business, and who employs many in our community, has been confronted by people coming into her business telling her in no uncertain terms: "Go home!"
The Southern Poverty Law Center tracked more than 80 reported hate crime and racist incidents in California between Nov. 9 and 16, the most of any state. The pattern is not just disturbing, it is scary.
Whether President-Elect Donald Trump can stem this tide is questionable. After all, candidate Trump provided ample ammunition for these hate groups. In November last year, on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" program, Trump vowed to build a "deportation force" and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants from the country. That same month Trump confirmed that he would "absolutely require Muslims to register in a data-base." One of his surrogates, Carl Higbie, representing the biggest Super-Pac supporting candidate Trump, reiterated this intent, and suggested that the Japanese internment camps could serve as legal precedent for establishing a Muslim registry. During a subsequent interview on "Meet the Press," incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus appeared to confirm this when he stated that he "would not rule anything out."
The selection of Stephen Bannon as President Trump's Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor has dampened the hopes of many that Mr. Trump's transition to President-Elect and President would somehow prompt a softening of the populist and nativist positions he ran on when he was still a mere candidate for the office. Only two years ago, in an email to supporters, Bannon wrote: "Let the grassroots turn on the hate, because that's the only thing that will make them do their duty." In his role as (former) Executive Chairman of the Breitbart New, Bannon is known for statements like: 'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy," calling Bill Kristol - editor of the Weekly Standard - a Republican spoiler and a renegade Jew," claiming that Huma Abedin, aide to Hillary Clinton, is connected to a terrorist conspiracy, and calling progressive women "a bunch of dykes."
People like Richard Spencer, leader of the so-called "alt-right" movement, a distinctly white supremacist organization, for which, according to Mr. Bannon, the Breitbart News provides a platform, rejoiced at the appointment. During a Nov. 19 meeting in Washington D.C., Mr. Spencer suggested that the "alt-right" could serve as "an intellectual vanguard" that would complete Trump. He hoped that they could be "the ones who are out front, and who are thinking about things that he (Trump) hasn't grasped yet." He ended his speech, appropriately, with the Nazi salute: "Hail Trump!"
Six days after the election, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich declared that the administration should push Congress to organize a new House Committee on Un-American Activities. According to the former Speaker, who has not been shy about his desire to become part of the new administration: "We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis ..... We're going to presently have to take similar steps here in regards to Muslims."
The anxiety, and the fear induced by xenophobia permeating through much of, non white, post-election society is palpable. This was aptly articulated when a member of the cast of "Hamilton," actor Brandon Dixon, asked Vice-President Elect Mike Pence, after he attended a performance, to listen to this message: "We sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values, and to work on behalf of all of us - all of us!
Enough said.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Thursday, November 17, 2016
ELECTION 2016 - WHAT HAPPENED, AND WHAT IS NEXT?
This post was supposed to be titled "What's Next?". While the answers to this question are now probably more important than ever, the first thing that comes to mind right now is "What Happened?"
While most analysts, pollsters, and political pundits are busy explaining why they were wrong predicting a vastly different outcome, some will suggest that there were indicators that Donald Trump winning the election, while surviving a brutal campaign, was not entirely unexpected. Some experts, perhaps afraid to end up on the wrong side of the prognosis, timidly cautioned not to forget what happened in the U.K. earlier this year when Britons were asked, in a referendum commonly referred to as "Brexit," whether or not to stay in the European Union. Polls massively predicted a "stay" vote, only to be stunned by a 52% to 48% defeat.
The similarities to what happened in our election are striking. Both countries, and for this matter most continental European countries as well, are experiencing a populist surge. While an increasing exhibition of populist anger has been recognized during election campaigns, the phenomenon infrequently developed into a predictable threat to real power. Because of labels like "ignorant" and "degenerate" the establishment attempted to attach to this group, a substantial number of these voters remained publicly silent about their intentions. In the U.S., as well as in Great Britain, this silent electorate produced largely unexpected election results.
We are engaged in a cultural civil war. A struggle between a mostly rural, blue collar, older, mostly white population segment which feels estranged from the social and demographic trends that are reshaping their country, against multi-cultural urbanites, social liberals, immigrants and minorities, supported by a status-quo elite structure that has ignored them. Populist demagogues across the spectrum successfully corral this sentiment, and provide simplistic answers to real problems. Instead of suggesting the workable solutions complicated challenges demand, they provide scapegoats like globalization, immigration, trade agreements, and government failure. "Let's Make America Great Again," in reality, becomes "Let's Make America White Again." Our election was about "restoration" against "transformation." It was not just about "change." For populists it was about turning the clock back to a more traditional time. The concerns about losing jobs and the elimination of entire industries is not just about losing income and obstructing a path to joining the middle class. It is about ending the progression of the social and demographic changes that threaten the identity of many lost in their own country.
Politicians leading this civil war view it as a revolutionary movement. Nigel Farage, head of the United Kingdom Independence Party, who led the campaign for Brexit, was energized by Donald Trump's electoral success, proclaiming: "The revolution continues!
So, what's next?
There will be plenty of time to assess the aftermath of the election when we move into 2017. We can only contemplate some of the following:
* The wall along our southern border could become a reality, even if Mexico won't pay for it.
* The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is on life support. The insurance of 20 million people could be at risk.
* The Trans Pacific Partnership treaty is dead.
* Judge Merrick Garland's elevation to the Supreme Court is dead.
* The Iran Agreement is in trouble. However, since this is a multi-lateral agreement, us pulling out won't kill it.
* NAFTA could be in trouble.
* Eleven million undocumented workers and three million American Muslims are worried about their future status, especially now that Steve Bannon, Executive Chairman of The Breitbart News, an explicitly racist organization, has become Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to the President-Elect.
* Impeachment of Hillary Clinton is now off the table. However, House Republicans are planning to "continue investigating her for years to come."
* Mike Pence won't be running for President in 2020.
* The Democratic Party is fielding calls to replace the Electoral College with a system using only the popular vote when selecting a President. This movement gained traction after the 2000 election, and since Clinton could well end up with 2 million more votes than Trump, the issue has again become popular.
A friend of mine composed a list of 123 promises candidate Trump made during the campaign. Supporters and opponents of the President Elect will surely maintain a running tab on what President Trump will actually follow thru on. As David Miliband, a British Labour Party politician, observed, when confronted with the Brexit vote in the U.K.: "Populism is popular until it gets elected - then it has to make decisions." The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
While most analysts, pollsters, and political pundits are busy explaining why they were wrong predicting a vastly different outcome, some will suggest that there were indicators that Donald Trump winning the election, while surviving a brutal campaign, was not entirely unexpected. Some experts, perhaps afraid to end up on the wrong side of the prognosis, timidly cautioned not to forget what happened in the U.K. earlier this year when Britons were asked, in a referendum commonly referred to as "Brexit," whether or not to stay in the European Union. Polls massively predicted a "stay" vote, only to be stunned by a 52% to 48% defeat.
The similarities to what happened in our election are striking. Both countries, and for this matter most continental European countries as well, are experiencing a populist surge. While an increasing exhibition of populist anger has been recognized during election campaigns, the phenomenon infrequently developed into a predictable threat to real power. Because of labels like "ignorant" and "degenerate" the establishment attempted to attach to this group, a substantial number of these voters remained publicly silent about their intentions. In the U.S., as well as in Great Britain, this silent electorate produced largely unexpected election results.
We are engaged in a cultural civil war. A struggle between a mostly rural, blue collar, older, mostly white population segment which feels estranged from the social and demographic trends that are reshaping their country, against multi-cultural urbanites, social liberals, immigrants and minorities, supported by a status-quo elite structure that has ignored them. Populist demagogues across the spectrum successfully corral this sentiment, and provide simplistic answers to real problems. Instead of suggesting the workable solutions complicated challenges demand, they provide scapegoats like globalization, immigration, trade agreements, and government failure. "Let's Make America Great Again," in reality, becomes "Let's Make America White Again." Our election was about "restoration" against "transformation." It was not just about "change." For populists it was about turning the clock back to a more traditional time. The concerns about losing jobs and the elimination of entire industries is not just about losing income and obstructing a path to joining the middle class. It is about ending the progression of the social and demographic changes that threaten the identity of many lost in their own country.
Politicians leading this civil war view it as a revolutionary movement. Nigel Farage, head of the United Kingdom Independence Party, who led the campaign for Brexit, was energized by Donald Trump's electoral success, proclaiming: "The revolution continues!
So, what's next?
There will be plenty of time to assess the aftermath of the election when we move into 2017. We can only contemplate some of the following:
* The wall along our southern border could become a reality, even if Mexico won't pay for it.
* The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is on life support. The insurance of 20 million people could be at risk.
* The Trans Pacific Partnership treaty is dead.
* Judge Merrick Garland's elevation to the Supreme Court is dead.
* The Iran Agreement is in trouble. However, since this is a multi-lateral agreement, us pulling out won't kill it.
* NAFTA could be in trouble.
* Eleven million undocumented workers and three million American Muslims are worried about their future status, especially now that Steve Bannon, Executive Chairman of The Breitbart News, an explicitly racist organization, has become Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to the President-Elect.
* Impeachment of Hillary Clinton is now off the table. However, House Republicans are planning to "continue investigating her for years to come."
* Mike Pence won't be running for President in 2020.
* The Democratic Party is fielding calls to replace the Electoral College with a system using only the popular vote when selecting a President. This movement gained traction after the 2000 election, and since Clinton could well end up with 2 million more votes than Trump, the issue has again become popular.
A friend of mine composed a list of 123 promises candidate Trump made during the campaign. Supporters and opponents of the President Elect will surely maintain a running tab on what President Trump will actually follow thru on. As David Miliband, a British Labour Party politician, observed, when confronted with the Brexit vote in the U.K.: "Populism is popular until it gets elected - then it has to make decisions." The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
Friday, November 4, 2016
THE END IS NEAR - 270 OR BUST!
It is (almost) all over but the crying, grumbling, whining, growling, or complaining, whichever verb you might select to express your sentiment if you end up having supported the losing side in this year's presidential election. It is fair to say that the entire world will be holding its collective breath in anticipation of the outcome. And even though we are only a few days away from what some would refer to as "Armageddon" - the final battle between the forces of good and evil - nobody predicts that the last days before November 8 will be uneventful.
With all the venomous rhetoric spewed throughout the campaign, what will happen after the election is finally over is still very much in question. Nevertheless, this is decision time, and we are compelled to do our civic duty. As Theodore Roosevelt aptly observed: "In any moment of decision, the best thing to do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." Before we begin to express concerns about potential implications of the outcome of this election, we should focus on how that decision is actually reached.
Most of us are aware that the popular vote does not decide the election. We vote for electors who represent us in the Electoral College. The number of electors each state is allotted is equal to the number of members of Congress to which they are entitled. Combined, these amount to 538 electors. This means that the winner will need to collect 270 electoral votes to be elected President. Most states use a winner take all system. Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors by Congressional District. Once the votes are in, the Electoral College meets the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to officially verify the outcome. This year that will be December 19.
While all states participate in the election, the real battle takes place in so-called "battleground" or "toss-up" states. Democrats traditionally control the outcome on both coasts, with the possible exception of Florida, while Republicans have historically exerted more of a strangle-hold on the central and southern states. This year the dynamics could prove to be somewhat different. The Associated Press has rated 278 electoral votes to be safely Democratic. Their list of toss-ups include: North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Nevada and New Hampshire, totaling 72 electoral votes. The Republican nominee needs to win all of these to have a chance at reaching the 270 target. Other states that could be in play are Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and possibly even Arizona and Georgia, both traditional Republican strongholds. In Utah, which has traditionally voted safely Republican, a political unknown, Evan McMullin, could have a shot at winning that state's election. Another race to watch, if for no other reason than curiosity, is the Senate race in Louisiana, where ex KKK Grand Wizard David Duke is, again, attempting to get elected. An estimated 50 million plus votes will already have been cast before we get to November 8. A very sizable percentage, considering that we have 146 million registered voters, of which only 126 million voted in the 2012 election.
Aside from the selection of a new President, 469 congressional seats are up for election as well, 34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats. Republicans control 246 seats in the House of Representatives, while Democrats occupy 186. Three are vacant. To retain control of the House, the GOP can lose no more than 29 seats. The Cook Political Report has rated 57 seats as "competitive."
On the Senate side the battle for control is significantly tighter. If Clinton is elected, Democrats need to turn 4 Republican seats to get control of the Senate, 5 if Trumps gains the presidency. (Democratic VP candidate Tim Kane would hold the tie breaker in a Clinton administration.) Republican incumbents at risk are: Mark Kirk, Illinois; Ron Johnson, Wisconsin; Kelly Ayote, New Hampshire; Patrick Toomey, Pennsylvania; Rob Portman, Ohio; Marco Rubio, Florida; and the open seat in Indiana contested by Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Todd Young. In Nevada the seat being vacated by Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, could be in play for the GOP. Leaders in both parties consider the battle for control of the Senate almost as significant and consequential as the contest for the White House.
Local candidates, bundled with a myriad of initiatives, dot the ballots in every state. Proposals covering the death penalty, marijuana reform, gun control, tax proposals and others are presented in hundreds of ballot initiatives offered up in states across the country. Throughout the years some of these have been real odd-balls. It has not been unusual to find ballot measures like: "Should we prohibit toxic waste in our drinking water?" (1986); "Should a police officer get to walk his beat with a ventriloquist dummy?" (1993); "Should we give $1 million to one random voter?" (2006).Or, as we see on our California ballot this year: "Should porn actors be required to wear condoms?"
Donald Trump recently proclaimed: "We should just cancel the election and declare me the winner." Hillary Clinton's team seems to be confident that their candidate is the odds on favorite to be elected President. While confidence promotes optimism, we should keep in mind what happened during the 1948 election between President Truman and Governor Dewey. With Dewey well ahead in all the polls, the Chicago Daily Tribune jumped the gun and announced in its morning edition on November 3rd that "Dewey Defeats Truman," only to be confronted with what has been called "the greatest upset in our history." (Truman beat Dewey by 114 electoral votes.)
Most of us are aware that the popular vote does not decide the election. We vote for electors who represent us in the Electoral College. The number of electors each state is allotted is equal to the number of members of Congress to which they are entitled. Combined, these amount to 538 electors. This means that the winner will need to collect 270 electoral votes to be elected President. Most states use a winner take all system. Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors by Congressional District. Once the votes are in, the Electoral College meets the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to officially verify the outcome. This year that will be December 19.
While all states participate in the election, the real battle takes place in so-called "battleground" or "toss-up" states. Democrats traditionally control the outcome on both coasts, with the possible exception of Florida, while Republicans have historically exerted more of a strangle-hold on the central and southern states. This year the dynamics could prove to be somewhat different. The Associated Press has rated 278 electoral votes to be safely Democratic. Their list of toss-ups include: North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Nevada and New Hampshire, totaling 72 electoral votes. The Republican nominee needs to win all of these to have a chance at reaching the 270 target. Other states that could be in play are Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and possibly even Arizona and Georgia, both traditional Republican strongholds. In Utah, which has traditionally voted safely Republican, a political unknown, Evan McMullin, could have a shot at winning that state's election. Another race to watch, if for no other reason than curiosity, is the Senate race in Louisiana, where ex KKK Grand Wizard David Duke is, again, attempting to get elected. An estimated 50 million plus votes will already have been cast before we get to November 8. A very sizable percentage, considering that we have 146 million registered voters, of which only 126 million voted in the 2012 election.
Aside from the selection of a new President, 469 congressional seats are up for election as well, 34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats. Republicans control 246 seats in the House of Representatives, while Democrats occupy 186. Three are vacant. To retain control of the House, the GOP can lose no more than 29 seats. The Cook Political Report has rated 57 seats as "competitive."
On the Senate side the battle for control is significantly tighter. If Clinton is elected, Democrats need to turn 4 Republican seats to get control of the Senate, 5 if Trumps gains the presidency. (Democratic VP candidate Tim Kane would hold the tie breaker in a Clinton administration.) Republican incumbents at risk are: Mark Kirk, Illinois; Ron Johnson, Wisconsin; Kelly Ayote, New Hampshire; Patrick Toomey, Pennsylvania; Rob Portman, Ohio; Marco Rubio, Florida; and the open seat in Indiana contested by Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Todd Young. In Nevada the seat being vacated by Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, could be in play for the GOP. Leaders in both parties consider the battle for control of the Senate almost as significant and consequential as the contest for the White House.
Local candidates, bundled with a myriad of initiatives, dot the ballots in every state. Proposals covering the death penalty, marijuana reform, gun control, tax proposals and others are presented in hundreds of ballot initiatives offered up in states across the country. Throughout the years some of these have been real odd-balls. It has not been unusual to find ballot measures like: "Should we prohibit toxic waste in our drinking water?" (1986); "Should a police officer get to walk his beat with a ventriloquist dummy?" (1993); "Should we give $1 million to one random voter?" (2006).Or, as we see on our California ballot this year: "Should porn actors be required to wear condoms?"
Donald Trump recently proclaimed: "We should just cancel the election and declare me the winner." Hillary Clinton's team seems to be confident that their candidate is the odds on favorite to be elected President. While confidence promotes optimism, we should keep in mind what happened during the 1948 election between President Truman and Governor Dewey. With Dewey well ahead in all the polls, the Chicago Daily Tribune jumped the gun and announced in its morning edition on November 3rd that "Dewey Defeats Truman," only to be confronted with what has been called "the greatest upset in our history." (Truman beat Dewey by 114 electoral votes.)
Something to consider when we watch the returns coming in. It is not over until it actually is. What happens next will depend on who wins.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE? - LESSONS FROM WEIMAR
Sex, lies and videotapes appear to dominate the dialogue this election cycle. Our electorate seems to be more focused on character traits than on policy proposals. Chances are that eligible voters will select their choice for President based on leaks and innuendo, rather than on what they believe their collective votes will mean for the future of our country. Unfortunately, many are unable to see the forest for the trees. They are unable to understand, or unwilling to consider, the consequences of their selection, because they are concentrating on all the surface noise. Buyer beware!
George Santayana, a Spanish philosopher, has been quoted saying: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The recent influx of populist movements across the globe, and their influence on the political discourse at home and abroad, has reminded some of us of the populist uprising that took place in Germany immediately following World War One. It could be beneficial to look at how our current political environment resembles relevant influences that were dominant in Weimar Germany.
While trying to recover from the effects of losing the war, German leaders attempted to create a modern liberal democracy. In a country that had up to then only known militarism and authoritarian monarchy, this proved to be difficult. The Treaty of Versailles, signed in June of 1919, required Germany to take full responsibility for the loss and damage during the war, forced it to disarm, make territorial concessions, and pay $31.4 billion in reparations (equal to $442 billion in 2016 money). The Weimar Republic confronted obstacles at every turn. The terms of the Treaty were impossible to comply with. Simultaneously, and legislatively, the Russian revolutions of 1917, and the consequent influence of the Communist International, effectively prevented cooperation among the strongest political parties represented in the Reichstag. When the world descended into the "Great Depression" the end was in sight. By the election of 1933 "Weimar" was effectively done.
With "war guilt" hanging over everyone's head, an economy in shambles, unemployment rampant, and the national parliament unable to agree on even the simple things, a populist belief in the power of regular people, and in their right rather than that of a small group of political insiders or wealthy elite, to control their government, took hold. Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) co-opted the national mood, and translated its sentiment into a political platform that contained: opposition to "Versailles," cultural superiority of the Aryan race, anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, anti-parliamentarianism, anti-immigrant, Germany first, and economic isolationism. With support of the disenfranchised middle class and an autocratic elite, Hitler parasitized the movement, and shifted it to the ideological right. Six days before the 1933 elections, Nazi storm troopers unleashed a campaign of violence against the Communist Party, trade unionists, the Social Democratic Party, and the center-right Catholic Party. Even so, Hitler only received 43.9% of the vote, and needed to coalesce with the German National People's Party to give the NSDAP a tiny majority in the Reichstag. With their help he was elected Chancellor. Within two weeks he acquired dictatorial powers, and within months all other parties were banned. We know the rest.
So, what do we learn from this? What was once considered an anomaly, has become a trend. Nationalist and populist politicians have begun to assume power in many countries. The end is nowhere in sight. Ant-Semitism, in many places accompanied by Islamophobia, is cropping up all over. The migrant crisis in Europe revived a strong sense of populism. In country after country, anti-immigrant attitudes are blended with a nativist sentiment, focused on effecting cultural purification. Racial profiling, anti-trade, anti-globalization, and economic protectionism arguments feed into discussions similar to those prevalent during the troubled Weimar experiment. Messianic and pathological narcissists have taken center-stage in a growing number of countries. Russia has Vladimir Putin. Hungary elected Viktor Orban and his far-right Fidesz party on the premise of keeping migrants out, and keeping Hungary's national identity pure. In Poland Jaroslaw Kaczynski and his Law and Justice Party are converting its constitution and judicial system to more closely reflect an authoritarian past. The National Front, France's third largest party, is lead by politicians who once proposed to use the Ebola virus to take care of France's "immigration problem." On December 4, Austria will most likely elect Norbert Hofer its first Neo-Nazi President since World War Two.
And the Philippines just elected a new President, Rodrigo Duterte, who has already been accused of having his hand in the death of as many as 4,000 suspected drug offenders, while joking about the Holocaust. In this country our populist contender for the presidency, while subscribing to all the elements feeding into these pathological political positions, has suggested that, if successful, he would jail his opponent. If he loses, he appears disinclined to accept the outcome. Some of his supporters are already on record promising to start an insurrection.
While considering these worrying trends, I could not help but remember a poem by the anti-Nazi theologian Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
My mother warned me in the late 1940's that "next time they will come for the Catholics." In 1942 they did come for my grandfather, a butcher, who was accused of feeding the Jews in our community. He was convicted and sent to the gallows in the Nazi re-education camp in Lahde, Germany.
I am far from predicting another holocaust. However, I am suggesting that when pathological narcissists assume power, nothing is off the table.
"What do you have to lose?" is not a rhetorical question.
George Santayana, a Spanish philosopher, has been quoted saying: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The recent influx of populist movements across the globe, and their influence on the political discourse at home and abroad, has reminded some of us of the populist uprising that took place in Germany immediately following World War One. It could be beneficial to look at how our current political environment resembles relevant influences that were dominant in Weimar Germany.
While trying to recover from the effects of losing the war, German leaders attempted to create a modern liberal democracy. In a country that had up to then only known militarism and authoritarian monarchy, this proved to be difficult. The Treaty of Versailles, signed in June of 1919, required Germany to take full responsibility for the loss and damage during the war, forced it to disarm, make territorial concessions, and pay $31.4 billion in reparations (equal to $442 billion in 2016 money). The Weimar Republic confronted obstacles at every turn. The terms of the Treaty were impossible to comply with. Simultaneously, and legislatively, the Russian revolutions of 1917, and the consequent influence of the Communist International, effectively prevented cooperation among the strongest political parties represented in the Reichstag. When the world descended into the "Great Depression" the end was in sight. By the election of 1933 "Weimar" was effectively done.
With "war guilt" hanging over everyone's head, an economy in shambles, unemployment rampant, and the national parliament unable to agree on even the simple things, a populist belief in the power of regular people, and in their right rather than that of a small group of political insiders or wealthy elite, to control their government, took hold. Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) co-opted the national mood, and translated its sentiment into a political platform that contained: opposition to "Versailles," cultural superiority of the Aryan race, anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, anti-parliamentarianism, anti-immigrant, Germany first, and economic isolationism. With support of the disenfranchised middle class and an autocratic elite, Hitler parasitized the movement, and shifted it to the ideological right. Six days before the 1933 elections, Nazi storm troopers unleashed a campaign of violence against the Communist Party, trade unionists, the Social Democratic Party, and the center-right Catholic Party. Even so, Hitler only received 43.9% of the vote, and needed to coalesce with the German National People's Party to give the NSDAP a tiny majority in the Reichstag. With their help he was elected Chancellor. Within two weeks he acquired dictatorial powers, and within months all other parties were banned. We know the rest.
So, what do we learn from this? What was once considered an anomaly, has become a trend. Nationalist and populist politicians have begun to assume power in many countries. The end is nowhere in sight. Ant-Semitism, in many places accompanied by Islamophobia, is cropping up all over. The migrant crisis in Europe revived a strong sense of populism. In country after country, anti-immigrant attitudes are blended with a nativist sentiment, focused on effecting cultural purification. Racial profiling, anti-trade, anti-globalization, and economic protectionism arguments feed into discussions similar to those prevalent during the troubled Weimar experiment. Messianic and pathological narcissists have taken center-stage in a growing number of countries. Russia has Vladimir Putin. Hungary elected Viktor Orban and his far-right Fidesz party on the premise of keeping migrants out, and keeping Hungary's national identity pure. In Poland Jaroslaw Kaczynski and his Law and Justice Party are converting its constitution and judicial system to more closely reflect an authoritarian past. The National Front, France's third largest party, is lead by politicians who once proposed to use the Ebola virus to take care of France's "immigration problem." On December 4, Austria will most likely elect Norbert Hofer its first Neo-Nazi President since World War Two.
And the Philippines just elected a new President, Rodrigo Duterte, who has already been accused of having his hand in the death of as many as 4,000 suspected drug offenders, while joking about the Holocaust. In this country our populist contender for the presidency, while subscribing to all the elements feeding into these pathological political positions, has suggested that, if successful, he would jail his opponent. If he loses, he appears disinclined to accept the outcome. Some of his supporters are already on record promising to start an insurrection.
While considering these worrying trends, I could not help but remember a poem by the anti-Nazi theologian Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
My mother warned me in the late 1940's that "next time they will come for the Catholics." In 1942 they did come for my grandfather, a butcher, who was accused of feeding the Jews in our community. He was convicted and sent to the gallows in the Nazi re-education camp in Lahde, Germany.
I am far from predicting another holocaust. However, I am suggesting that when pathological narcissists assume power, nothing is off the table.
"What do you have to lose?" is not a rhetorical question.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
WE NEED TO RAISE THE BAR - SO, WHY ARE WE WATCHING A LIMBO CONTEST?
In a New York Times column published March 2 of this year Thomas Friedman observed that: "The three largest forces on the planet - technology, globalization and climate change - are in simultaneous nonlinear acceleration. Climate change is intensifying. Technology is making everything faster and amplifying every voice. And globalization is making the world more interdependent than ever."
To state that the world today is significantly more complex than it was around the middle of the last century has become a cliché. Complexity, a concept used to characterize something with many parts, interacting with each other in multiple non-linear ways, is something we face every day. Business leaders routinely postulate that "uncertainty + complexity = today's reality." Globalization, defined as a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, driven by international trade and investment, and aided by information technology, forces our leaders to interact with a significantly different set of conditions than those encountered by their predecessors. In an article entitled: "Developing Leaders For A Complex World," Tamara Erickson, a leading expert on the topic, writes: "The complex and ambiguous conditions of this century are unlikely to respond to the old school of leadership. Old norms were honed in a different environment - one in which it was perhaps easier to view one position as right and the other as wrong, easier to predict, to forecast, to control." She and others suggest that today's leaders need to possess maturity, be able to grapple with ambiguity, and have a keen interest in collaboration - leveraging shared efforts and group processes.
Since all of this may sound like common sense, we should consider why some contestants for leadership positions at the pinnacle of our government act as if many of the most significant, and complex, issues confronting us are really simple and easy to fix. "Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes. Want to stop violent crime? Pass better gun control. Want to reduce our carbon footprint? Enact a cap and trade system. Want to stop illegal immigration? Build fences and hire border control agents." (Terry Newell, Simple Leadership in a Complex World." The Huffington Post, May 25, 2011). These slogan solutions are very popular in our electoral campaign world, but they are partial at best and dangerous at worst. They reflect a poor and often distorted understanding of the issues, while discouraging a more intelligent conversation. Albert Einstein said it best: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking where we were when we created them." Integrated problems demand integrated solutions.
We are regularly confronted with the unfortunate and stark contrast between the skills politicians advertise when campaigning, and the expertise required of them if and when they are elected. The excuse they use, however inadequate, is that the voting public won't take the time to understand complex discussions. The argument goes: We live in an age of attention deficit disorder, sound-bites, 30 second commercials, and bumper stickers. Many of us complain about technological change and increased complexity. We yearn for "simpler times." We project anxiety about the present, fear the future, and become nostalgic. The past is safe, because it is completely predictable. Our culture thrives on black-and-white narratives, clearly defined emotions, and easy endings. Rapid change is destabilizing. And politicians feed into this mind-set. They try hard to create zingers that are memorable and easy to grasp. Nevertheless, there is a difference between attaching "simplistic" solutions to complex problems, and using "simplicity" to make these issues more easily understood. To explain policy options in simplistic terms in effect involves a pejorative process which insults our collective intelligence. Simplicity, on the other hand, as Leonardo da Vinci told us "is the ultimate sophistication." And Steve Jobs cautioned that "simple can be harder than complex: you have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple."
Friedman concluded that the accelerations he identified are raising the skill levels and life-long learning requirements for every good job. "They are raising the bar on governance, the speed at which governments need to make decisions, and the need for hybrid solutions. They are also raising the bar on leadership, [and require] leaders who can navigate this complexity." The challenges these accelerations pose require forcing a politics that is much more of a hybrid of left and right. So, while recognizing that much of our electorate may be more comfortable with the old school of leadership and with turning back the clock, the dynamics of our evolving world should require our politicians to demonstrate that they are cognizant of the need to raise the bar, and not insult us with sound-bites and platitudes. If we don't demand this, we allow them to continue to compete in a limbo contest.
To state that the world today is significantly more complex than it was around the middle of the last century has become a cliché. Complexity, a concept used to characterize something with many parts, interacting with each other in multiple non-linear ways, is something we face every day. Business leaders routinely postulate that "uncertainty + complexity = today's reality." Globalization, defined as a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, driven by international trade and investment, and aided by information technology, forces our leaders to interact with a significantly different set of conditions than those encountered by their predecessors. In an article entitled: "Developing Leaders For A Complex World," Tamara Erickson, a leading expert on the topic, writes: "The complex and ambiguous conditions of this century are unlikely to respond to the old school of leadership. Old norms were honed in a different environment - one in which it was perhaps easier to view one position as right and the other as wrong, easier to predict, to forecast, to control." She and others suggest that today's leaders need to possess maturity, be able to grapple with ambiguity, and have a keen interest in collaboration - leveraging shared efforts and group processes.
Since all of this may sound like common sense, we should consider why some contestants for leadership positions at the pinnacle of our government act as if many of the most significant, and complex, issues confronting us are really simple and easy to fix. "Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes. Want to stop violent crime? Pass better gun control. Want to reduce our carbon footprint? Enact a cap and trade system. Want to stop illegal immigration? Build fences and hire border control agents." (Terry Newell, Simple Leadership in a Complex World." The Huffington Post, May 25, 2011). These slogan solutions are very popular in our electoral campaign world, but they are partial at best and dangerous at worst. They reflect a poor and often distorted understanding of the issues, while discouraging a more intelligent conversation. Albert Einstein said it best: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking where we were when we created them." Integrated problems demand integrated solutions.
We are regularly confronted with the unfortunate and stark contrast between the skills politicians advertise when campaigning, and the expertise required of them if and when they are elected. The excuse they use, however inadequate, is that the voting public won't take the time to understand complex discussions. The argument goes: We live in an age of attention deficit disorder, sound-bites, 30 second commercials, and bumper stickers. Many of us complain about technological change and increased complexity. We yearn for "simpler times." We project anxiety about the present, fear the future, and become nostalgic. The past is safe, because it is completely predictable. Our culture thrives on black-and-white narratives, clearly defined emotions, and easy endings. Rapid change is destabilizing. And politicians feed into this mind-set. They try hard to create zingers that are memorable and easy to grasp. Nevertheless, there is a difference between attaching "simplistic" solutions to complex problems, and using "simplicity" to make these issues more easily understood. To explain policy options in simplistic terms in effect involves a pejorative process which insults our collective intelligence. Simplicity, on the other hand, as Leonardo da Vinci told us "is the ultimate sophistication." And Steve Jobs cautioned that "simple can be harder than complex: you have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple."
Friedman concluded that the accelerations he identified are raising the skill levels and life-long learning requirements for every good job. "They are raising the bar on governance, the speed at which governments need to make decisions, and the need for hybrid solutions. They are also raising the bar on leadership, [and require] leaders who can navigate this complexity." The challenges these accelerations pose require forcing a politics that is much more of a hybrid of left and right. So, while recognizing that much of our electorate may be more comfortable with the old school of leadership and with turning back the clock, the dynamics of our evolving world should require our politicians to demonstrate that they are cognizant of the need to raise the bar, and not insult us with sound-bites and platitudes. If we don't demand this, we allow them to continue to compete in a limbo contest.
Friday, September 23, 2016
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WELFARE - THE PROPAGANDA IGNORES THE EVIDENCE
The cover of The Economist of September 10 of this year promotes the issue's feature article: "Art of the Lie." In it the magazine claims that many populist politicians rely on assertions that "feel true," but have no basis in fact. It editorializes that "politicians have always lied," and it wonders if it really matters if they leave the truth behind entirely. The author concludes that the manner in which some politicians now lie, and the havoc they wreak by doing so, is extremely worrying.
Nothing illustrates the crux of this article better than the populist pre-occupation with all facets of immigration, especially when it concerns illegal aliens. Critics of immigration policy make their points by grossly exaggerating undesirable effects of a perceived influx of undocumented immigrants. The propaganda developed to make their points focuses primarily on welfare costs related to assisting illegal aliens. Jim Hoft, an ultra right-wing blogger and owner of "Gateway Pundit," managed to arouse his following by headlining: "We're $16 trillion in debt and giving welfare to illegal immigrants. It is confirmed: Majority of Illegal Immigrants Receive Government Welfare." (March 26, 2013). The Federation for American Immigration Reform published an article in June of 2010 suggesting that "Illegal Aliens Cost U.S. Taxpayers More Than $100 Billion Annually." And Robert Rector, senior research fellow on domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, during an event in May of 2013, when asked how many illegal immigrants were on welfare, answered: "11 million!"
These proclamations are generally unsupported by statistical evidence, but they have the intended effect of causing level-headed citizens to doubt their own conclusions. Even those sympathetic to the plight of undocumented workers may profess to be uncomfortable with the thought that illegal immigrants have access to government entitlements. While recognizing that some available data could be interpreted differently by folks on opposite sides of the issue, and that inclusion or exclusion of some components could skew the argument, we do well to familiarize ourselves with substantiated facts if we want to engage in intelligent discourse.
* Contrary to populist opinion, illegal immigrants do not "swarm into the country" (Mizanor Rahman, January 25, 2008). Over 40% overstay their visas. They don't all come from Mexico. In 2014 5.4 million came from Asia and Central America. None are eligible to receive public benefits - ever.
* Welfare for illegal immigrants is mostly associated with children. Under the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, U.S.-born children of immigrants are natural-born United States citizens, and they are eligible for programs like Medicaid and the state's Children's Health Insurance Program.
There are an estimated 3.4 million households headed by illegal immigrants (Center for Immigration Studies, 2015). Illegal immigrant households without children accessing welfare programs comprise only 14% of all illegal households receiving welfare benefits.
* Less than 1% of households headed by undocumented immigrants receive cash assistance for needy families, compared to 5% of households headed by native-born citizens.
* An estimated 50% of undocumented workers are paid legally. They end up paying Social Security and other payroll taxes. Since many have fake or stolen documents (especially Social Security numbers) they cannot benefit from taxes withheld. Undocumented workers pay an estimated $15 billion a year into Social Security. (In 2010 they also paid $10.6 billion in state and local taxes.) (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy). The magnitude of this is evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "Earnings Suspense File," which holds taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and Social Security numbers. These deposits are significant. In 2003 alone $7.2 billion was credited to this fund. As of 2014 there were about 340 million unclaimed tax forms recorded in the file, compared to 270 million a decade ago.A good portion of these forms were filed by employers on behalf of undocumented immigrants. (SSA report of September, 2015, and The Atlantic of September, 2016).
Government agencies like the Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Health and Human Services produce ample statistics that counter the trumped up propaganda spewed by populist anti immigrant groups. However, many potential critics are lazy, and allow exaggerated claims to feed their ignorance. Such is the political climate we live in. While none of this excuses illegal immigration or undocumented workers, this information ought to contribute to the discussion and provide some perspective.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
ELECTIONS - WHEN WE HOLD THEM, WILL THEY COME?
With the election less than two months away, one of the questions already cropping up is what percentage of eligible voters will actually participate in the process. Given the relative disenchantment with our major parties' candidates, and the anxiety among many about the state of the world and our place in it, voter participation could be a major factor in the outcome on November 8. Presidential elections traditionally tend to draw more voters than mid-term elections. In 2012 roughly 55% of eligible voters showed up at the polls, while in 2014 only 37% exercised their right to cast a ballot. The US has traditionally had one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the "free world." Of 39 countries listing average participation percentages during lower house elections between 1960 and 1995 we end up dead last, averaging only 48%. (Mark Franklin, "Electoral Participation," 2001).
Political scientists are often pre-occupied with voter turnout as a measure of system legitimacy. A high turnout is generally considered desirable. However, the issue tends to be more complex. Dictators have fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections to reflect their "legitimacy," while some low participation rates may result from opposition parties boycotting elections they see as unfair or illegitimate. Consequently, there are political scientists who question the view that high turnout is implicit endorsement of the system. One of these, Mark Franklin, contends, for instance, that in the European Union elections opponents of the EU are just as likely to vote as its opponents. (Mark Franklin, "Electoral Engineering," British Journal of Political Science, 1999).
Esoteric discourse aside, political operatives regularly confront the practical question: "How do we increase participation by Americans eligible to vote?" Strategies designed to elevate participation rates include: Making voting compulsory, as is the norm in 22 other countries, including 12 Latin American countries (something President Obama suggested while addressing a civic group in Cleveland in 2015), automatic voter registration, designating election day a federal holiday, and moving election day to a weekend. None of these promises to be a panacea, but they do deserve consideration.
A study completed for the In Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance concluded that participation in compulsory voting countries averaged around 85%, compared to 65% in countries featuring voluntary voting rules. Some legal experts believe that making voting mandatory may be unconstitutional since "freedom of speech" includes the freedom not to vote. opponents and proponents of such a law line up either supporting civil rights or asserting civic duty (as in the case of jury duty). Since some experts believe that compulsory voting would actually benefit the Democratic Party, such a change would more than likely die in Congress. However, the facts speak for themselves. In countries where voting is mandatory and enforced participation rates are significant. Australia, which has had a compulsory system since 1920, has turnout rates in excess of 93%. Countries like Venezuela and The Netherlands, where compulsory voting has been rescinded, have seen substantial decreases in turnout.
Proponents of automatic voter registration argue that adopting such a system will add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls, save money, increase accuracy, improve the security of our elections, and substantially enhance participation rates. (New York Unversity School of Law, September 22, 2015). This system has been provided to eligible citizens in 15 states, but there appears to be opposition to rolling it out nationally. In November of 2015 Governor Christie vetoed a bill that would have allowed New Jersey to join this group.
A proposal to make Election Day a federal holiday was submitted and rejected by Congress in 2005. The suggestion was reintroduced in 2014, but has not yet been enacted. Proponents argue that it would increase election participation by allowing people to vote without interfering with their jobs, while underscoring the importance of elections in a democracy. Thus far eight states and the territory of Puerto Rico have declared Election Day a civic holiday. Turnout in Puerto Rico's quadrennial elections has been 50% higher than it was for presidential elections in the fifty states. However, the other members of this group have seen little real effect.
Another question that keeps coming up is: "Why do we vote on Tuesday? Saturday or Sunday would make much more sense." The reasoning goes back to 1845. That year Congress instituted a uniform date. The US was a largely agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicle to the County seat to vote. Tuesdays did not interfere with the biblical Sabbath or with market day, which in many towns was on Wednesday. Now Tuesday is a work day, which decreases turnout. Outside the U.S. Strong election participation in countries like Australia, Belgium, Germany and India are often attributed in part to holding elections on a weekend or on designated holidays.
No matter how many of us will ultimately cast our ballots this November, the question about participation rates will continue to be raised and potential solutions will continue to be controversial. The issue is not new. Greek philosopher Plato already admonished us centuries ago that "one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." So, go out and do your civic duty. Every election is determined by the people who show up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)