The Great Debate

This is a great debate. 

Worth a listen in its entirety. 

The motion was “what you call political correctness, I call progress”. 

It did not remain narrowly focused on that topic, since, in reality, the topic itself is not narrowly defined, due to its conflation with free speech vs social justice vs other. 

I cannot say that either team ‘won’, except to say that the related topic of identity politics was the most frequented side topic. 

It goes something like this: 

Individuals are lumped into groups by those in power, for the primary purpose of denying them their rights on a stereotypical basis. 

Individuals whose rights are denied band together into groups to secure their rights. 

The narrative for members within groups then becomes one of struggle between groups, along the lines of oppressed and oppressor. 

This dynamic causes a reaction in kind by those in power, which further entrenches group identification and leads to polarization and the populist movements we see today, if you buy Jordan Peterson’s argument.

In this mode, the oppressed become intolerant, and even though they maintain a legitimate complaint of social injustice, they start to exhibit oppressive traits as well.  

This intolerance leads to political correctness, and though one can argue that much of what political correctness is meant to suppress should legitimately be suppressed (derogatory terms, inflammatory ideas, etc), it can also lead to a suppression of ideas and dialogue, for fear of being politically incorrect.

The notion that controlling what people say will change how they think is ridiculous, and only foments a kind of quiet anger in those  that feel they are being censored. 

Enter Trump. 

He unapologetically says what he thinks, even if it is not politically correct, and his popularity rises with each episode. 

Why? 

Because he says what a lot of people feel. 

My contention is that he could say what almost everyone feels on the higher end of the moral spectrum by appealing to our better, common traits, i.e. be the ‘uniter in chief’ vs the ‘divider in chief’. That being said, Trump is tapping into a current that was already there, right or wrong, which has been exacerbated by identity politics. 

I don’t think that identity politics and political correctness are really working for us, do you?

https://youtu.be/GxYimeaoea0

Don't Unfriend Anyone

Many of my friends have un-friended [former] friends over this ever increasing divide between conservatives and liberals, or, perhaps, 'Trumps' and 'anti-Trumps'. I have not unfriended a single person, nor lost a single friend over this divide, not because I am not concerned over the divergence in points of view or interpretation of facts, but because I fully embrace the idea that it is more complicated than a two-sided arguent. One could argue, "no, it is not more complicated than that; you are either on the right side of history and today, or you are not". We haven't reached that point yet, and I pray that we never will. Right now, we are locked into the kind of gridlock that our founding fathers contemplated in our system of government, i.e. to ensure that only the very best legislation passes, with the caveat that we may not reach the kind of legislative gridlock until after the mid-term elections. In the meantime, while I uniformly disapprove of Trump's behavior, and the implementation of some of his policies, I do not uniformly disapprove of all of this policies. Therefore, I do not uniformly disapprove of anyone's support for Trump. I do wish that people - all people, conservatives and liberals - would be more careful and contemplative in thier thinking and their accounting of the facts, but I also wish that we would hold each other to account in a more embracing way, because I think people tend to calcify into unreasonable positions when they feel like they are being attacked. This is the number one reason I have not unfriended anyone, nor consider any friend a not-friend just based on their political views. My friends need to know that I am their friend, and that I understand their calculus in their political views. They also need to know that I will hold them to account on their thinking and their arguments, not becuase I inherently think they are wrong and I am right, but because I inherently want to know why they think the way they do, and am open to modifying my point of view with theirs, and I expect them to do the same when there is merit. This philosophy, I think, will go much further towards a better 'third option' than this current, two-sided trend will ever do.

American Exceptionalism and Trump?

I’ve seen a few posts and comments on American Exceptionalism, and how this is misunderstood by one group or another, or how it is embodied by one politician or another. To the extent that anyone believes that American Exceptionalism is derived from the genius of our Constitution and its framers, I believe the root of this concept is best encapsulated in the Federalist Papers, and, further, would go so far as to challenge anyone who says they have command of this concept to frame it along the doctrines laid out in the constituent articles. The papers were published in 1787 by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, all of whom were intellectual giants, especially in relation to today’s politicians, and all of whom were making the case for the constitution of a union, along with a caution against disunion, either as 13 states or 3 or 4 confederations. If you endeavor to read them, you might be surprised by the similarities of the challenges of our day to the challenges of their day. In short, we have not evolved all that much philosophically over the past 200+ years. You might reach the same conclusion about the last 2,000+ years if you read Plato’s dialogues. I will leave it to you to read the papers, or not, and discern American Exceptionalism, or not, at least insofar as you can discern it from the papers, but I can tell you in advance that Trump’s behavior does not embody the spirit or the substance of American Exceptionalism in its unifying, mutually inclusive and anti-factious form. When people invoke the concept of American Exceptionalism alongside any argument that Trump exemplifies it, I take exception (wink). I would much rather someone simply say, “he is effective and he gets results”, without trying to equate him with the more noble principles in American Exceptionalism, especially pluralism and representation.

Immigration

Immigration has a mostly favorable impact on the US. Quoting an article from TheBalance.com, “Immigrants have driven two-thirds of U.S. economic growth since 2011. They founded 30 percent U.S. firms, including 50 percent of startups valued at over $1 billion.” The ‘immigrant’ moniker here encompasses both legal and illegal immigrants, but we can probably guess that the founder of the $1 billion startup is mostly likely here legally (wink). Against the back drop of an accelerating deficit, thanks to the so-called fiscal conservatives on the right, immigration should actually be embraced by most Americans, because it injects more young people into the economy, thereby widening the base that supports Social Security and Medicare. In fact, nearly half of the of the 8 million illegal immigrants that are in the workforce pay Social Security payroll taxes, even though they are not eligible for Social Security benefits. This may or may not be a convincing argument, partly because statistics can be interpreted in many different ways, and even if the interpretation is correct, someone born and bred in the U.S. who is struggling to get by would find the notion of allowing immigrations to flow into the country and complete for jobs disconcerting. We have an immigration policy, so the fact that 1000s of migrants head to the U.S. border, in caravans or not, is not necessarily a bad thing, but the tone def and prototypical liberal argument that ignores the difference between bona fide asylum seekers and economic migrants helps me to better understand why Trump enjoys so much support, especially on the immigrant front, despite some of his controversial policy decisions. The optics of Mexico allowing 4,000 migrants to pass through to the US border are pretty bad, even if the real implications are not, given the estimated 400,000 to 800,000 illegal entries a year. Therefore, to me, the optics of Trump’s [over]reaction are pretty good. In my opinion, if the home countries and Mexico are going to facilitate this level of mass migration, thereby overrunning our borders and driving up the related administrative costs of processing immigrants, then we should cut aid to these countries and recoup those costs. One could argue that the second order effect of cutting aid and otherwise disengaging from Central and South America will only exacerbate the situation and accelerate migration to the U.S., but I, for one, would rather not be held hostage to that notion. I would rather we take control of our border, even if it means deploying our military, and then figure out how to deal with the situation more holistically later.

REF https://www.thebalance.com/how-immigration-impacts-the-economy-4125413

Andrew Yang

I don’t think that someone like Andrew Yang would get enough traction in a near-future Presidential election, but I do think we need to start grappling with the challenges and solutions that he discusses. I’ve been hearing about massive manufacturing job losses in China (yes, China) due to automation, and though we attribute offshoring as a major contributing factor in the loss manufacturing jobs here in the US, which it has been, even if we reversed this tide, we would still be facing major job losses to automation, and, now, with AI, the displacement of workers is going to occur in more areas - Call Centers, Retail, Transportation (autonomous, self-driving trucks). But first, we will need to disabuse ourselves of the labels that drive our thinking into Capitalism vs Socialism, Rich vs Poor and Politically Elite vs Politically Disenfranchised, so that we can consider ideas for a better future, without getting mired in the past. Andrew’s big ideas: Universal Basic Income, Universal Healthcare and a redefinition of GDP that more accurately reflects the health of the nation, especially as it relates to the difference in well being between Wall Street and Main Street. These are, indeed, big ideas, but, for anyone who has looked at our evolving world and doubted that things are just going to work themselves out, perhaps the process of embracing big ideas should be initiated with all deliberate speed?

REF https://youtu.be/qkH0xGUgR0c

The Single Event

I am always very aware of my interactions with Nicholas, mainly because I know that events averaged over my lifetime to date are much smaller than the same events averaged over his lifetime to date. I think this is the fundamental calculus that so many parents neglect. In some respects, it is quite unfair to parents that a single, negative event might get burned in to a child’s memory and hold sway over their recollection more than the aggregate of all the parental sacrifices and positive events. It is of little use to complain about this fact of life, because it is, after all, a fact of life. Taken out of the parental domain, this same phenomenon applies to other events in a child’s life - getting bullied, being ridiculed, being ignored, etc. This is, perhaps, why so many parents instinctively know that over caution is warranted when comes to their child’s experiences in the world, even as they forget that the same over caution needs to be applied to their child’s experiences with them. Of course, parents do the best they can under the circumstances they find themselves in, and sometimes these circumstances can be overwhelming, so, as children, we have to evaluate the single events that we hold on to as defining characteristics of the parenthood we were subjected to. This all boils down to awareness on both sides of the parent-child high-wire. We need to teach ourselves to be aware of what we do, and we need to teach our children to be aware of why we do.

Intermittent Differences, Enduring Similarities

I’ve seen a few comments expressing sadness about our divisions and foretelling the end of our great nation. I am not so sure, and here is why: Fake news may cause those on the polar extremes to outsource the determination of what is real to their polarized leaders, but for those of us in the middle, it should make us more independent minded and better fact checkers. Social Media may short circuit to personal attacks for those whose extreme views cannot tolerate questioning, but for those of us in the middle, it should improve our debating skills and help us to maintain our perspective on our intermittent differences and enduring similarities. Volatile issues might seem to further divide us, but such issues also divide the divided, and, like water molecules, we become more fluid. There are times when I wholeheartedly agree with and assessment from one friend that a different friend would find the patently offensive, and vice versa. In short, throughout all of these polar extremes, the middle gains momentum. We have less strife than we did during the Civil War, or the Civil Rights Movement, or the Vietnam War. We are just flexing the margins and improving ourselves to move forward with a more unified understanding of each other and the world. We should not feel grateful for this particular process, because there are better ways to achieve the same objective. We should not feel fearful either, because it is the same objective after all.