Follow By Email

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

How And Why Trump Won

Half of America woke up to mourning in America following the election of Donald Trump.   Reactions varied.  Americans in denial pursued efforts to undo the election by rigging the Electoral College vote.  Others, angry and frightened took to the streets to protest #not my president.  All struggled to understand how a hate filled, insensitive, racist, bully won. 

Exit polls belie the popular explanations of “whitelash” and widespread racism.  Compared to 2012, the Republican white vote advantage did not increase.  Rather it was the minorities voting Republican that increased.  A long history of framing Republicans as racist and describing our country as filled with racists backfired.  The cry of wolf wasn’t believed.  To paraphrase Salino Zito’s insightful comment in a piece written for the Atlantic:  Clinton supporters took Trump literally but not seriously, while Trump supporters took him seriously but not literally. 

The Trump victory resulted from the lower economic tier leaving the Democratic Party.  Democratic victories depend on overwhelming support of this demographic to overcome the Republican advantage in all other income groups.  In 2012 Romney bested Obama in income levels above $50,000.    The President won because the under $50,000 income group voted overwhelmingly for him by a 22% margin.  In 2016 the margin narrowed considerably to 9%.

The lower class shift to the right is part of a world-wide phenomenon in developed countries like Britain, Germany, and France.  The issues are the same, lost wages and uncontrolled immigration.  Globalization and technological advances creates winners and losers.  Capitol is fluid, labor is not.   Emerging market laborers benefit from large capital inflows from developed countries while laborers in developed countries suffer.  Dwindling employment opportunities exacerbated by perceived increased job competition from recent immigrants.
 
Trump addressed the plight and suffering of the blue collar workers, campaigned in their districts, and promised to fix immigration and return lost jobs to America.  Clinton did not.

The uplifting Democratic Convention messaging of liberal democratic values – inclusiveness, diversity, multiculturalism – was out of sync with the working class circumstance.   Lacking economic stability, aspirational goals are a very low priority.  

  
Clinton’s lengthy government experience was a negative for the working class who culturally distrust government.  Trump’s message that the political system is corrupt and rigged against the little guy resonated with them.  Clinton was the perfect foil -- fabulous wealth achieved not by hard work in the private sector but by leveraging her political connections, use of a separate secret email server for government communications then lying about it in public, and being under FBI investigation for pay for play schemes.  

Clinton provided no personal vision for governing the country.  Rather she yoked herself to the President’s legislative agenda, believing that his popularity had coattails.  The President’s high approval rating masked a simmering discontent within the country beyond the tepid economic recovery that primarily benefited the moneyed class.  Obamacare was the Achilles heel.   Disliked from the start, more unpopular with time.  Promises of keeping your doctor, lower healthcare costs, and improved care, proved strikingly untrue.   
      
The shift towards Republicans began in 2010, right after the passage of Obamacare, and has continued with every election since.  The size of the shift is enormous.  Obama’s presidency began with 60 and ends with 48 Democratic Senators.  The House shift went from 257 to 197 Democrats.  A comparable large shift in power occurred at the state level.

Over the course of several decades the Democrat’s focus on the powerless working class shifted towards creating a more perfect society.  The little guy who bore the brunt of the social and economic programs emanating from that shift was not happy and ended up voting for a crude juvenile lout.  The antithesis of the liberal democratic aspirational values.  An ignoble ending to hope and change.   

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

The Danger of "Black Lives Matter"

The racial fault lines have emerged with a vengeance, tinged bright red with the blood of the black and blue in America.  High profile killings of unarmed black citizens by mostly white police officers are matched by high profile targeting and killings of police officers by mostly black shooters.

The American history of equal rights for blacks is tortuous and bloody, punctuated by slavery, lynchings, mutilations, rapes and beatings, and the indignities of segregation and Jim Crow laws.  It is also a history of white sacrifice for civil rights through the blood of Civil War soldiers and the grizzly deaths of white civil rights organizers at the hands of the KKK.   The journey to justice continues -- laws passed to end segregation, treasure spent to ease black poverty, “Head Start” and Affirmative Action” to provide a hand up.

There has been great progress on the road to justice for blacks, the penultimate being the election a black President.  So one would think … except the gulf between black and white perceptions on progress made and distance to go has widened not narrowed. 

The gap widened because the goal for justice changed for black youth from equality under the law to equality in the eyes of others.  Laws ending segregation and discrimination and programs to rectify historical injustices are insufficient for full acceptance.  Full acceptance requires America to live up to the truth contained in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, and by implication, to be treated with the respect and dignity accorded all human beings.
 
Dignity and respect are the youth’s metric for evaluating racial progress in America.  On campus, microaggressions are the measure of racial insensitivity.  For society at large, their litmus test is the interactions with the police, the front line of the government’s attitudes towards blacks.
   
Interactions with law enforcement are fraught with historical flashback moments.  The echoes of the slave master heard in the harsh authoritarian voice and the requirement of unquestioned obedience.  The poking and prodding of stop and frisk; the face down prone position of arrest; and the driving while black experiences, all reminiscent of the humiliating and degrading methods of Jim Crow policing.

 “Black Lives Matter” is the prominent voice on police treatment of blacks.  Not surprisingly the racial divide turns from a gap to a gulf over views of this movement.  Whites are confused and angered by the accusations of the movement, particularly the accusations that racism is widespread and systemic.  Blacks are angered that whites are tone deaf to the importance of focusing on black lives.  The problem is not that all lives matter, it is that black lives in America matter less or not at all.

Political leaders and pundits add to the racial divide by promoting false narratives and misleading statistics.  Two examples.  Michael Brown was not pleading don’t shoot while holding his hands up.  Instead, he attempted to wrest the police officer’s gun, ignored commands to stop, and was shot while moving towards the officer.  Police are not color blind in their actions.  A recent Harvard study shows police are significantly more likely to manhandle black suspects.

The philosophy of the “Black Lives Matter” movement is ominously radical and potentially dangerous.  The leaders believe all of America’s institutions are designed by the white privileged to suppress blacks.  Refusing to work within the system, they prefer to disrupt the system.  White Democrats have been flummoxed by “Black Lives Matter” protesting, interrupting, and taking over campaign appearances.   Blacks protesting Democrats instead of Republicans is new territory for Democrats who believe they have established bona fides on race relations.

“Black Lives Matter” leaders refuse to work within the system because it believes the institutions are inherently racist and therefore must be destroyed and rebuilt.  These views create the potential for the movement to turn violent.   There have been pockets of violent rhetoric against police, and property destruction, at some protest rallies.  Further, the anarchistic views encourage the likes of Gavon Long, the black supremacist, anti-government, cop killer in Baton Rouge.

This is the time for courage from our black and white political leaders.  Black leaders, while supporting the emphasis on dignity, must denounce the anarchistic rhetoric of “Black Lives Matter” and discourage the narrative that racism is in America’s DNA and is institutionally systemic.  White leaders must acknowledge that police officers, and many other segments of society, treat blacks differently, and that many whites fear blacks, particularly young black men.

In short, it is time to have an honest conversation about race in America.  Otherwise it will be a long hot summer.



Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Brexit Facts and Fancy

The Chicken Little reaction to Brexit was fast and furious.   The pound dropped to levels not seen since the waning years of Beatlemania, investors lost trillions of dollars in the global financial swoon, and credit agencies downgraded Britain's credit rating from the highest to a credit rating shared by the likes of Abu Dhabi and Kuwait.  The agencies indicated the credit rating could drop further.  One notch lower would put Britain in the company of Estonia, Taiwan and Chile.

The common Brexit narrative is that the European Union is a scapegoat for the effects of modernity facing Western societies.  Globalization offshores millions of jobs, societies are disaggregating by a growing income gulf between the advantaged and disadvantaged, and the erasure of borders between countries allows for undesirable immigrants.   The older, white, blue collar worker unable to adjust to modernity overwhelmingly votes to leave the European Union as a way back to the past of a middle class life style in a predominantly white culture.  The narrative is based on suppositions, unreliable statistics (there is no exit polling), and, most importantly, without considering the historical context of the relationship between Britain and Europe.

Historically, Britain considers itself of Europe but not in Europe.  Britain relishes its unique traditions and constancy born of a history that spans a thousand years.  Thus its road trip to the European Union, spanning fifty years, is filled with pot holes and detours.  Underlying the negotiations is the tension between the importance of maintaining sovereignty and the pragmatics of the economic benefits of being part of a European trading block.  Throughout the negotiations Britain insists on Sovereignty by retaining its own currency and by not signing portions of the European Union dealing with the internal affairs of Britain.  From this perspective the “remain” and “leave” vote represents different strategies in maintaining sovereignty.  The “remain” vote reflects working from within to maintain sovereignty while retaining economic benefits, and the “leave” vote represents the untenability of a sovereign Britain within a European Union and the priority of Sovereignty over short run economic benefits.

Personal identity is elemental to being human and is necessary for psychological health.  Psychologists consider individuals who lack boundaries as psychologically unstable.  Not only tyrants and cult leaders, but also leaders of good will have tried to erase personal identity without success.  The Israeli Kibbutzim, established as collectivist societies, disallowed private property ownership and raised children collectively rather than in family settings.  Family bonds and children’s attachment needs proved too strong and the practice of children in group settings was the first to go.  Eventually homes and the contents within were privatized, and the collectivist kibbutz died out.  


Private property rights is essential to liberty.  Democratic governments recognize this through unlawful search and seizure clauses within their legal systems.  So too is the freedom and identity of sovereign nations based on property rights. Secure boundaries establish sovereign identity and internal liberty.  This is the fundamental issue which animated the Brexit vote.  And like other modern ideas that go against the fundamentals of being human, the idea of a pan European organization will fade with time.    

Friday, June 24, 2016

ISIS Redefined

Leading Republicans criticize the President because he will not describe acts of terrorism committed by Muslims as “Radical Islamic Terrorism”.  The President insists that using the term “Radical Islam” does not actually affect how the war on terror is waged and in fact, impugns the religion of Islam and the vast majority of peace loving Muslims who practice their faith.

Ironically each side is both right and wrong.  The President's description of terrorists as violent extremists is broad and nonspecific.  The description is meaningless and creates a see no Islam evil mindset.  Witness the initial transcripts of the shooter’s calls to 911 released by the Justice Department.  The terrorist’s remarks on allegiance to ISIS were redacted and the transcript was scrubbed of Allah, substituting God in its place. 

Unwillingness to attribute terrorism to Islam does have consequences.  Designed to prevent prejudice against decent Muslims, dancing around an unpleasant reality creates the impression that criticizing Muslims is wrong.  Hence a witness does not report suspicious behavior of the San Bernardino shooters out of fear that she will be labelled an Islamaphobe.  This same mindset was behind the categorization of the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence instead of Islamic terrorism, thereby denying soldiers wounded in the attack of additional benefits.

The Republicans make a different mistake.  Their use of the phrase “Radical Islamic Terrorism” misidentifies the religious ideology of the terrorist and that phrase does indeed impugn all of Islam.  The phrase implies that the terrorists practice an extreme form of modern day Islam.  As David Brooks states, “people don’t start out practicing Islam and then turn into terrorists because they become more faithful”.  Modern Islam is a vastly different version of the religion of ISIS.  The theological roots are the same, but the religious ideology and practices have little overlap.

ISIS adheres to medieval Islam practiced 1300 years ago by the first two Caliphs of Islam.   ISIS rejects all subsequent innovations and modernizations to the religion as a corruption of Islam.  Among numerous barbarities, medieval religious practices allow terrorizing infidels into submission using beheadings, crucifixions, rape and enslavement.   

The great attraction to ISIS flows from its perceived religious legitimacy, the establishment of the caliphate.  Unlike other terrorists groups where recruits pledge loyalty to a cause, ISIS recruits undergo conversion and pledge their lives to the Caliph, the representative of Allah on earth.

Religious conversion is powerful stuff.  It provides deep meaning and purpose and is rapturous to the disaffected, alienated, or marginalized.  It is not economic justice that drives these recruits to ISIS but the search for meaning, purpose, and positive identity. Similarly, religious conversion explains why recruits who show no history of violence are able to commit the most heinous acts.  They are acting for the glory of Allah to purify the world of subhumans in accordance with the Prophet Mohammad.

The phrase “Medieval Islam” clarifies for the average Joe how a religion of peace creates monsters.  Medieval Islam has parallels to Medieval Christianity where non-believers were tortured and burned at the stake during the Inquisition.  It is a small step from there to accept that modern Islam is as peace loving as modern Christianity.

Sharing the same terminology to describe and understand terrorists can promote meaningful policy dialogue between Republicans and Democrats.  Take the refugee issue as an example.  Muslim countries that practice medieval Sharia law reflect social and cultural values that are unamerican.  This recognition changes the dialogue on refugee immigration from issues of prejudice to issues of enculturation.  How do we (and can we) select refugees that will accommodate to and accept a very different culture and, if so, how to assist refugees in the assimilation process?  Here, American Muslims can play a pivotal role in guiding these policies.   

Words reflect perceived reality and influence actions.   Without a common perspective on reality, dialogue is fruitless. We end up talking at or past each other rather than to each other.  Goodness knows we've done enough of that already.   

   

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Transgender Bathroom Battle: Causes and Cures

The North Carolina bathroom law requiring people to use public restrooms based on their gender at birth is part of the ongoing cultural clash between the secular left and the religious right.  Responding to the current North Carolina law, President Obama issued national guidelines requiring public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms associated with their gender identity. 

The battle lines are drawn.  For President Obama and other transgender advocates, transgender bathroom choice is a civil rights issue comparable to the civil rights laws ending discrimination against racial minorities.  Conservative religious groups recoil from this topsy turvy new world of gender identity.  Gender is not a state of mind that can change on a whim.  It is a biological fact.  Bionically, men and women are created for companionship and to procreate and populate the world.  And from the fig leaf forward modesty between the sexes is a hallmark of the religious.  For them, separate bathrooms for the sexes makes obvious common sense and is in keeping with the natural order of the world.  

In reality, transgenderism is biologically based.  The biology of gender development involves chromosomes, hormones and brain structure.  Almost always, sex chromosomes and sex hormones work in concert so that our brain and our sexual characteristics match. For a small minority, significantly less than 1%, sex chromosomes and hormones interplay differently such that a male fetus develops with a female brain and a female fetus develops with a male brain.  Hence a transgender is born.

The use of gender language often confuses rather than clarifies the bathroom debate.  It can muddy the distinctions between biology, sexual preference, and sexual expression when talking about masculinity and femininity.  To the uninitiated, encountering gender language is a plunge down the rabbit hole.  You are not born male or female.  Instead you are assigned a gender at birth, as if your sexual designation is a choice comparable to how you are named.  Instead of the two sexes there are close to sixty genders and counting proclaimed by Facebook users.  They range from gender queer (someone who identifies with multiple genders), to gender fluid (someone who fluctuates between being male and female), to everything else in between.   These gender terms are completely subjective.  All it seems to take these days to establish an entirely new gender category is for someone to think one up.

Ironically, transgenderism suffers from being included in gender speak which implies that gender is a choice, sometimes a whimsical choice, rather than a biological imperative.  The intense and lifelong feeling of being trapped in the wrong body is a very real biological condition that often causes years of suffering.  Understandably there is pushback from the transgender community to the North Carolina law as they know that theirs is not a whimsical choice but a real condition.

It is tempting to consider disparate treatment of transgender citizens as a civil rights issue in the same way blacks were treated disparately by establishing separate bathrooms for whites and blacks.  But the transgender controversy is not about separate sets of bathrooms; rather it is about bathroom labelling.  The President’s effort to stretch civil rights discrimination around bathroom labelling leads to surprising consequences.

Discrimination occurs when decisions are based on a trait without a compelling or inherent justification.   For example, an employment decision not to hire based on gender identity absent another compelling basis is discriminatory.  The solution requires the employer to hire the individual.  Why then isn’t requiring bathroom choice based on gender identity a solution to gender discrimination?  Substitute the word race for gender identity in the last sentence – requiring bathroom choice based on race – and the gender identity solution now seems problematic.

Consider also the consequences of school bathroom choice based on gender identity.  Not only would boys who identify as girls rightfully use the girls’ restrooms but heterosexual boys would also have that right.  The only difference between these two anatomical boys is their gender identity and, according to transgender advocates, Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity which then logically encompasses heterosexual boys who self-identify as boys.  Ironically, the way to ensure that bathrooms do not discriminate against gender identity is to have two separate but equal bathrooms based on biological sex.

Still, male and female bathrooms remain problematic.  Transgender men and women often hesitate to enter bathrooms they identify with because of the very real threat of violence and or verbal abuse.  Without separate male and female bathrooms, traditionalists worry about their privacy being violated, and about the potential for sexual predators taking advantage of gender identity laws.  With documented cases of sexual deviants masquerading as transgender men entering bathrooms and locker rooms, this worry is not an excuse for discrimination but a concern based in fact.

Perhaps there is another way.  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides a template for addressing these bathroom dilemmas, particularly the ADA concepts of major life functions, legitimate conditions, and reasonable accommodations.  Although established for the workplace, the conceptual framework of the ADA could be applied to any environment to address the needs of those with special requirements, along with a blueprint for addressing these special needs.  Under ADA guidelines, going to the bathroom is a major life function that qualifies for a reasonable accommodation to those with a legitimate condition effecting bathroom use. These accommodations are then created through discussion between the stakeholders.  Reasonable accommodations take into account the health and safety of everyone and the feasibility of making such accommodations, including any undue hardships such as available resources and organizational size.


Using the ADA approach legitimizes special needs and provides a dignified method to broach a delicate subject.  This measured, systematic, collaborative approach holds out hope for avoiding the divisive and contentious environment evident in imposing a one size fits all solution based on a questionable civil rights violation. 

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

In Defense of Religion


Like most of the world, Secularism is rising in America, while religious participation is sharply declining.  As more and more scientific principles explain what was once attributed to a creator, belief in God logically erodes.  It’s all too easy to see religion as merely quaint biblical myths and stories, comforting and palliative to believers, but dangerous when religious ideas are brought into the public square.  Or so the argument goes.  But there is another view.
For centuries, Judaeo Christian principles organized Western Civilization.  The old and new testaments served as blueprints for establishing social values and civic responsibilities, allowing for peaceful coexistence within stable, just societies.  The wisdom found in the bible served society well for two thousand years.
Clearly the idea of ethical monotheism was a great leap forward in mankind’s thinking—it replaced the self-centered animistic view of multiple totem gods with a universal God that required people to think beyond themselves.  The ideas of universality and of a non-corporeal being reflected abstract thinking that became essential for scientific reasoning.  Indeed, modern scientists, like Einstein, used God as a metaphorical guide when contemplating the principles of the universe.
Science and religion cover non overlapping spheres of human existence.  Science covers the physical sphere, and religion covers the social sphere, giving us rules for social conduct and ethics.  But science and religion intersect when explaining the creation of the universe.  The scientific view is that the universe was created from the inflation of a single infinitesimally small point containing all of the elements of the universe.  For our universe to coalesce and form, gravity and other forces needed to be so precise that it could not happen by chance … which sounds like the work of a creator. 
Scientists address the implication of a non-physical explanation for the creation of the universe with the multiverse theory.  In this theory universes are constantly being formed, indeed an infinite number of formations.  With an infinite number of formations our universe could happen by chance.  Importantly, however, there is no proof for the multiverse theory.  Like the religious view it remains an article of faith.
As America secularizes, the consequences to society are not favorable but predictable.  The concepts of sacred and profane are lost in a secular society as these concepts are embedded in religious beliefs.  Simply put, sacred thoughts and actions bring people closer to God; profane behavior does exactly the opposite.   
Without the restraint of the sacred, people can gravitate towards the profane of self-indulgence and self-gratification.   The trend towards the profane is evident – a coarsening of dialogue, immodesty, drug addiction and crime, alienation, and a breakdown of the nuclear family.  The profane has even entered the campaign for the highest office in the land in the form of Donald Trump. 
But what about the evil committed in the name of Christianity -- the medieval murders by Crusaders and the torture during the Inquisition?  This happened a long time ago, prior to the Protestant Reformation in 1517.  Obviously, Judaeo Christian leaders no longer advocate murder or torture.  True, some religious practitioners do not live up to religious teachings and act immorally or engage in cover-ups of evil deeds to protect religious institutions.   Yet there is an absolute standard to judge actions, and when evil is spotlighted and forced out of the shadows no religious figure is immune from religious condemnation.
For the non-religious, an absolute standard is replaced by an individual standard derived from reason and feeling.  The consequences of actions taken by countries and people un-moored from Judaeo Christian morality are devastating.   Many modern godless societies murdered and tortured millions upon millions of people – The Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, and North Korea to name some.  In this country, atheists used reason to advocate for eugenics and forced sterilization of undesirables.
Yet religion remains a question mark for many because of religiously conservative stances on a number of contentious social issues.  In my next blog I will explore some of these hot button issues.