Profile of a patriot

I’ve got to tell you about my friend Dan, an extraordinary human being. To begin with, he smells bad. He can’t recall the last time he bathed. His clothes are old and frayed. They get washed about as often as he bathes. He has a scraggly beard, and his hair is never combed. And last month he was fired. His boss told him he’d become unproductive. Maybe so, but more likely he was just too unpleasant to be around.

Dan wasn’t always unhygienic. In fact, as recently as last fall, anyone would have said he was a well-groomed, attractive person. What happened, you ask. A divorce? A death in the family? News of a terminal illness? No, none of these. Incredibly, it was the trauma of realizing that another Trump-Biden election was inevitable and destined to be a tossup.

I had to get my head around this. I’d known Dan for almost 20 years and was very fond of him. His breakdown was shocking. I was concerned, of course, and mystified. Dan was always full of surprising insights. Perhaps he saw something about the fate of the nation that I’d like to see too.

I decided to invite him over for lunch. When I met him at the door, I was momentarily stunned by his appearance. We embraced, and I led him inside. I took his arm …

Dan, I’m very worried about you. You’re a dear friend, and you’re in a slump I don’t understand. It scares me. If you don’t mind, I’d like to talk about it. I’m not presuming to be your therapist, but there is value in talking, probably for both of us. I think you’ve been struck by a vision of something acutely painful. I hope you’ll share it with me.

Ken … thank you … so much! When you came by last January and I sent you away, I felt miserable. I wasn’t talking to anyone then. I wasn’t sure I could ever turn my depression into words, and I wondered whether you’d ever talk to me again. I think now you may be a way out of this hell. I’m ready to talk.

I’m so glad! Please tell me about your depression.

I’m in mourning, Ken. Last fall, I realized our country was dying with no hope of recovery.

Why would you think that?

It’s a long story of evolution gone awry. When America was founded in the 18th century, it was a historical novelty. There was nothing like it before. Oh, there were the Greeks with their direct democracy and the Romans with their democratic republic, but our democratic republic was an invention, penned by a few men and refined by a convention. Unprecedented! It provided for free speech and a free press, a separation of powers, and mechanisms for amendment.

And the rules for populating the branches of government with representatives and judges, as well as rules for removing them from power.

Yes. It looked like the American Constitution had all that was needed to cope with changing times and a growing nation. As our country lurched forward, it faced a near-fatal question — whether an individual’s freedom extended so far as to permit the ownership of slaves. We fought a civil war, amended the Constitution, and rolled on. The lesson in this episode was that the boundaries of freedom were a disputatious matter that could incite civil disorder, if not war.

I think I see where you’re going with this. There are contentious issues about freedom’s boundaries that we have today. Abortion and gun control, for example.

True, and there’s also the matter of paramilitary groups. Should people have the right to associate in such groups?

I’d say no. They now seem ready to act at a conservative president’s behest.

Good point, and this raises the question of the boundaries of presidential power. For example, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the president, under special conditions, to deploy military force without a Congressional declaration of war. But presidents have dodged these conditions more than once and faced no consequences.

Former President Trump brushed aside a presidential boundary in the last year of his term. He ignored the requirement that the Senate confirm his cabinet nominations by simply saying that his cabinet choices were “acting” officials who therefore needed no confirmation.

He has already promised to go on a firing rampage with civil service employees as his target. Anyone he suspects of not working in his interest will get the boot. These employees have a few legal protections, but they’ll be of little help; the Justice Department will be headed by an “acting” Attorney General.

Then there’s the matter of executive orders. These are presidential fiats that don’t require the approval of Congress. The rationale is that the president is the head of the executive branch, and the Constitution says presidents must ensure that laws are “faithfully executed.” But who is to say an executive order lacks a credible connection to the faithful execution of a law? Only the Supreme Court can do this. If Trump is president, will our irresponsible Supreme Court countermand his executive orders?

That’s a horrible thought, Dan. I can understand why you talk about America’s demise, but it’s certainly not inevitable. It could well be that Biden wins in November.

Sure, Biden might win, which is far better than embarking on a dictatorship. But here’s the bad news: it doesn’t actually matter. America is still doomed. It’s doomed because it’s ungovernable.

Inevitably, political parties arose early in our history. They were foreshadowed as far back as the Continental Congresses. Over the decades, the prevailing parties went through metamorphoses beyond anyone’s control. The allure of human exploitation shaped them, as did our fortunate geography, the possibility of westward expansion, our vast stretches of arable land, the abundance of natural resources, the energy of foreigners who escaped poverty and religious oppression, and a swelling national pride that often expressed itself as jingoism. Most telling, in the 1980s, a fever of greed swept over our politics.

Today, we have two very partisan parties. I’ll call them the Blues and the Reds. They oppose each other on practically every governmental, economic, and social issue that concerns the public. The Blues are preoccupied with the welfare of the entire population, but they avoid confrontation with our ruling oligarchy. The Reds embrace our oligarchy and use the term “socialism” as a bogeyman to frighten voters away from efforts to transfer wealth for the public good. The Blues are horrified by the saturation of firearms in the population and the bloody consequences of unregulated ownership. The Reds see gun ownership as an American birthright and want no regulation, despite the mass shootings in schools, churches, and other public places. The Blues want government to have no role in fundamental private matters, like the decision to have an abortion or to marry someone of the same sex. The Reds want government to intervene if a personal decision is opposed by a Biblical dictate. In fact, the Reds want America to formally become a Christian nation. One more difference, the most important one. The Blues believe a government of laws is a defining attribute of America. The Reds believe a tyranny is palatable if not preferable.

I’ll give you this, Dan. I can’t imagine a credible chain of events that leads to a reconciliation.

Some people think that someday enough Reds will join the Blues to push through several desperately needed Constitutional Amendments, like one discontinuing the Electoral College or giving more Senate seats to populous states or outlawing gerrymandering or regulating firearms.

Well, I know why the first three will never happen. Many states are sparsely populated Red states. There’s no way in hell they’ll say yes to an amendment that would diminish their political power.

Exactly. As for firearms regulation, most Reds believe it’s synonymous with firearms confiscation. And that would lead to a tyrannical government. They fear a tyrannical government! What irony!

We’ve always had a so-called “lunatic fringe” in our country, people who are neurotically superstitious, pathetically uninformed, or bereft of critical thinking. Every country has them. They’re usually fewer than 10% of the voting population. In the 2020 presidential election, Biden got 81.3 million votes, and Trump got 74.2 million. Imagine, 74.2 million after he cozied up to Putin, horribly mismanaged the pandemic, and tried to extort political support from Ukraine! That’s a shocking indictment of his supporters, but nothing compared to their current lunacy. They’ve watched him spread malignant lies about the election; start an insurrection to stop the count of electoral votes; label the jailed insurrectionists “hostages”; receive 88 felony indictments; hawk trading cards, sneakers, and Bibles to pay for legal fees; pose as a Christ figure, battling a corrupt power structure; and beleaguer the entire legal system with petitions for trial delays. You’d think that at least half of his 74.2 million supporters would have deserted him in the ensuing years, but no. He’s tied with Biden in the polls! It shows that the lunatic fringe in our country is massive and durable. One day, Trump will disappear from the national stage, but the insane political bloc he created will still be around to stymie our social progress and world leadership. America will sputter like an old jalopy. We’ll be helpless in the face of the stresses the AI revolution will bring.

What shows me the steadfastness of Trump’s supporters is their reaction to his claim of absolute presidential immunity. He’s confessing, “Yes, I’m guilty. I’m guilty of everything. But … haha … I have immunity from prosecution!” And that’s good enough for them.

Remember when he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and be absolved by his followers? He had sized them up perfectly. He couldn’t help but gloat about it.

That sickens me, Dan…. Yes, I see now why your pessimism is so deep. I see why America will probably be a hospital case for a very long time. But some day, well after you and I are gone, might there not be a gradual reconciliation and reawakening of America’s founding principles?

Of course, Ken. But the people of that time would be fooling themselves if they thought the original America had revived. It would be like Charlemagne believing he had reestablished the Roman Empire in Europe. There can’t be a once and future America. The original America, that bold, brilliant experiment, has evolved into a schizophrenic beast without a future. And that’s sad, Ken. Terribly, terribly sad.

Social planning

No nation operates without social planning. Why? Because there are powerful people in every nation, and their first priority is to retain power — or better yet, enhance it. They succeed by doing social planning. Sometimes these powerful people are autocrats. They plan to make citizens more tractable, control speech and the news media, make scapegoats of minorities, and enrich themselves by force and fraud.¹

Sometimes powerful people are democratically elected to public office. They presumably plan to improve the comfort, health, and life choices of the citizens they represent. In return, the citizens keep returning them to power.²

Sometimes powerful people take advantage of a frail democracy and see profit in transitioning to an autocracy. They form a “hybrid” government, one that has the ornaments of democracy — a legislature, judiciary, and active media — while planning to undermine it and retain political power indefinitely.³

I’ll focus on established democracies. They are the only societies in which social planning can be both well executed and admirably motivated. No person who is sane, reasonably informed, and able to travel would wish to live elsewhere. However, notice my qualification earlier: “they presumably plan….” As you will see, their plans can be deceptive.

A democracy fails if its governing bodies fall under the control of a rival power center. For example, the military might stage a coup and bring an autocrat to power. Fortunately, most democracies have developed a tradition of military subservience to civilian authority, and the threat to them is quite remote.

Failure is more likely to come from a more insidious power center, the superrich. They are insatiable; they dream of limitless wealth, regardless of the cost to their fellow citizens. If they aren’t constrained by the law, they will bend it until democratic society frays and breaks.⁴

Of course, the wealth of a nation is not limitless. To get a super-sized share of it, the superrich aim their budgetary plans at an economic sweet spot, a place where ordinary citizens struggle to keep hunger and illness at bay with just enough left to consume the products, services, and distractions the wealthy offer. It’s a difficult target to hit. Trying is risky, but the rewards are enormous.

When the superrich make budgets that aim too low, they can usually insulate themselves from public unrest, even though they cast no votes, make no executive orders, and hand down no verdicts. They are an oligarchy, a shadow government. They send lobbyists to the seats of power. They contribute billions to reelection committees. They offer the use of their jets, yachts, and vacation properties to legislators and judges. They own media outlets that distort facts and give legs to lies. They create propaganda that reinforces economic mythology. For instance, the idea of a “free market” is a fiction. Governments routinely subsidize businesses and rescue them from failure. Socialism is not a national poison and, in fact, big business depends on it for its viability. And the founders of business empires are not “captains of industry,” public benefactors who deserve wealth and adulation. Many of them are indeed people of vision, but none could have actualized their visions without laborers, investors, a receptive society, and a good deal of luck.⁵

More than anything, the superrich are looking for a magic bullet. They ask, “How can we get the needy to feel good about their lives when, by any objective measure, they should feel miserable?” If the superrich could find the answer, they could lay claim to the sweetest of sweet spots. It would amount to no less than a license to steal. Amazingly, they’re making headway. They use a trick known as deflection.

Deflection means selling people a pathway to happiness without improving their standard of living. It’s done at their workplaces. It begins with counseling that acknowledges grievances — low pay, a dead-end job, disrespectful treatment, harassment by superiors. It offers skills training and promises a future of equitable treatment, personal growth, accomplishment, inclusion, and respect. The promises are supposedly kept through a series of team building sessions, an interminable kind of group therapy. Yes, it’s a deception, but sometimes deceptions work.⁶

I marvel that the superrich have convinced anyone that adding 1,000 dollars or euros or yuans to a mountain of billions is morally more justifiable than putting it in the pockets of people who struggle for a living. How damnable it is to even put that argument. How damnable it is to believe it! I’d go so far as to say that the appalling number of twisted governments in the world owe their existence to this moral blindness.

________________________

¹There are 195 countries in the world. Each year, the Economist Democracy Index labels the type of political regime in 167 of them. (It classifies 28 countries as “microstates” and omits them from its surveys.) 59 of the 167 are labeled as autocratic.

²74 of the world’s countries are democracies. Of these, 24 are “full democracies” and 50 are “flawed democracies.” See the Economist Democracy Index for definitions of these terms.

³34 of the world’s countries are hybrid governments. That means 93 governments are either autocracies or moving toward autocracy. The total will be 94 if Donald Trump is elected this fall.

⁴236 billionaires have signed with The Giving Pledge, promising to give at least half their wealth to charity. Do I think better of them for making this pledge? No, they aren’t trustworthy. Many of them will not keep the pledge, and surely only a fraction will keep it while alive. Only consider that half of, say, 50 billion is 25 billion. Half an obscene sum is still an obscene sum. What’s needed is a yearly wealth tax that’s more than a token amount.

⁵Perhaps the worst consequence of oligarchic propaganda is that its veneer of bullshit hides a country’s real story from its citizens. Thus the need for reform and the oligarchy itself are seldom acknowledged.

⁶I almost laughed as I wrote this sentence. In America, deceptions work quite well. People will actually line up to buy bibles with Satan’s signature.

Whither consciousness?

We’ve been able to manipulate our consciousness since the beginning of human existence. It’s always been easy and natural. I’d argue that eating and drinking changes the state of our consciousness. So do having sex, fatiguing ourselves, and eliminating bodily waste. In doing these, our consciousness goes through a cycle of tension and relief.¹ Anxiety, fear, and pain also change the state of our consciousness, but in ways that can permanently affect our perception of the world and hence our behavior. Unfortunately, that behavior often includes consuming alcohol, narcotics, and other drugs that again change our consciousness, at times with disastrous consequences.

In the modern world, bodily functions and negative stimuli still push our consciousness into different states, but they reveal next to nothing about the future of consciousness. It’s technology that most often drives changes in how we see ourselves and the world around us. It’s technology that tells us where consciousness is going. We see the truth of this observation when we consider the consequences of the Industrial Revolution and a succession of innovations — electrification, telephones, automobiles, flight, radio, television, online computing, life-extending medicine, and life-extinguishing weaponry. Each of these innovations forced an adaptation that created a novel consciousness. It’s certain that the intertwining of technology and consciousness will continue and be amplified until we reach human extinction.

Artificial intelligence is the technology destined to have the greatest impact on our consciousness. We already see its power. Last April, Chicago held a runoff election to determine its next mayor. The Democratic candidate was favored but narrowly lost. Some days before, an audio tape was circulated on which a voice, presumably the candidate’s, could be heard condoning police violence. The voice was a deepfake created by AI. Undoubtedly, a significant number of Democratic voters were disaffected. And earlier this year, sexually explicit deepfakes of Taylor Swift were posted on X (Twitter). For a short time, millions of her fans and detractors were manipulated by a lie. The science of disinformation is still in its infancy. When it matures, we’ll need a countervailing science to give truth a foothold in our lives.

Three years ago, I wrote about how AI, coupled with robotics, would cause so many displacements in the world’s labor force that all the political and economic models in use today would crash. What I want to emphasize in this post is the impact these displacements will have on our consciousness. Most of us will do little or no work. Labor has always been the chief yardstick for measuring self-worth, but no more. Our lives will be supported by the productivity of AI robots that plant, grow, reap, manufacture, package, deliver, cook, serve, clean, teach, advise, design, engineer, build, install, maintain, repair, diagnose, treat, and entertain. The search for meaning and self-respect will be more urgent than at any time in history. What will we do to escape a state of consciousness fraught with tedium and self-loathing?

It wouldn’t be surprising if religion and mysticism had a new awakening, but I think it’s equally likely that a fraction of humanity declares their desire to forge a new civilization alongside AI robots. This minority will demand to be genetically retooled to become the sensory and cognitive equals of the robots. For good measure, they’ll ask surgeons to implant neural chips to boost cognition further.² It would make sense for the chips to empower people to communicate with their AI “colleagues” telepathically. In this brave new world, human consciousness would only distantly resemble what it is today. In fact, we probably could no longer call it “human” consciousness.³

________________________

¹I expect some disagreement on my claim that these are states of consciousness. But how else should we regard a stress or tension that rises to the level of awareness and occupies our minds until relief comes? Yes, I also think that sitting in a dentist’s chair and getting a tooth drilled is a state of consciousness.

²Neuralink, a company run by Elon Musk, implanted a BCI (brain-computer interface) into a person’s brain last January. It’s fully within the brain, not on the skull, and wireless. These features reduce the risk of infection and make the implant practical for real-world use.

³My friend Gary pointed out that the advent of telepathy would create a “hive mind,” giving the enhanced humans and AI robots a collective intelligence. He thought of the Borg, the oppressive collective portrayed in Star Trek: The Next Generation. If this state of consciousness is a consequence of telepathy, it would be essential to turn it off at times. Otherwise, the pronoun “I” would disappear and with it any possibility of privacy.

The “end times”

Take my hand, friend, as we steer our ship between Scylla and Charybdis, hoping to navigate the Sea of 2024. If your mind works anything like mine, one question more than any other is tormenting it: How the hell did we get into this godawful mess? I am no Christian, but if I were, I could make a pretty good case that we have entered the “end times.” These are the prophesied times that call forth the end of the world, and with it, Judgment Day. I’ll tell you what … Even though I am godless, I think I can convince you that the end times are indeed upon us, and you can tell me whether you tremble as I do.

Early America was the destination of choice for Christian emigrants. The idea of the end times was one of their most closely held beliefs. It would be no exaggeration to say there was a paradoxical element of enthusiasm in this belief. No one wants to die in waves of chaos and destruction, but an eternal afterlife in the bosom of Jesus was, and remains, their most cherished wish. Today, 39% of American adults believe the end times are coming.^{1, 2}

After World War 2, much of the world had reason to believe it had seen a preview of the end times. Two horrific wars, a flu pandemic, a worldwide depression, the advent of nuclear weapons, and a nuclear confrontation in Cuba were pretty good evidence that humanity was close to a messy exit. But even though Bob Dylan sang, “a hard rain’s a-gonna fall,” it didn’t. At least, not right away. Instead, humanity diligently sought ways to make the end times more likely: nuclear proliferation, an Asian war against the spread of Communism, religious terrorism, a war against religious terrorism, drone warfare, the continuous modernization of weapon systems, experimentation with a plague virus³, and a proxy war between the nations with nuclear arsenals.

To further darken the future, class warfare in America and a self-absorbed youth culture threatened to make the country ungovernable.

Class warfare

During the Truman administration, a coalition in corporate America and Wall Street came together. Its aim was to create, for the third time in American history, a ruling oligarchy⁴. Its first targets were unions, whose power was growing immensely, and with it the size and prosperity of the middle class. The dream that each generation could live more comfortably than the earlier ones had become “The American Dream.” But in 1947 the Taft-Hartley Act was enacted, marking the start of three decades of restrictive legislation and political harassment against unions. Their ability to deliver worker benefits alongside rising corporate profits gradually evaporated. In their glory days, 1 in 3 American private sector workers belonged to a union. Today the number is 1 in 16.

By the time the Reagan administration arrived, wealthy American executives, under the guise of practicing vigorous capitalism, had devised a number of strategies to plunder the livelihoods of middle class and poor Americans. Big corporations began to globalize by building facilities in Mexico and Asia, where labor was cheap. Millions of Americans lost their jobs. Corporate raiders devised buyout schemes to take over healthy businesses, fire most of the work force, divide the businesses into units, and sell off the units at a substantial profit. The entire ethos of Big Business changed. Its focus turned to operating as leanly as possible to maximize profits. Executives who wielded the axe with the most zeal were glorified in the media ⁵. All this occurred during an era of deregulation. Government oversight waned, corruption grew.

The American middle class, which hadn’t worried about job security since the Depression, now looked to the future with deep concern. In 2000, the dotcom bubble burst, and a recession ensued. George W responded with a tax cut that chiefly benefited the wealthy. During his administration, financial corruption became so widespread that it could no longer be concealed. Mortgage lenders were recklessly stimulating the residential housing market by approving loans to borrowers with poor credit. They then bundled mortgages and sold them as a package — a derivative investment product — to other financial institutions. Many of the mortgagors defaulted simply because they lacked the money to carry their mortgages. Even more defaulted because they held adjustable rate mortgages whose rates increased. And, of course, the derivatives collapsed in value. The homeless population increased by 20,000 people. Unemployment went to 10.6%. 1.8 million small businesses went bankrupt.

This catastrophe was named the Great Recession. To deal with it, Congress appropriated $700 billion in taxpayer funds to buy toxic assets from failing banks. None of the corrupt executives went to jail. The public endured a trauma whose scars are still with us. The worst of these was a deep distrust of the Federal government. It had neglected its oversight obligations, bailed out all the large financial institutions, and failed to punish criminal behavior. It was clear to American workers that they couldn’t rely on the protection of their own government. The depth of the distrust was on display in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump and remained vigorous throughout the Covid pandemic. Today, that distrust is entrenched, and a large part of the American electorate is entertaining the idea of abandoning its country’s Constitutional foundation in favor of fascism.

A self-absorbed youth culture

Compulsory education can have bad as well as good consequences. Even as it informs children and builds vital skills, it necessarily segregates them from adults (teachers excepted). Inevitably, their close association creates a distinct culture, one that reflects the desires, dreads, and worldviews of developing minds.

The most representative segment of our youth culture is Gen Z⁶, which will soon become the most populous generation of all, surpassing the Millennials⁷. It has qualities that distinguish it from earlier generations and give us an insight into the future. For example, its members are more sensitive to racial and ethnic injustice. They are aware of and alarmed by the changing climate. They strongly favor social diversity. They are more attentive to their health and fitness. They are more likely to exercise, eat healthy meals, and stay hydrated.

They also demand and pay for more entertainment than any other generation. Most have seen more than 25 live concerts in their brief lives. They show their enthusiasm for the performers and their music by standing throughout the performance. A full view of the stage is rare, yet tickets go for an average of $250.

They spend 23% of their free time on social media and 17% on games. Mobile phones are the most popular way to interact with the world.

What I find most worrisome about Gen Z is their grasp of history. They don’t have one. I get the impression that Gen Zers believe time began when they were born. The “Black Lives Matter” movement occurred during their lifetimes, as did awareness of climate change, the Covid pandemic, and Israel-Hamas hostilities. These are real, worrying events. All the rest of history is a timeless jumble that has lost its connection with the present. They don’t know whether “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” is true because there is no arc to see. Democracy has no roots or philosophical underpinning because nothing has roots or a philosophical underpinning. If I’m right about this, then where is the hand that will steer our ship through the perilous waters ahead?

________________________

¹A finding of the Pew Research Center in 2022.

²39% also happens to be roughly the number of Americans who are diehard Trump supporters. Must be a coincidence.

³American investigators disagree over whether the Wuhan Institute of Virology released the Covid virus, but they have no doubt that the laboratory was experimenting with it.

⁴America’s first oligarchy was America’s founders and their families. They dominated national affairs until the Jackson administration. The second was the tycoons who ran the nation during the Gilded Age (Reconstruction until the Theodore Roosevelt administration).

⁵From 1978 to 2022, the best-paid CEOs saw their compensation grow by 1,209.2% while a typical worker’s income went up by only 15.3%.

⁶Generation Z, born in the years 1997 to 2012.

⁷Born in the years 1981 to 1996.

Shades of immorality

     

I regard both Donald Trump and Joe Biden as immoral men. As such, I visualize them in shades of green, the color I associate with corruption. Trump’s immorality is of necessity a dark, saturated green because of its depth, intensity, and variety. The color represents needless death (from Covid), sexual intimidation (pussy grabbing) , monstrous lies (election theft), incessant threats (do X for me or suffer), xenophobia (immigrants are poisoning American blood) , and a host of narcissistic cruelties. It’s the color of moral depravity.

    

Biden’s immorality is a lighter, brighter, and much less saturated green. It has nothing to do with bogus charges made by impeachment-crazed Republicans. Rather, it’s an evil that exists side by side with virtue, and in fact, often passes for a virtue. I’ll examine it presently, but first it’s necessary to introduce the idea of the duality of virtue and evil. Take, for example, the presumed evil of “just following orders,” a rationale for the heinous acts committed by Hitler’s lieutenants. We might call it “loyalty” or “teamwork” instead. These are noble qualities until, to our horror, they go disastrously wrong. That can happen when they’re deployed in the context of a superseding evil.

In Biden’s case, the moral duality is “serving my constituents,” which is presumably what every politician does. It’s laudable, is it not? — the very engine of participatory democracy at work. Fine, but what of the Nietzschean concept of the will to power, the basic need of the psyche to control one’s life and the environment that encloses it. Which side of this duality is driving Biden’s reelection bid?¹ Let’s examine the facts as they currently present themselves.

All the respectable polls show Biden in trouble in these so-called “swing states”: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. He won all of them in 2020. He is now behind in all of them, and in Michigan and Georgia, substantially behind. Worse, he’s demographically lagging in his popularity among Blacks, Latinos, and young voters. He’s judged to be too supportive of Israel. He’s unaccountably found worrisome on national security and economic policy. Visually, he comes across as doddering and confused.

The optics may be unjustifiable, but they are facts nevertheless. Biden knows this. His private pollsters and trusted advisors know this. It would be no great matter if a Republican of yesteryear, say, Mitt Romney, were to win the election. The Union would survive. The Great Democratic Experiment would persist. But we can’t say the same with Trump as president. The ways in which he’d doom America (and with it the West?) have been laid out in detail.²

The 2024 Presidential Election poses an existential risk just as frightful as the Civil War. Biden has the power to make that risk evaporate. All he has to do is drop out of the race and give the younger and more vigorous a chance. So far, he’s given no sign whatsoever that he understands the risk. I therefore conclude that he is not running as a public servant. On the contrary, his candidacy is a public menace! He is driven only by his will to power.

As 2024 opens, we enter a dark cave. Time dilates and and the ties that bind events become more tenuous. How long will the Washington D.C. Appeals Court take to decide on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity? How long will the Supreme Court take to hear a subsequent appeal? Will the case against Trump for alleged 2020 election crimes ever be heard and, if so, when? Will a delay cause his other felony trials to cascade down the calendar and overlap the Republican Nominating Convention? Will any verdict be rendered before election day, and if so, what effect will a conviction have on voter perceptions? Will the courts actually allow a convicted criminal to take office? Now consider that these convoluted matters exist on a separate legal track from the one that asks whether the 14th Amendment bars Trump’s name from appearing on a presidential ballot!

Of course, all the presidential primary elections will occur concurrently with the court fiascos. Because of a peevish grudge, Biden isn’t on the New Hampshire primary ballot, so he won’t be tested until South Carolina’s Democratic Primary on February 3. This is the same primary that launched a string of primary successes in 2020 and led to his nomination. No doubt he’ll win again, but that’s not where the media will be focused. They’ll be interested only in turnout, as a measure of voter enthusiasm. And the turnout will be dismal.

Biden’s reelection team will then assess. They may declare, “My God, the polls were right all along!” But probably not. More likely they’ll shrug and say, “He was practically unopposed. You were really surprised?” And so a door will close. The Democratic brass will write off the balance of the primary season, and Biden will deliver the fate of the Republic into the hands of the courts and the morally blind electorate.

________________________

¹The idea of moral dualities fascinates me. How many might we identify, and what transient social factors cause one side of a duality to predominate? I couldn’t avoid drawing an analogy to the concept of superposition in quantum physics, the idea that a system is simultaneously in all possible states until it is measured. Perhaps a society is in moral flux until a discrete event sets its moral direction.

²Get hold of the January/February 2024 issue of The Atlantic and read the lead article, “If Trump Wins.” Whatever level of shock you expect, it will be exceeded.

Context, context, context

I encourage you to put this question to your friends, relatives, and acquaintances: Are there any words that one should never speak or write? My answer is no, there are no such words. There is always a context in which even the most shunned words are unobjectionable. I expect most of those you ask will agree, assuming you don’t confine your survey to a Southern Baptist convention. However, you’ll find the yea-sayers will constitute a respectable minority. I’ve done some web hopping and discovered a few sites that are unequivocally opposed to taboo speech and a slew that are dedicated to helping cursers overcome their irreverent habit.

The anti-cursing sites usually don’t offer reasons for their absolutist line, but when they do, the reasons are generally shallow or simply silly. For example, “real men don’t cuss.” Real manhood apparently is a state of piety, character, and virtue that disappears at the utterance of curse words. I learned that George Washington, the American apotheosis of virtue, despaired that foul talk among his men would deprive them of “the Blessings of Heaven on our Arms.” I read that “foul language drags us down” — to the gutter, probably — “and undermines mutual respect, as when a college professor curses in front of the class.”

This last example shows how oblivious anti-cursers are to context. Suppose we assume most of the students are in their late teens or twenties. Reasonable, I think. The studies I’ve seen say young people are more comfortable about hearing and using curse words than any other age group, so long as the words aren’t used excessively. Perhaps a teacher at a night school for older adults is what anti-cursers have in mind.

Let’s go further and suppose that the class is about the etymology of taboo words. In this case, the words are like specimens pinned to a board. They’re studied in the objective context of historical linguistics. In this frame, who could object to speaking the words fuck or nigger? Or are we to forgo such studies and resign ourselves to ignorance?

We don’t even have to resort to an academic context to remove the stain from fuck and nigger. If our context is dramatic verisimilitude, our use of these and other taboo words is blameless — and, what’s more, necessary. Think of the movies The Wolf of Wall Street, Goodfellas, and The Big Lebowski, all considered classics, and imagine that fuck was struck from the scripts of all three. That would amount to 569 deletions, 300 deletions, and 281 deletions, respectively. Would the movies be more credible for it? Of course not. The realism of the characters and dramatic ambience would be destroyed.

The same is true of the novels The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, and their use of nigger. In Huck Finn, Pap rants about a free nigger in Ohio who has the right to vote. He vows he’ll never vote again if there’s a nigger anywhere who’s permitted to vote. In Mockingbird, Scout’s father, Atticus, is disparaged as a nigger-lover because he commits himself to defend a black man accused of raping a white woman. By choosing nigger, Mark Twain and Harper Lee show us an America where it was common for Whites to regard Blacks as subhuman, but not as a dog or a cat is subhuman. A nigger was more like a draft horse, to be whipped and abused if its work is poorly done. So naturally, Pap won’t vote if a draft horse can. Why participate in a farce? And why would Atticus go out of his way to save a draft horse accused of bestiality? Atticus must also be depraved.

What about people who aren’t creating credible drama or literature, or teaching about taboo words? That is, what about the rest of us? What’s our justification for cursing? The answer, again, is contextual. If the context is a confrontation, calling the other guy a fucking moron is a poor justification. One or both of you will regret it. But suppose you stub your toe, spill coffee on yourself, or get a bill for something you already paid for? These are examples of the maddening mishaps of everyday life, and in such instances, I say that cursing is not only justified but called for.

There’s actually a word for cursing at moments of stress or frustration — lalochezia. It’s from the Greek lalia (speech) and chezo (to get relief). Studies have found that relief by cursing improves endurance. Try cursing when you work out at the gym, and you’ll do more reps than ever before. Or try putting a bare arm into a bucket of ice water. Letting fly with a long string of curses will raise your heart rate and help you bear the pain. One study actually found that cursing can make you a safer driver! If someone cuts you off on the highway, a healthy string of lalochezia will moderate your frustration. Better that than following the bastard to his destination with mayhem on your mind.

Even cursing on the job has its rewards. It helps you bond with your coworkers, and can lighten the day if you’re a longshoreman, baggage handler, or construction worker. Just don’t curse in front of your boss, unless they curse first.

If you’re still squeamish about cursing in front of others, you need to find curse substitutes. No one is capable of avoiding both. (If there are such people, may I never meet them.) The problem with most substitutes, is that they’re humiliating. I watched one video where the host’s substitute for shit was sugar shack! What a pussy! And who could bear to say fiddlesticks or fudge? What’s worse, what do you do about the adjective fucking, as in, “She’s just a fucking cunt.” I suppose you could say, “She’s just a fudgy vagina,” but I don’t recommend it.

A solution to the substitutes dilemma is to borrow substitutes from British English or from foreign languages.” It can be a treat to say “Merde!” or “Scheisse!” or, better, “Scheissdreck!“¹ Also good are, “Bugger off!” or “Sod off, you bloody bugger!” And that’s just the top of a long list. It’s worth the effort to do a little research.

My favorite source of substitutes is Yiddish. It offers a smorgasbord of phonically lovely choices. Suppose you want to call someone a dick or a prick. You have shmuck, putz, or shlong at your disposal. Shmuck also means a detestable person. Putz also means a fool. Shlong also means a snake. Pick whichever has the ring and connotations you favor.

Or maybe you want to label someone as a fuck up. Your choices are legion. Try shlemiel if your target is an inept or incompetent person. Sadly, the condition is a life sentence. This is also the case if your’e a shlimazel. You’re as pitiful as a shlemiel, but you’re the victim of the shlemiels of the world; their mess-ups become your misfortunes. Then there’s the shnook, a person who’s easily fooled, a dupe. He’s the person who donates $10,000 to a charity scam. Last, there’s the shmendrik. Like the shnook, he’s a fool, but with a twist. He devises schemes to succeed in life based on absurd premises and inevitably faces disaster.² I’ve known many schmendriks and was once perilously close to becoming one.³

The virtue of substitutes is that they add variety to your vocabulary and save you from the fate of overcursing. Overcursers don’t care about context. They’ll force curse words into any context because of the force such words inject into their speech. They thereby project more power and sucker others into adopting the habit. Overcursers and their mimics are themselves a curse.

But please don’t conclude that it’s best to always use substitutes, if only as a guard against overcursing. To do that is to live without enjoying one of life’s greatest visceral pleasures. For example, you’ll never be able to experience the rapture of bellowing, “Trump is just a motherfucking criminal!”

________________________

¹If you’re willing to watch this brief German lesson, you’ll triple your knowledge of German substitutes.

²These Yiddish words are also dear to me: gonif, khazer, mashugana, momzer, nudnik, oysshteler, pisher, shlump, shmegegge, shnorrer (certainly not Captain Spaulding!), and vantz.

³Those were the days when I thought I could make a fortune by betting on the ponies.

Nothing is adequate

I’m not the kind who pops out of bed in the morning, showers, dresses, eats breakfast, and heads off to work. No, that’s for working stiffs. My wife wakes me at noon. I sit up, put the pillow behind my back, turn on my iPhone, and rejoin the world. This means reading stories on the New York Times and CNN sites — but nothing about Taylor Swift, sports, or grisly murders — and checking the financial markets. Next, I open Facebook. It’s required if you want to hear the voice of the people straight from the horse’s mouth.

I think I have a pretty typical “newsfeed.” It’s full of postings from people who want to fill me up with their wisdom and set me on a better path. Most of their thoughts and quotes fizzle out in my brain before they’re properly registered. Some stick, especially if they are literate and brief, like this quote from a book of John Steinbeck’s World War II dispatches: All war is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal. Meaning that we’re doomed to re-enact the horrors of “Guernica” interminably.

Who can argue with Steinbeck, I thought, and I scrolled on. Five seconds later, I caught my error — some people will quarrel with anything. So I went back to look at the comments and search for oddball thinking. Most people wrote things like “well said” and “sad but true.” A few people took issue with “animal,” noting that man was a creature apart from and above mere animals. I guess they’d prefer to say that man, an image of God, is a failure.

Others found war to be necessary and excusable because “there is evil in the world.” I agree, there is. Not evil as in “contrary to the word of God,” but evil as in “causing harm and suffering.” Naturally, this definition raises the question, are people who cause harm and suffering by repelling an aggressor also evil? I say no, but only if their intentions are to end brutality, eliminate its causes, and demand reasonable restitution. But if they resort to vengeance, they too are evil. Those who fight back rarely consider this distinction. Vengeance carries the day, hatred is reinforced, and the savage cycle goes on. It’s a cycle immune to inductive reasoning — a failure in thinking, as Steinbeck says.

If there is a God, he’s played a dirty trick on us. He’s given us an intellect too weak to see an alternative to war, yet trusting him is in itself inadequate to bring peace. In fact, by trapping us in an unbreakable cycle of misery, God has created hell on earth. If God exists, he is certainly evil.¹

People have rightly turned away from God as a guarantor of peace. For millennia they put their faith in strong men for protection. But history demonstrates that strong men are by no means adequate to keep a peace. They may do so for a while, but in time their power or the power of their successors brings corruption, exploitation, and oppression — and all of these are evil.

Eventually, a clever idea came along that offered some hope. What if governments were controlled not by autocrats but by laws? The laws could call for divided rule to prevent a concentration of power and the likelihood of tyranny. What’s more, at intervals the citizens could elect new people to exercise power. That would stop any like-minded group from holding the reins of power indefinitely. Of course, the citizenry would have to be apprised of the daily actions of the powerful. So to make the concept complete, the laws would have to guarantee freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.

This kind of government is the basis of a democracy. It has characteristics that could greatly limit the frequency of war. Ordinary citizens, those most devastated by wars, could give peace-loving people the levers of power and remove them from the hands of warmongers. Ordinary citizens could vote to abolish drafts and use political pressure to shut a war down. But is this what democracies do in practice?

The answer would be simple if one democracy were pretty much like another, but this is far from the case. According to the Economist Group (EG), a UK company that publishes The Economist, there are two kinds of democracies in the world, full democracies (or liberal democracies)² and flawed democracies (or illiberal democracies).³ I’ll leave it to you to find the definitions by using the links in the footnotes. Suffice it to say that in flawed democracies, those in power are often negligent in protecting civil rights and ensuring a representative government.

According to the EG, the U.S. is an example of a flawed democracy. I haven’t read an explanation of this rating, but one comes readily to mind. The U.S. condones unlimited wealth and widespread poverty. It tries to pray away gun violence. It does little to supervise police forces that are plagued by racism. Many of its states have laws that discourage minorities from voting. Its House is unrepresentative because U.S. courts rarely strike down gerrymandering. Its Senate is unrepresentative because sparsely populated states and heavily populated states are, by law, entitled to the same number of senators — 2. Its president is not elected by popular vote but by electors. The number of these allotted to each state greatly disfavors the heavily populated states.

Each year, the EG measures each of 166 nations against its criteria for a full democracy. The measurements are based on the answers to 60 weighted multiple choice questions. The answers are given by experts or taken from public opinion surveys. The EG uses a formula to arrive at each measurement, called the Economist Democracy Index. A perfect score is 10, which has never been attained. In 2022, Norway was best with a 9.81. Any country that scores higher than 8 is considered a full democracy. There are 24 of these. The U.S. is ranked 30th with a 7.85.⁴

In a recent speech about the Hamas-Israel and Russia-Ukraine wars, President Biden called the U.S. “the indispensable nation.” He was making the point that in keeping the peace and defusing wars, the U.S. is an indispensable presence. Without the U.S. on the scene, he assumes the world would be continually at war, and it’s easy to agree. The U.S. has 750 overseas military bases. Its military budget is 40% of all the military spending in the world. It can deploy troops and missiles to any part of the world faster than any other world power. Never in history has there been a deterrent force this mighty.

However, it’s also easy to disagree with Biden. In the last 60 years the U.S. has instigated three wars. The first was the Vietnam War, on the pretext that the North Vietnamese would spread Communism throughout Southeast Asia. The second was the Second Persian Gulf War, on the pretext that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. The third was the Afghanistan War, on the pretext that war was the only way to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and destroy Al-Qaeda. This pretext was genuine, but after bin Laden was killed, the war went on for 10 more years of fighting against the Taliban. They were, and remain, a religiously oppressive society, but they were never a menace to the U.S.

Peace-loving people must answer two questions. Can a flawed democracy with an inclination to instigate wars be trusted to lead the world away from war? And is a full democracy with a small military budget and a limited military reach capable of leading the world away from war? To both questions I say no. I have to conclude that democracy, like religion and autocracy, is not adequate to bring peace to the world we live in.

One further qualification: Religion and autocracy are incapable of ending war under any circumstances, but democracy is hypothetically capable of ending war. Perhaps in some parallel universe a rich, mighty nation has an EG score approaching 10. The rest of the world might see it as a paragon of democracy. In that case and only in that case, an end to war is conceivable.

________________________

¹The only way to excuse God for creating a state of perpetual war is to adopt the medieval notion that life on earth has no importance and an eternity in heaven is everything.

²Look here for a full explanation of this term.

³Look here for a full explanation of this term.

⁴To see a comprehensive presentation of this information, and a good deal more, look here.

A needed sacrifice

I like Joe Biden. He’s cordial, good-humored, and genuine in his concern for the common good. He reminds me of Robert Young in the old TV show “Father Knows Best.” That was the personality of Ronald Reagan too, but his concern for the common good was a fraud. Biden is authentic.

He’s in the early stages of senility. It’s obvious. Sometimes he’s spatially disoriented. He’ll finish a speech or a handshake and not know where to turn next. Sometimes he’s syntactically disoriented. He’ll get to the end of a phrase and not know what’s on the other side of the comma. Should early senility disqualify someone from running for president? No, not if that person sees the president as the leader of a collaborative group known as an administration.

The Biden Administration has run the executive branch for almost three years. In that time, it’s done a great deal of good, from Covid control to recharging the economy to rebuilding our infrastructure to making prescription medicine more affordable. Despite the strain of a pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the U.S. has the most vigorous economy in the industrialized world, and the NATO alliance has never been more united. What’s more, the U.S. is now serious about its leadership role in the struggle to stabilize the climate. If Joe Biden is on the ballot 13 months from now, I’ll vote for him without hesitation, regardless of who opposes him.

His opponent will likely be Donald Trump, unless the courts decide the 14th Amendment disqualifies him. A Trump victory would be the death knell of American democracy. If any other MAGA candidate were elected, the result would be essentially the same. That’s how thoroughly Trump has reamed out the Republican Party. To quote Mitt Romney, “A very large portion of my party really doesn’t believe in the Constitution. “¹

But back to Trump. Unlike Biden, he collaborates on nothing. He’s an autocrat. Like Biden, he’s senile, but when he loses track of what he’s saying, he simply changes the subject. He’s a master of the malicious non sequitur. The members of his cult are, for the most part, uninformed, paranoid, and frustrated. Malice energizes them. They’re insensible to his senility because their anger blinds them to it, and to much else. So Trump fares better in a senility comparison.²

We’re roughly 13 months away from the next presidential election. The national polls say Biden and Trump are virtually tied. Let’s pause and ponder that astonishing claim. A twice-impeached, four-times-indicted scoundrel is just as appealing (or unappealing) as a man whose record of public service has scarcely a blemish?! Let’s all say “WTF!” in unison. Then let’s take a breath and acknowledge that the polls are probably accurate. They show us what we’ve become. Breathing into a paper bag won’t help.

I try to derive some consolation from recalling that Trump will be on trial for much of those 13 months, with a bright light on his autocratic ambitions. But I’m not consoled. I’ve already seen the preview of coming attractions wherein Trump becomes Christ. “I am suffering for your sake. I’ll take their punishment because I’m your shield.” We’ll see many performances of Trump the Martyr. It’s a strategy that could well give staying power to his poll numbers.

The most powerful weapon in Biden’s arsenal is the warning that Trump’s success will doom democracy in America. But does Biden really believe it? Does the hierarchy in the Democratic Party really believe it? There’s a simple way to tell. In the shadow of this doomsday prophecy, Biden and the Democratic leadership would take, and should take, any extreme measure within the law to reduce Trump’s chances of winning. They do not want to experience the morning-after horror that struck Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in November of 2016. And a morning-after horror in November of 2024 would be even more horrific!

If Chuck Schumer were reading this, he’d be chuckling. “Ken, what ‘extreme measure’ do you have in mind?” he’d ask. “He’s already walking the picket line in the UAW strike.” Well, Chuck, I’ll give you a hint. In a poll of Democratic voters taken last July by The New York Times and Siena College, only 26% said they want to see Biden on the ballot again. Will that percentage rise when the primaries are underway? All I know for sure is the sentiment of the other 74% will turn into resignation. Is that what we want — 74% of Democrats voting for Biden in resignation when the fate of the nation is at stake?

Biden should drop out. He’s on the same shameful path that Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell have been on. They’ve put his will to run into an unflattering context. It’s a “power before service” context, and the electorate rightly despises it. He should exit soon, while there’s still time to launch a spirited campaign for a younger, more energetic candidate. Think how that would light up the coming year!

________________________

¹Romney has the right idea about his party, but he misstates its apostasy. His party actually believes in much of the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, the Electoral College, and the allotment of senators. What they don’t believe in is democracy.

²It’s a national disgrace that two geezers are vying for the top office in the land while the Senate turns into an old age home. We must impose age caps on all federal offices!

Epithets

Most people defy labeling because their lives are unremarkable. Search your history books and you’ll fail to find a Melvin “The Mundane” Moskowitz or a Conny “The Cipher” Simpson. Epithets are reserved for people famous for some vice or virtue, or occasionally, for a physical oddity. As it happens, recent history has blessed us with a crop of remarkable people who deserved to be remembered with befitting epithets — and I want to be the first to propose them.

These extraordinary people are of three kinds …

Heroes

Jack “The Saint” Smith, the Special Counsel of the U.S. Justice Department who is prosecuting Donald Trump for myriad felonies, especially his efforts to subvert the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Fani “The Fumigator” Willis, the District Attorney of Fulton County, Georgia. She’s celebrated for her skills in vermin removal and her ingenious use of Georgia’s RICO¹ Act. Her work to jail Trump and his cronies perfectly complements The Saint’s.

Tanya “No Crap” Chutkan, the U.S. District Court judge who will hear the January 6 case. She’s already shown an intolerance for Trump’s habitual dilatory tactics and intimidation of judges, prosecutors, jurors, and witnesses.

Alvin “Brass Cajones” Bragg, the Manhattan DA who indicted Trump for falsifying business records to conceal adultery in the run up to the 2016 election. This concealment likely enabled Trump to win the election and begin his reign of misrule.

Nancy “Pit Bull” Pelosi, who opened Pandora’s box in her closing days as House Majority Leader. Despite the opposition of the House Minority Leader, she established the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. As a consequence, Merrick Garland finally got off his pusillanimous butt.

Weaklings

Kevin “The Pussy” McCarthy, the most woeful hypocrite in a high office in American history and a frequent volunteer for the self-mortification needed to reach that office. Because of his malfeasance, the Republican party may well be on its way to oblivion.

Mitch “Lost in Space” McConnell, a sometimes critic of Trump who carefully avoided confrontations. He orchestrated both of Trump’s disgraceful impeachment trials, yet he said this² after Trump’ second acquittal. Thanks for nothing, Mitch.

Mike “The Shlemiel” Pence, Trump’s weak-willed and weak-minded VP. Never mind that he allowed the 2020 electoral votes to be counted.³ He defended every one of Trump’s vile policies. He even shrugged off Trump’s remark that he deserved to be hanged!

Merrick “The Mouse” Garland, our Attorney General. Afraid of his own shadow, he temporized for nearly 2 years before calling on The Saint! He did so only after the January 6 Special Committee formally petitioned him to act.

Mark “Yes Man” Meadows, the doting chief of staff during the disputed 2020 election. He facilitated communications for the conspiracy. He sat in on the call that solicited 11,780 illegal votes from Georgia. His defense: “I was just following orders.”

Vermin

Donald “The Lyin’ King” Trump, who’s qualified for every circle of Dante’s hell and the only U.S. President to have dictatorial aspirations. There is no lie too monstrous for him to tell, continually and emphatically. There is no person he wouldn’t abuse nor any mask he wouldn’t wear for personal gain.²

Rudy “The Drip” Giuliani, once known as “America’s Mayor.” He has cascaded into an abyss of deceit and become the living equivalent of Dorian Gray’s picture. His efforts to sell the Big Lie are visibly corrosive.

Ron “Dishwater” DeSantis, who dreams of leading the MAGA maggots in a post-Trump America. He panders to them by censoring school books, banning abortion, and busing immigrants out of Florida. If only he weren’t dull as dishwater. Whatever the opposite of charisma is, he’s got it in abundance.

John “The Shyster” Eastman, the villain behind the plan to use The Shlemiel to block the count of electoral votes. Early on January 6, he aroused the rioters with an account of how election workers had concealed ballots marked for Biden and fed them into voting machines after the polls had closed.

Sidney “Myth Maker” Powell, an unhinged lawyer who threw herself into the battle to discredit the 2020 presidential election. With no evidence, she claimed the suppliers of voting machines had rigged the election and accused Venezuela, Cuba, and China of election interference. She threatened to reveal all and “release the Kraken.”

Ted “The Misanthrope” Cruz, a cynical Texas Senator who has opposed every enlightened social idea in the last 25 years. He’s against gun control, abortion, legalized marijuana, same-sex marriage, immigration reform, and government-run health insurance. He denies climate change, favors the death penalty, and supports Trump unconditionally, even though Trump maligned his wife and linked his father to JFK’s assassination!

________________________

¹Refuse Infected by Corrupt Offal

²Be prepared for 15-seconds of commercials in front of McConnell’s speech.

³Remember that Pence asked Dan Quayle whether a VP could block the vote count. Imagine the result if Quayle had said, “Hell yes! Go for it!”

⁴Robert Reich accurately said of Trump, “He exists as a symbol for the anger, discontent, bigotry, and vindictiveness he has unleashed in America. He is as close to America has come to a fascist leader who doesn’t want his followers to think or analyze. He wants them only to feel.”

⁵Cruz is the high priest of the Republican misanthropy that flourishes in the Senate and House. In his congregation are the likes of Rand Paul, Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, Ron Johnson, John Kennedy, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Tommy Tuberville, Devin Nunes, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, Jim Jordan, Mike Johnson, Steve Scalise, Elise Stefanik, Louie Gohmert, and Lauren Boebert.

The education filter

In my college years, I acquired a BS in linguistics, meaning I earned a Bachelor of Science degree and could bullshit about linguistics. At that time, the field of linguistics had a celebrity in its ranks named Noam Chomsky. He was the star of a linguistic faction that theorized about transformational grammar. He held that what we hear as speech is the surface structure of a language. It’s generated when a speaker applies an unconscious set of rules to the deep structure of the language. Thus the undetected form of a language is transformed into its manifest form.

Hardly anyone today knows about Chomsky the linguist. Those that recognize his name think of him only as a social and political critic, and many classify him as a communist. I don’t, simply because the label only leads to false assumptions about the man. It’s true that he’s a staunch unionist and an opponent of large accumulations of private property, but he ardently supports freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and democratic institutions.

He’s very quotable, probably because he never minces words. Here’s a quote on the subject of education that caught my eye and made me think.

I’m sympathetic to this observation, but it shows that even Chomsky, a paragon of rationality, can give in to hyperbole. The American educational establishment is indeed a filter but a blunt, blundering one, not at all “elaborate.” It’s like a layer cake whose layers come from different cakes. Congruity between layers is more often an accident than deliberate.

Furthermore, there is no “weeding out.” Administrators in our middle schools and high schools don’t have special-purpose tools for the surgical removal of students. Instead, they use repellents, the repellents being their own noxious values that guarantee an environment toxic to learning. For example, the curriculum and the textbooks that support it are far more important to administrators than the people they hire. This message soon reaches the teachers. Some are thankful that a lifeless teaching style, subject-matter weakness, blindness to student angst, and an inability to make knowledge relevant are of no particular concern to their administrators. Most of the other teachers curse the disrespect and regimentation. Whatever sense of mission they had at the outset of their careers is tested all too soon. They struggle with cynicism.

What of the students? The inadvertent lesson that most learn is that learning itself is unappealing and pretty much a waste of time. The only joy left to them is socializing. This became clear when many of them were schooled via the Internet during the Covid pandemic. The requirement to learn without socializing brought on a wave of depression. What was the point of enduring tedium when no reward was offered?

It’s nearly the same in colleges and universities. The only negative that isn’t present is subject-matter weakness, but even this is often on display at community colleges. The biggest difference is in the mindset of the students. Many are free of parental influence and, for the first time in their lives, they are accumulating large debts. This is the context in which Chomsky is dead right. Students who can think for themselves will ask whether they’re getting value for money. They will conjure visions of themselves in a job setting or a career. Often those visions are of working in “institutions” — in corporate or government jobs. Some will find these visions appealing; they see themselves accumulating wealth in as an investment banker, a partner in a law firm, or a corporate executive. But many others will have no interest in a regimented ride to a dubious payoff. They want to follow their bliss. They’re in touch with their sources of energy and delight. If they can’t find them in higher education, they leave. This phenomenon was true when Chomsky pointed it out and is even truer today.

Implied in the Chomsky quote is an urgent call for reform. And who wouldn’t ask for the same? Who would tolerate an educational establishment that frustrates its best teachers, gives learning a bad name, and accommodates the fat cats of tomorrow? Well, incredibly, nearly everyone tolerates it. In American society, curricula are shaped by state politicians according to their stance in the culture wars. Their stance, in turn, is shaped by the ill-informed opinions of their electorate, whom the politicians manipulate. These are the same people who elect school boards and school superintendents. This top-down model is what we proudly refer to as “public education,” where there is “local control.” It’s a sick joke.

I want to leave you with another quote, one that’s magnetized to our refrigerator door.

There’s something not quite right about it. How about, “Teaching rarely touches a life forever”? That’s the truth, and we’re stuck with it!