Death spirals

Each year, I try to pick the most important story of that year, the one most likely to affect our immediate future. This year, however, I’ve picked two stories. They seem to have little in common but are strangely inseparable, at least to me. Perhaps it’s because they share the same theme — the death spiral of a monster.

The first story involves the war in Ukraine, which started late last February. It was supposed to be a quick mauling of any Ukrainian forces that resisted the Russian invasion. It was anything but. To understand why, we have to imagine a dictator who is among the greatest fuckups in history, and also one of the cruelest, most impulsive, and most vengeful — Vladimir Putin. If you’re wondering what he could have done to earn these distinctions, here’s a record of ineptitude that may challenge your credulity:

• Putin’s first responsibility was to gather intelligence, and in this he failed utterly. The estimate of Ukraine’s readiness and will to resist missed the mark completely. The estimate of the West’s commitment to Ukraine also erred badly. The West quickly agreed on crushing sanctions that all but crippled Russia’s economy. Then it followed through by providing Ukraine with advanced weapon systems, technical assistance, military intelligence, food, clothing, medical supplies, and infrastructure support. Putin failed to realize there was no way to intercept supply lines without invading NATO nations and triggering a doomsday scenario. In effect, Putin found himself fighting against the entire industrialized world, minus China, India, and Iran.
  
  
• He never bothered to understand the logistics of fighting a war. He had no access to Ukraine’s rail system, so he sent countless military and supply vehicles down Ukraine’s roads, where they stalled and became targets. The glut of traffic was so immense that fuel, munitions, spare parts, and other materiel couldn’t be efficiently moved to troops in forward positions.
  
  
• He put quickly trained — and therefore poorly trained — soldiers in the field. Moreover, he sent far too few of them. Approximately 150,000 to 190,000 Russian soldiers, regulars and irregulars, were in the initial invasion force, facing a country of 44 million people. That’s a ratio of 4 Russian soldiers for every 1,000 Ukrainian inhabitants. Data from modern warfare shows that roughly 20 soldiers for every 1,000 inhabitants are needed to conquer and pacify a hostile population. This explains why Putin has been desperate to find more soldiers. He has hired mercenaries and offered convicts freedom if they agree to fight. He has gone so far as to institute a draft, but this caused such an uproar that he had to give it up.
  
  
• Last April, Russian troops halted their advance on Kyiv. It was the perfect moment for Putin to cut his losses and pretend he had delivered a harsh warning to Ukrainians who dared to collude with NATO. Sadly, he was too proud to accept the rebuke he was dealt. He redeployed Russian forces to the East and South, where many Ukrainians identify with Russian culture. The Russians were brutal in asserting their claims to these regions. Rockets destroyed urban centers and residences. People on the street were indiscriminately executed and consigned to mass graves. Many of the survivors were tortured; women were raped. The new strategy was to demoralize Ukrainians by subjecting them to a barrage of war crimes. The memory of this savagery will evoke Ukrainian hatred for centuries. Even if Russian reverses its record of screwups and losses, it will never pacify a single acre of Ukrainian territory. Russia hoped to avoid sharing a border with a NATO country. Now they will share a border with something far worse, a blood enemy. And if Ukraine is ever in a position to dictate the terms that will end the war, Putin and his surviving generals will certainly face war crimes trials, imprisonment, and execution.
  
  
• He is oblivious to the enormity of his crimes. This winter he has doubled down. He’s sent missile barrages against Ukraine’s infrastructure, depriving Ukrainians of light, warmth, water, and food supplies. He has actually weaponized winter. This strategy will never drive his foe toward capitulation; it will have exactly the opposite effect.
  
  
• He has never had a contingency plan for a long war. After 10 months of fighting, he’s using charity drives to supply soldiers with medicine, sleeping bags, felt boots, woolen socks, mittens, scarves, and body armor. One charity event raised the equivalent of $45 thousand. Contrast this with the $45 billion that Congress recently passed for emergency assistance to Ukraine and NATO allies. The appropriation includes a critical infusion of Patriot anti-ballistic missiles.
  
  

The war will end in either of two ways. One, Russia loses in the traditional way — they capitulate and Ukraine dictates terms, which will undoubtedly include Putin’s removal (if he isn’t already dead), loss of the Crimea, and war reparations. Two, Russia loses in the pyrrhic way; that is, they win but pay a staggering price in lives, leadership, prosperity, and reputation. If it’s the second way, it won’t be called “pyrrhic,” because no winning military in world history will have paid such a disastrous price. It will be called a “putinic” (poo-TIN-ic, with two short i’s) victory. It’s amazing to think that the likelihood of a no-win scenario has probably never occurred to Putin.

The second story begins with a mass poisoning, an occurrence that is almost always accidental. A case in point is the poisoning of the Flint River some years ago when lead leached into the Flint, Michigan, water supply. It wasn’t a malicious crime but an instance of greed, arrogance, and gross incompetence, as we so often see in human dealings. Contrast this case with the poisonous lies and misinformation the Republican party and Trump Administration have for years spewed into the American body politic via mass media outlets — newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and an array of Internet social platforms. The climax, of course, was the Big Lie, the outrageous claim that the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen by the Democrats. That lie has been served up daily at every level of government. Invariably, it is garnished with supporting lies. Election observers were let go! Election workers stuffed ballot boxes! Voting machines were reprogrammed! Venezualan software was used to flip Trump votes! Fake ballots were flown in from China! Record numbers of dead people voted! The sum of the votes exceeded the number of voters!

Have no doubt that a repeated cocktail of lies can be just as destructive to a body politic as chemical poisons are to flesh and blood. Add to this another fact, that most Americans glory in jingoistic horseshit: America is exceptional, a shining city on a hill, God’s chosen nation, the savior of democracies, the last best hope of earth. We are disposed to love anyone who tells us repeatedly how special we are, which leaves us open to the manipulations of political flimflam artists. How hurtful it was to be told our star had dimmed. How restorative to hear our greatness could be made complete again. How thrilling to know a person is among us who could accomplish this mission. How infuriating to learn he had been cheated out of that opportunity! Thus the vile poison saturated our discourse.

All through 2021, the Trump-induced delirium rolled on. Denial of Biden’s election swept the South and Midwest, while the swing states were incubating sworn enemies of free and fair elections. Hundreds of candidates were ready to file for the 2022 midterms and usher in one-party rule. Meanwhile, the Democrats wallowed in helplessness. Because two of their number were closet Republicans, Democratic control of the Senate was an illusion. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was on the Senate floor in January, 2022. If it had become federal law, it would have superseded any state law that sought to thwart minority access to the ballot. Sadly, it lacked Republican support. The Democrats didn’t even have enough votes to block a Republican filibuster.

The outlook for the 2022 midterms was further dimmed by a disengaged Department of Justice. By the first anniversary of the January 6ᵗʰ riot, the department had arrested 700 rioters and was pursuing hundreds more, but it had done virtually no investigating of the role Trump and his colleagues played in organizing or inciting the riot. If DoJ priorities had been prudent, if the big fish had been its primary target, it would have known in just months that Trump had been assured the election was fair; it would have had all the information needed to lay bare the conspiracy of liars and cynical cowards at the heart of America’s poisoning.

In the face of DoJ inaction, Nancy Pelosi called for a national commission to investigate the origins of the January 6ᵗʰ riot. The idea passed the House but failed in the Senate, where the Republicans threatened to filibuster. Pelosi, undaunted, proposed that a House Select Committee, a so-called “January 6ᵗʰ Committee,” do the investigation. Kevin McCarthy, her counterpart, insisted that five representatives of his choosing be seated on the committee. Three of these were laughably biased, so Pelosi picked two even-handed Republicans to replaced them. The committee was approved by all the House Democrats and 38 Republicans. It held its first meeting on July 27, 2021, with the testimony of four Capitol police officers. By the end of the year, it had interviewed more than 300 witnesses, obtained more than 35,000 documents, and gone far toward exposing the subversion that lay behind the riot. Unfortunately, their findings hadn’t been woven into a coherent narrative and presented in full public view.

When 2022 began, Democrats were in white-knuckled dread of the changes the year would bring. They wondered, is this the year the Trumpists strangle democracy? In their despair, they failed to notice a sea change. Immediately after Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump labeled Putin a genius, adding, “He’s taking over a country for $2 worth [!] of sanctions. I’d say that’s pretty smart.” In referring to the loss of life, he couldn’t avoid trotting out his Big Lie. “If our election wasn’t rigged, you would’ve had nobody dead.” Stunning. He delivered a trifecta of stupidity, mendacity, and conceit in just a few sentences, showing the world once again how loathsome he was.

Then came May, a month of reckoning for Trump. The preceding December, he had phoned Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, who was busy looking into charges of voter fraud. Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” the 11,780 votes he needed to top Biden’s Georgia vote count, plainly an attempt to tamper with the election. As May arrived, Fani Willis, the Fulton County District Attorney, struck back at Trump. She requested that the county’s chief judge create a grand jury to determine if Trump’s behavior was criminal. The grand jury’s findings will be reported soon.

Later in the month, the first critical Republican primaries of 2022 were held. In Idaho, the governor beat a Trump-favored challenger. In North Carolina, Trump tried to save a congressman hip-deep in scandals but to no avail. In Pennsylvania, Trump went all out for Mehmet Oz, the charlatan doctor. Oz survived but with a dubious road ahead. The Georgia primary was the most bitter pill of all. Trump had a score to settle with Brian Kemp, the governor, who was up for reelection. Months before, Kemp had ignored Trump’s plea to replace Biden’s slate of electors with his own. Even more galling, Brad Raffensperger was trying to be reelected as Secretary of State. To Trump’s great chagrin, both men won easily.

In June, the January 6ᵗʰ Committee began broadcasting its hearings on live television. For the first time, the post-election misdeeds of ex-President Trump sank deeply into the public consciousness. Here is what the committee revealed about him over the course of ten televised sessions:

• Despite the loss of dozens of election-related lawsuits and the assurance of government officials that the election was fair, he refused to concede. He thus failed his Constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
  
  
• He asked DoJ officials to tell lies that would help his attempt to overturn the election.
  
  
• He pressured state officials and legislators to change the results of their state elections.
  
  
• He oversaw a plan to obtain false electoral certificates and send them to Congress and the National Archives.
  
  
• He asked members of Congress to object to valid slates of electors from several states.
  
  
• In federal court, he stated that false information was valid.
  
  
• He brought supporters to Washington, DC on January 6ᵗʰ, instructing them to “take back” their country. In speaking to them at the Ellipse, he further provoked them, knowing that some of them were armed.
  
  
• He sent a tweet that publicly condemned Vice President Pence while the rioting was underway.
  
  
• While watching the rioting on television over a period of hours, he refused repeated requests to tell the rioters to disperse and leave the Capitol.
  
  
• He had the authority and responsibility to call the National Guard into the District of Columbia but failed to do so.

As Trump was marinating in the televised testimony, August rolled around. On the 8ᵗʰ, a team of FBI agents entered Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida home, with a search warrant. They were looking for documents, many of them classified, that Trump had taken when he left the presidency and not turned over to the National Archives, as required by the Presidential Records Act. The FBI came away with over 100 classified documents, some of which reportedly contained secrets about nuclear weapons. This disclosure raised the question of whether Trump had violated the Espionage Act.

Later that month, Letitia James, the New York District Attorney, filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and his three oldest children. In a news conference, she accused them of an “astounding” pattern of financial fraud. She claimed Trump had egregiously inflated his worth on financial statements to deceive lenders and insurers into offering beneficial terms. She wants the Trump Organization to give back $250 million of the benefits and be banned from buying commercial real estate in the state for 5 years.

On November 8ᵗʰ, Election Day, three questions hung in the air: how much would high inflation hurt Democrats? how much would the end of the Roe v. Wade era hurt Republicans? how much value would a Trump endorsement carry? Exit polls showed that worries about inflation hurt Democrats somewhat more than pro-abortion sentiment helped them. One issue pretty much offset the other. What gave Democrats the edge was concern about Trump’s political clout, especially among independent voters. They favored Democrats by a small margin, a considerable departure from their voting in the last four midterms. Generally, they favor the party not in power by double digits.

In mid-November, Attorney General Merrick Garland made a long overdue announcement, the appointment of a Justice Department prosecutor, Jack Smith, to oversee two criminal investigations. The first was to determine whether “any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021.” The second was to continue the investigation of the documents found at Mar-a-Lago and “the possible obstruction of that investigation.” Garland’s announcement led me to a couple of conclusions. The work of the January 6ᵗʰ Committee had embarrassed Garland and forced his hand. I have no idea where we’d be today if the committee had never been created. What’s more significant, Smith’s work will inevitably end in criminal indictments. Anything less, and the uproar will be volcanic.

Recently, the January 6ᵗʰ Committee issued its final report. It asks the DoJ to look into at least four of its charges against Trump and to bar him from holding office again. The committee is in the process of turning all its evidence over to Jack Smith.

I expect Trump’s fortunes to decline even more rapidly in 2023. I see no path for him to win the presidential nomination in 2024, nor do I see him as a third party candidate. Either prison or political banishment will bar the way.

Sexual musings, Part 1

Empedocles missed his chance at greatness when he failed to give sex a place in his group of basic elements — earth, air, water, and fire. True, sex isn’t an element, but I don’t disqualify it on that account. It occupies our thoughts far more than earth, air, water, and fire combined.

Educated Fleas

The omnipresence of sex was probably best recognized by Cole Porter when he wrote, “Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it.” That scope is well beyond what I could manage in a hundred blog posts, and besides, my obsession with sex isn’t quite that strong. Dealing only with human sexuality is more than enough, and even then, quite a lot remains on the table. There’s the plethora of how-to manuals, moral diatribes, boorish humor, titillating fiction, scholarly research, manifestos of grievances, legal argumentation, and social history to consider — enough to inundate the world’s largest library. And you’d still have to dedicate another city block to a library for porn videos.

I can come to grips with this agglomeration only by focusing on social history, and here I discern two distinct eras of human sexuality, the Primitive Era and the Modern Era. The Primitive Era of sexuality began with the early hominins — like Homo erectus, obviously — and ended late in the last millennium, when denunciations of homophobia and misogyny began to multiply in the Western world.

The very fact that the Primitive Era coincides with 99% of human existence has made our thinking about sex rigid. Its duration gave credence to the assumption that everything believed to be true about human sex — the normal, the abnormal, and the abominable — will always be true. Unfortunately, this means the Modern Era is destined to take root clumsily, with grudging acceptance, occasional regressions, and some pendulum swings into dubious territory.

As you’d expect, the Modern Era dawned as our understanding of the Primitive Era came into sharper relief. We know now that same-sex sexual behavior occurs among all the great apes and a number of other primate species. Bonobos, who share 98% of their DNA with us, are especially noteworthy in this regard. About 60% of all bonobo sexual activity occurs between two or more females. Bonobo sex is casual and playful in both same-sex and opposite-sex pairings. It’s common, for example, for males to dangle from a tree, upside down and face-to-face, and rub their genitals together. Bonobos don’t merely engage in sex; they celebrate it.

Perhaps the most significant thing about primate sex is that anger and shunning have never been observed as a response to same-sex couplings. The same is true in a larger context. Homosexual behavior has been documented in hundreds of animal species with no mention of social abhorrence. This fact raises an essential question: Where does our revulsion and hatred for homosexuals come from? If it isn’t genetically determined, there’s just one other possible answer. It’s cultural.

Finding the cultural source isn’t difficult. The Torah is awash in sexual prohibitions. Mosaic law specifies 36 crimes that are punishable by death. Not a particularly high number as ancient codes go, but of that number, half the crimes involve sexual activity! The ancient Jews viewed nudity and the sex organs as shameful, unlike the Egyptians, the Greeks, and other contemporary civilizations. In Exodus, nakedness is forbidden within the precinct of a temple, and priests are compelled to wear linen breeches. In Leviticus, 12 prohibitions are about nakedness. It meant death to “uncover the nakedness of thy father.” A number of relatives are called out, including “thy aunt” and “thy step-mother.” It may be that the Jews were using “uncover nakedness” as a euphemism for “having sex with.” In any case, they stopped short of mentioning second cousins.

Scholars have speculated that Hebrew homophobia may have been a reaction to the religious practices of their enemies. It was common for Assyrian high priests to be naked or put on women’s clothes to acquire the powers of Ishtar, the Mother Goddess. Lower priests would prostitute themselves to male visitors to collect money and symbolically collect semen from the god Attis. The Babylonians and Egyptians adopted the god Baal, a phallic deity whose worship included homosexual rituals. The ancient Jews were revolted. They described themselves as a proud people. As monotheists, they were a singularity, and Yahweh demanded singular behaviors. He made a covenant with them, and in return he asked for laws that guaranteed the Jews’ piety, cleanliness, and purity. That was reasonable; an uber-God would ask for no less.

What Hebrew prophet could have guessed that the laws of their people would beget nearly three millennia of virulent homophobia? Virtually all of them scolded the Israelites for impiety. Imagine their pride and amazement had they foreseen the seminal power of Hebrew law! It spread to an outlaw sect, the Christians, and thence to the Romans, who dominated every civilization in Europe and the Near East, and thence to the Muslims, who pushed it deep into Asia, and thence to European missionaries and colonialists, who spread the virus around the world. Only now, in an age of scientific and historical inquiry, has the fever begun to break.

Misogyny is even older than homophobia. It didn’t originate in Canaan, but close by in the Fertile Crescent. The Agricultural Revolution was underway. People began to settle down and become homesteaders. Fear of starvation receded somewhat as people began to produce a surplus of food. They could store or trade what they didn’t consume. The population grew even though the need for farmers decreased. Towns arose, and much of the populace pursued trades. Some towns grew into cities. It was the first time in history that people accumulated wealth, and with it came leisure, art, science, and philosophy — civilization. It seems a rosy progression of events, but there were innate problems. What one civilization saw as its wealth, another saw as potential plunder, and so a warrior class became a necessity. Further, it was not enough to have a fierce army of protectors. They must have the favor of the mightiest forces of nature, the gods. Therefore, a priesthood evolved. With these additions, a civilization can become riven with complexities and lose its sustainability. Yet another class was needed to keep order, the elite. They were a natural extension of the warrior class. Their function was so critical to survival that they became objects of worship in their own right.

This progression, from hunter-gatherer clans to food-producing civilizations, wrought a societal transformation. Hunter-gatherer clans had usually been matrilineal, ancestral descent and inheritance followed the maternal line. But food-producing civilizations became patrilineal, just the opposite. This shift in sexual dominance was simply the result of acknowledging where the power lay. It was clearly with the men, who were stronger and more aggressive by nature. They were by far the more capable defenders and attackers. The viability of civilizations rested on their shoulders.

It’s a truism that those in power act to increase their power or at the very least perpetuate it. This was certainly true of the Primitive Era. Men formalized sexual relationships by inventing the marriage contract. Married women effectively became slaves and targets of abuse. Men took over the rearing of their sons and often took pains to make them tough, overbearing, and disdainful of women. Men no longer feared legal consequences for sexual assault. Men minimized women’s roles in any institution that wielded power — the military, the church, government, law, banking, the arts, science, and medicine. Men denied them the knowledge and power that a higher education confers. Men denied them the right to inherit, own land, buy on credit, earn an income, and retain money for personal use. In the Greek and Roman democracies, men denied them the right to vote. Millennia would pass before a wave of social enlightenment and women’s activism began to turn the tide.

Archives Select Week April 28, 2024–May 4, 2024 March 24, 2024–March 30, 2024 February 18, 2024–February 24, 2024 January 28, 2024–February 3, 2024 December 17, 2023–December 23, 2023 November 19, 2023–November 25, 2023 October 22, 2023–October 28, 2023 September 24, 2023–September 30, 2023 August 20, 2023–August 26, 2023 July 23, 2023–July 29, 2023 June 25, 2023–July 1, 2023 May 21, 2023–May 27, 2023 April 9, 2023–April 15, 2023 March 19, 2023–March 25, 2023 March 12, 2023–March 18, 2023 February 19, 2023–February 25, 2023 January 22, 2023–January 28, 2023 December 18, 2022–December 24, 2022 November 20, 2022–November 26, 2022 October 23, 2022–October 29, 2022 September 18, 2022–September 24, 2022 August 14, 2022–August 20, 2022 July 24, 2022–July 30, 2022 June 26, 2022–July 2, 2022 May 22, 2022–May 28, 2022 April 17, 2022–April 23, 2022 March 20, 2022–March 26, 2022 February 20, 2022–February 26, 2022 January 16, 2022–January 22, 2022 December 19, 2021–December 25, 2021 November 21, 2021–November 27, 2021 October 17, 2021–October 23, 2021 September 12, 2021–September 18, 2021 August 22, 2021–August 28, 2021 July 25, 2021–July 31, 2021 June 13, 2021–June 19, 2021 May 9, 2021–May 15, 2021 April 25, 2021–May 1, 2021 April 18, 2021–April 24, 2021 March 14, 2021–March 20, 2021 February 21, 2021–February 27, 2021 January 24, 2021–January 30, 2021 December 20, 2020–December 26, 2020 November 8, 2020–November 14, 2020 October 18, 2020–October 24, 2020 September 20, 2020–September 26, 2020 August 16, 2020–August 22, 2020 July 12, 2020–July 18, 2020 June 21, 2020–June 27, 2020 May 17, 2020–May 23, 2020 April 26, 2020–May 2, 2020 March 22, 2020–March 28, 2020 February 16, 2020–February 22, 2020 December 29, 2019–January 4, 2020 December 8, 2019–December 14, 2019 November 24, 2019–November 30, 2019 November 10, 2019–November 16, 2019 October 20, 2019–October 26, 2019 September 15, 2019–September 21, 2019 August 18, 2019–August 24, 2019 July 14, 2019–July 20, 2019 June 16, 2019–June 22, 2019 May 19, 2019–May 25, 2019 April 21, 2019–April 27, 2019 March 24, 2019–March 30, 2019 February 17, 2019–February 23, 2019 January 20, 2019–January 26, 2019 December 9, 2018–December 15, 2018 November 4, 2018–November 10, 2018 October 21, 2018–October 27, 2018 September 23, 2018–September 29, 2018 August 26, 2018–September 1, 2018 July 8, 2018–July 14, 2018 June 24, 2018–June 30, 2018 May 20, 2018–May 26, 2018 April 29, 2018–May 5, 2018 March 25, 2018–March 31, 2018 January 28, 2018–February 3, 2018 December 31, 2017–January 6, 2018 December 24, 2017–December 30, 2017 November 12, 2017–November 18, 2017 October 22, 2017–October 28, 2017 September 24, 2017–September 30, 2017 August 27, 2017–September 2, 2017 July 23, 2017–July 29, 2017 June 11, 2017–June 17, 2017 May 14, 2017–May 20, 2017 April 23, 2017–April 29, 2017 March 26, 2017–April 1, 2017 March 5, 2017–March 11, 2017 February 5, 2017–February 11, 2017 January 29, 2017–February 4, 2017 January 1, 2017–January 7, 2017 December 18, 2016–December 24, 2016 November 13, 2016–November 19, 2016 November 6, 2016–November 12, 2016 October 30, 2016–November 5, 2016 October 16, 2016–October 22, 2016 September 18, 2016–September 24, 2016 August 21, 2016–August 27, 2016 August 14, 2016–August 20, 2016 July 17, 2016–July 23, 2016 June 26, 2016–July 2, 2016 May 29, 2016–June 4, 2016 May 22, 2016–May 28, 2016 April 24, 2016–April 30, 2016 April 10, 2016–April 16, 2016 March 6, 2016–March 12, 2016 February 28, 2016–March 5, 2016 February 14, 2016–February 20, 2016 January 31, 2016–February 6, 2016 January 10, 2016–January 16, 2016 December 13, 2015–December 19, 2015 November 22, 2015–November 28, 2015 November 1, 2015–November 7, 2015 October 18, 2015–October 24, 2015 September 13, 2015–September 19, 2015 August 16, 2015–August 22, 2015 July 19, 2015–July 25, 2015 June 28, 2015–July 4, 2015 May 31, 2015–June 6, 2015 May 10, 2015–May 16, 2015 April 12, 2015–April 18, 2015 March 8, 2015–March 14, 2015 February 22, 2015–February 28, 2015 January 18, 2015–January 24, 2015 December 21, 2014–December 27, 2014 November 23, 2014–November 29, 2014 November 16, 2014–November 22, 2014 October 26, 2014–November 1, 2014 October 19, 2014–October 25, 2014 October 5, 2014–October 11, 2014 September 14, 2014–September 20, 2014 August 24, 2014–August 30, 2014 August 3, 2014–August 9, 2014 July 20, 2014–July 26, 2014 July 6, 2014–July 12, 2014 June 1, 2014–June 7, 2014 May 18, 2014–May 24, 2014 May 11, 2014–May 17, 2014 May 4, 2014–May 10, 2014 April 13, 2014–April 19, 2014 March 30, 2014–April 5, 2014 March 23, 2014–March 29, 2014 March 2, 2014–March 8, 2014 February 16, 2014–February 22, 2014 February 2, 2014–February 8, 2014 January 26, 2014–February 1, 2014 January 5, 2014–January 11, 2014 December 29, 2013–January 4, 2014 December 15, 2013–December 21, 2013 December 8, 2013–December 14, 2013 December 1, 2013–December 7, 2013 November 24, 2013–November 30, 2013 November 17, 2013–November 23, 2013 November 10, 2013–November 16, 2013 November 3, 2013–November 9, 2013 October 27, 2013–November 2, 2013 October 20, 2013–October 26, 2013 October 13, 2013–October 19, 2013 October 6, 2013–October 12, 2013

Bye-bye, Betsy

My feelings about the late queen are complicated. They’re vaguely tranquil with an admixture of fatigue. I struggle to think of anyone who’s made a similar impression on me, and only a few are close.

One was Frida, a cashier at the cafeteria of a place where I once worked. She took our money with robotic speed. No matter that her queue was the longest; it was always served fastest. As her hands flew, she nevertheless took time for a “How are you today?” I always replied with something like, “Two ticks from suicidal.” She would invariably break stride and commiserate until I showed my readiness to move on. She loved an opportunity for small talk, and it was always good-hearted small talk.

Queen Betsy also had a good heart, or so I believe. She cared deeply about her family, especially if they were blood relatives. She loved animals. If you were a dog or a horse, you were treated with special regard. She was very engaging with titled people and heads of state. I can’t recall a single misstep, even with impossible boors like Charles de Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher, Boris Johnson, and Donald Trump. But she assiduously avoided any conversation that touched on policy and never revealed a point of view on any issue of consequence. Her raison d’etre was to preserve the notion that the Royal Family was the rock upon which the greatness and goodness of British civilization rested.

Given all that, let’s fantasize by appropriating a well-worn Hollywood concept …. Suppose, as the result of some cosmic burp, Frida and Betsy undergo a personality swap. At the moment of Betsy’s coronation, Frida’s personality inhabits Betsy’s body and Betsy’s personality inhabits Frida’s body. Further suppose that both choose not to scream maniacally but rather to play the cards fate had dealt. How would the flow of history be affected? My view is that the swap would scarcely cause a ripple. Frida would be genial with everyone and never think to intrude on the affairs of state. After all, Buckingham Palace is not a cafeteria. Her obituaries, remarkably, would commend her as a “beloved leader” and “the symbol of an era.” Betsy would likewise endear herself to the cafeteria crowd and her co-workers. The latter would urge her to seek a leadership spot in the union, but she would demur. She would eventually retire with a nice pension.

I see only a few historical differences. Frida would never sabotage her sister’s engagement to Peter Townsend, her first love. She would use an uncharacteristically sharp tone with Mrs. Thatcher on her bungling of the ruinous Coal Workers’ Strike of 1984. She and Diana would be much closer, and she would be horrified by her fate. She would publicly be moved to tears.

It’s impossible to overlook the obvious: Betsy was a very foolish person. A British monarch is on a fool’s errand if she (or he) chooses self-censorship, a monkish existence, choreographed outings, and fluff speeches in the name of steering a steady course. Elements of the British press, especially the paparazzi, are grotesque in their pursuit of celebrities. They will invariably succeed in creating controversy and driving their victims to distraction. Why? Because the members of the Royal Family are human! There will always be some who have royal sticks up their royal asses. Some will have an irremediable case of lechery. Some will have an irrepressible streak of bigotry and dirty-mindedness. Some will simply be scoundrels. The moral for British monarchs is simple but never learned: You might as well say what you think; your royal garments will be soiled in any case.

Charles is known to hold a few strong opinions. As king, will he stifle them, or will he become 3-dimensional? The latter, I hope. Of course, he might become a 3-dimensional jackass, but even that would be an improvement. At least the UK would have a full person to deal with.

We are now at the most critical moment of Charles’ reign. He needs wise counsel, and people from every corner of the globe should feel free to offer it. No matter if the counselor is an American and lives in dumbass California. No matter if he is casting a wary eye at senility. I have precious advice, and I am morally obliged to deliver it. So listen up, Charles!

Return the valuables stolen by the empire of your forebears. Certainly, Charles, you know all about the Elgin Marbles. They are the sculptures and other marble adornments that Lord Elgin took from the Parthenon and other sacred buildings over 200 years ago, when Greece was under the thumb of the Ottoman Empire. Elgin had permission from the Sultan of Turkey to remove stones bearing “inscriptions and figures” from excavation sites on the Acropolis. Elgin interpreted this small courtesy as a license to steal from standing structures. The Marbles reside in the British Museum. Give them back to Greece.

The Koh-i-Noor (“Mountain of Light”) is one of the largest cut diamonds in the world, weighing over 105 carats. As you know, it is the focal point of your grandmother’s crown. It was mined six to eight hundred years ago and has passed through many hands. When the British East India Company annexed the Punjab 180 years ago, it was given to your great-great-great grandmother by treaty! A petition to return the gem to India is now circulating in Britain’s social media. Don’t wait for the demand to get louder. Return it now.

Dissolve the Commonwealth. It’s a vestigial empire, an embarrassment. It has no purpose other than to serve vanity. You have the United Nations to work with. If you want to negotiate treaties, you have ministers and diplomats. Use them.

Return to the European Union. It’s known that your mother disagreed with leaving the EU. Predictably, she made no public comment, and a cowardly Parliament passed off the decision in a referendum. The result will be catastrophic for the people of the UK and their progeny. You say you are dedicated to serving them. If you’re sincere, speak up.

Redefine your job. Essentially, your job is to cheer English men and women by reminding them of their grand history. Anyone with intelligence and talent should find this role humiliating. Wouldn’t you rather actively help them toward a grand future?

If you’re interested in more than a symbolic existence, consider what the Germans have done. They’ve created the office of President, who rules the country alongside the Chancellor, the equivalent of your Prime Minister. The duties of German Presidents aren’t trivial. They represent Germany at home and abroad by making public appearances at state, social, and cultural events. They appoint and dismiss federal judges, federal civil servants, and military officers. They have the power to pardon and award state honors. They even have the power to veto proposed laws if they can show how they violate the Basic Law of Germany.

The Presidency is not a hereditary job, so you’d have to lay out a transition plan from a royal president to an elected one. One day, the monarchy will go away. Be the monarch with the courage and foresight to make the leap!

Will Charles listen to any of my advice? I have no idea, but I’ll be keeping a scorecard.

Clinging at a cliff’s edge

We thought last January that the worst was behind us. We had a new president with an inspiring agenda. He called on an admirable cast of professionals to fill his cabinet posts. Covid vaccines were widely available. In short order, a Covid relief bill became law, though without the support of a single Republican senator. That was the first dark sign. Now, as the final days of the year play out, our democracy is clinging at a cliff’s edge. How the hell could this have happened? Let me count the ways.

“Stupichosis” never stopped growing.
That’s my word for the marriage of stupidity and psychosis. It’s the phenomenon you see when a long, costly election recount fails to placate angry voters with the truth. It’s on view when hundreds congregate for weeks in hopes of seeing dead people herald the return to glory of an ex-president. It’s in evidence when millions of credulous fools ingest medicine for farm animals to ward off a fatal disease. It’s manifest when the world is ravaged by superstorms, floods, rising sea levels, and wildfires as the adult population looks to the next generation for action.

Political rot is abundant at every level of government.
Trump warned us of a swamp in Washington and then proceeded to use the levers of power to ratchet up the stench in the Congress. He went on to spread it to the executive and judiciary branches through a multitude of irresponsible appointments. He left behind a rot so entrenched that it became self-propagating. It has settled into state legislatures and the offices of state officials, and it’s now taking hold in city and county commissions and on school boards.

What does this legacy of rot look like? For a start, it rejects any disquieting truth, like an uncomfortable medical fact or persistent evidence of systemic racism. It opposes any remedial government program that isn’t aimed at big business, like the elimination of student debt, the extension of the Child Tax Credit, or the expansion of Medicare benefits. Worst of all, it seeks to nullify any election that weakens a party’s hold on political power, the Constitution be damned.

The Supreme Court has lost its mission.
SCOTUS no longer upholds the Constitutional principles that are our heritage. Women, in its view, are not the equals of men. In dealing with the vicissitudes of life, a woman’s freedom to act, as SCOTUS sees it, is clearly more constrained. And now states are granted an escape from judicial review. They need only cede the role of law enforcement to its residents, who can punish “malefactors” by bringing civil suits against them. In effect, SCOTUS has voted to castrate the courts by giving a green light to vigilantism.

Even more damage lies ahead. Until the early years of the Roberts court, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required states with a history of voting offenses to get a clearance from the Justice Department before passing new voting laws. This provision was struck down in 2006, with Roberts writing the majority opinion. Now many states are rewriting their voting laws. What chance will opponents of the new laws have when their cases reach the Roberts court?

Biden is the wimp many guessed he was.
Biden has long sought to project the image of a scrappy guy. He’s quite the contrary. He’s a let’s-have-a-beer-together-and-hug-it-out kind of guy, just as Obama was. But Biden takes it further. He believes he can compromise with anyone despite unmistakable signs that he can’t and evidence that he’s destroying the integrity of his legislative agenda. It never occurs to him to “go for the jugular” as many effective presidents have. In the case of Joe Manchin, Biden could have called on the DNC to produce a series of ads with the theme of “Wake Up, West Virginia!” with a retelling of how Manchin offers no relief from the dire conditions in the state. Biden should have called him into the Oval Office long ago and said, “Vote for the Build Back Better Act or kiss your re-election goodbye!” The consequences for his failure will be grim. House progressives don’t trust him now. Democrats of all ages can cite provisions they yearned for. The people with huge college debts must be inconsolable; the bill would have reduced them considerably. One of Biden’s campaign promises was to take down their debts. He can still do so by executive decree but stays mum.

Merrick Garland is even wimpier.
Nine months ago, Merrick Garland was confirmed to head the Justice Department. As you would expect, he continued the pursuit and arrest of the January 6th rioters. They were the small fry who were led by the nose to the Capitol grounds and exhorted to stop the peaceful transition of presidential power. But what about the people behind the scenes, the planners and the lackeys who handled the the logistics? Were senators and congresspeople involved? Trump’s friends and appointees? Trump’s lawyers and Trump himself? Obviously there was nothing in the appearance or mood of that crowd that suggested spontaneity.

Garland appears to be uninterested. He’s read Biden’s signals that a Justice Department investigation would imperil the hope for a Kumbaya future with Republicans. I might be sympathetic if the rioters had been a band of streakers carrying protest signs. But this was an insurrection and the cornerstone of a planned coup. Even today, the coup plotters are at liberty and plotting anew. There can be no excuse for Garland’s cowardice.

Thank goodness for the courage of House members who volunteered for the January 6th Select Committee. The committee has gone forward despite threats against them. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both Republicans, have most likely forfeited their political futures. Garland — he says nothing. I blame the news media for not pursuing him with the question, “Sir, do you have anything more than a ringside seat?”

We live in a Covid bunker.
Last summer, Biden pledged to ship 1.2 billion doses of Covid vaccine to other countries. To date, we’ve shipped only 332 million doses. We’re not only screwing hundreds of millions of people around the globe, we’re screwing ourselves. Disease doesn’t respect political boundaries, so the failure to help others comes back to bite us. And when new strains reach our shores, they mingle with the 70 million dummkopfs who won’t get vaccinated much less boosted. Sooner or later, mutated strains become more insidious, vaccines lose their efficacy, and we progressively surrender to the disease. Unless, of course, Big Pharma produces even bigger miracles.

It’s a depressing scenario, and it’s been playing out in an electorate that’s been depressed for nearly two years. The political ramifications can’t be good. The only question is, how bad? I believe Biden when he says he’ll ramp up the shipments of vaccine doses, but what about the multitude of unvaccinated Americans that keep the rest of us trapped? I see no alternative but to declare them social pariahs. The federal government can do this by issuing vaccination “passports” to the vaccinated. These can be checked at restaurants, theaters, concerts, sports events, and other entertainments. It’s fine if a venue doesn’t comply. Their patrons will get word that the unvaccinated congregate there, and they will shun it. Will Biden support this idea? See Biden is the wimp many guessed he was.

We’ve become a misnomer.
For the time being, “The United States of America” remains a genuine international entity. Its federal institutions continue to function, though they sputter badly. In all other respects, the ties that bind us are fraying. To say that the states are “united” is a wry joke. The states are deeply split on issues that go to the roots of core values, issues like voter rights, racial equality, sexual equality, gun ownership, the role of police forces, the permissible limits of wealth, the permissible limits of freedom, and the role of government in buttressing our pursuit of happiness. These issues are fundamental. A nation that lacks a consensus on all of them cannot stand and should not stand. It would simply tear at itself to no purpose.

Our task is not to “come together.” (God how I hate that phrase! How do you make life better by blending constructive policies with toxic ones?) Rather, we need to confront antisocial drivel and evoke a compelling vision to cheer for. The Build Back Better Act and the Voting Rights Act are sound springboards, but most of the voices that advocate them are thin and unconvincing. Surely in the ranks of the progressives there are leaders who can sing out a resonant, eloquent message.

Prelude to a disaster

This year has been a tale of two climaxes: one in the virulence of the Covid virus, the other in the seditious antics of Donald J. Trump. Both have been ruinous — Covid to physical wellbeing, Trump to national wellbeing. The two are, of course, intertwined. Trump’s blustery and idiotic style of governing is music to the ears of his minions, who are charmed by bluster and idiocy. Their gullibility gave the virus its greatest impetus as they became its most pitiful victims.

As we know, Trump’s catalog is long, through every trespass ranging. Mishandling the pandemic came as an encore to the his impeachment trial in early 2020, which sadly offered no more than a highlight reel of his misdeeds. When he was renominated last summer, many, including me, felt sure he was going to top himself in the fall. He has not disappointed.

He spoke against voting by mail, damning it as a vehicle of voter fraud. He denigrated the Postal Service, while his Postmaster General took steps to hamstring mail processing. His campaign went to court to challenge the right of states to mail ballots to their registered voters. His Senate lackeys blocked a Covid relief bill that would have given the Postal Service cash support to properly handle the influx of mail.

As Election Day came and went, millions of mailed votes had not yet been counted. As expected, Trump was ahead in most of the battleground states, but it was clear the tide would turn the next day. Yet Trump didn’t wait for the swing to play out. He announced that he had won because his lead was plainly insurmountable. In effect, he set the predicate that only massive acts of voter fraud could stand between him and victory.

Between that day and the present, Trump’s legal team has filed more than 50 cases that alleged voter fraud. All were denied, dismissed, settled, or withdrawn, without any evidence of fraud. The U.S. Supreme Court twice rejected petitions about the voting in Pennsylvania. One sought to throw out 2.6 million mailed ballots on procedural grounds; the other, to allow the state’s General Assembly to pick new electors. Again, neither petition was accompanied by credible evidence of fraud.

In our nation’s history, has litigation ever been so prolonged and frivolous? Have plaintiffs ever pursued a more humiliating path? No and no. We are left to ask, what could possibly have prompted such a deranged abuse of our legal system? Perhaps it all has to do with an epic case of presidential petulance, but I’m inclined to think otherwise. I believe the thinking in the White House went something like this…. Let’s object to the election results on all the grounds we can imagine and do so in dozens of venues. We might lose every case but in the final analysis, we win. Each court loss will reveal anew the depth of the conspiracy against the president’s re-election and amplify the resentment of our base. Relentless tweeting and some well-timed rallies will ensure it. Our folks will be on the edge of insurrection by the time we get to January. Protesting in the streets against “a radical takeover of America” is a given. Next, there is confrontation and, inevitably, a spark of violence. The confrontation and violence spread. People are frightened. The president then has a plausible pretext for declaring martial law.

I’m certain this scenario has been put before Trump. I’m certain it appeals to him. What’s unclear is whether he can imagine the catastrophe he would bring down upon himself. Surely a different counselor has mentioned that the rage in Red America can also be used to perpetuate his glory and enhance his wealth. That too would appeal to him. We’ll know his decision in January.

Thinking the unthinkable

The Merriam-Webster website defines paradigm shift as “an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way.” It’s an excellent term for a phenomenon we all experience. It may be thrilling, as when Einstein realized that time and distance were not absolutes.  More often, though, it’s wrenching: you learn that Santa Claus doesn’t exist; you realize your religious beliefs are based on primitive myths; years of studying to become an astrophysicist seem insignificant alongside a chance to do standup comedy; your enthusiasm for spectator sports now seems like childish hero worship; your amiable spouse of 20 years turns out to be a maker of methanfedamines.

Most paradigm shifts are far from inevitable. They struggle against denial, the most potent of our defense mechanisms. Denial often wins; a shift never occurs. An alcoholic may never accept that he is one. A white supremacist may never admit that skin color has no correlation with excellence in anything.

If we were to make a list of beliefs most resistant to shifting, the certainty of national superiority would surely be near the top. In America, the indoctrination is unrelenting. We have “Founding Fathers” who devised a perfect political document. We pledge to be “indivisible.” Our nation is “under God” — the ultimate overseer. Our destiny is “manifest.” Our military is second to none. Our wealth is second to none. At sports events, we sing a standing, hand-over-heart tribute to our flag and to ourselves. Political speeches end with “may God [continue to] bless America.” We are “exceptional.”

Might an extraordinary set of circumstances trigger a paradigm shift and cause us to cry out, “Enough brainwashing! We demand a better homeland!” It’s happened before, to the American colonists of the 18th century. They chose to rebel rather than live with the grievances on Mr. Jefferson’s list. They did so even though being an Englishman was considered a distinct honor, if not a blessing. Today, do some Americans — let’s call them Blue Americans — have grievances that are sufficiently weighty to justify a separation from Red Americans? Well, consider these:

• The dismissal of scientific knowledge that conflicts with religious belief

• The insistence that people acquire medical insurance from for-profit companies

• The absence of sane national gun regulations (the denial of freedom from fear)

• An overfunded defense budget that forces the underfunding of vital programs

• The absence of a scheduled drawdown on the use of fossil fuels

• Inadequate government investment in climate-change solutions

• The lack of a comprehensive national program to end hunger

• The harassment and disenfranchisement of minorities who want to vote

• The harassment of people whose sex lives are outside social norms

• The denial of preschool and higher education to those who can’t afford them

• College loans that condemn young people to lifelong debt

• The denial of abortion, even when the good of society justifies it

• The absence of security criteria that would guarantee valid elections

• Presidential elections that are not determined by a popular vote

• A Senate that hugely over-represents states with low populations

• A Senate willing to exculpate a criminal president

• House elections that are warped by gerrymandering

• Since 1972, the failure of 38 states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment

This bill of grievances is at least as substantial as the one published in the Declaration of Independence. But even so, you probably balk at using it to argue for a separation from Red America. Why? Is it because our separation from England was bloody and because the attempted secession of the Confederacy was even bloodier? That’s an excellent reason for balking, but I’m not proposing a rebellion or a secession. I’m proposing an amicable separation that is favorable to both sides.

It’s obvious what Blue America would stand to gain, but why would a separation be attractive to Red America? Simple — they would be free to be as reactionary as they liked. Though very improbable, they could restore slavery and disenfranchise women. They could outlaw abortion and same-sex marriage (a certainty), invent a host of restrictions on voting (a certainty), enact racist immigration laws (a certainty), enact anti-union laws (a certainty), re-criminalize the recreational use of marijuana (a certainty), decree that a free education and free medical care are “un-Red” (a certainty), endorse all the provisions of the Constitution that thwart representative government (a certainty), pare all regulatory agencies down to nothing (a certainty), make Christianity the national religion (probably), legalize open-carry throughout the nation (probably), and re-examine our current government’s commitment to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (probably). They could even adopt the name “Christian Confederacy of America.” These inducements might well be irresistible.

Both sides would want to avoid economic damage. Declaring the two countries a free trade zone with open borders would achieve that goal. Think of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic as the model. They were once Czechoslovakia, but they wanted to go their separate ways. The agreement they reached is now known as the “Velvet Divorce.” Certainly the two Americas would face more than economic problems, but all of them could be negotiated. I’ll raise some of them in a future post and suggest solutions.

The first step toward separation is changing the political dialogue. Here’s a typical flawed exchange between a journalist and a politician:

Wolf Blitzer: Senator Sanders, our country is badly divided. As president, what would you do to bring Americans together again?

Bernie Sanders: We all have the same fundamental needs, Wolf, and we all want economic and social justice. We’ve never had a government that’s truly for the people. I’ll see to it that we finally have one.

First, Blitzer’s question assumes that a genuine reconciliation is achievable. That is a fantasy. As matters stand, only a sham reconciliation is possible, like the one we have with North Korea. Second, Sanders’ answer has a deceptive premise. Yes, we all want economic and social justice, but what does economic and social justice look like? On that point there is deep disagreement.

Sanders’ answer should be, “I would not try to pave over our divisions, Wolf. I would acknowledge them for what they are, irreparable within our lifetime and our children’s lifetime. The American people cannot be made content together, but they can be made content separately.”

We need a paradigm shift, a shift to Sanders’ second answer.

Dire problems, dire remedies

A year ago, members of the newly elected House were about to be sworn in. A blue wave had given Democrats the majority. The stage was set for a year that would test the Trump presidency. Mueller’s team was expected to report its findings. The House committees, which had abdicated their oversight responsibilities under Republican leadership, would surely issue subpoenas and hold serious hearings. Damning information would come to light, and pressure for impeachment would grow. How would Trump’s Republican base hold up against a tide of denunciation?

That question framed the events of 2019. As the year unfolded, we saw ever more clearly that the answer was “damn well.” The Mueller Report brought cries of “total exoneration” from Trump and a chorus of “nothing to see here” from his idolaters.  They didn’t need Barr’s perfidious summary, nor did they lift an eyebrow when Barr was shown to be a common shyster. In national polls, Trump held on to his wedge of the approval pie.

Through the spring and into the summer, the House subpoenaed Trump’s lackeys and government documents. They got nothing. Trump had spread a “no cooperation” order across the Executive Branch. No more checks and balances. He might as well have declared the Constitution dead. Was his base aghast? Did shock waves rock the states he carried in 2016? Not a bit. A recent Pew poll shows that 43% of Republicans and Republican leaners, a record high, think the country’s problems could be addressed more effectively if presidents “didn’t have to worry so much about Congress and the courts.” Tyranny good, divided powers bad.

In August, an unidentified whistleblower filed a complaint about Trump with the inspector general for the intelligence community. The complaint alleged that Trump, in a phone call with Ukraine’s president, said the delivery of anti-tank missiles depended on Ukraine’s willingness to investigate his chief political rival. In effect, Trump was allegedly bribing Ukraine for a political favor. The Constitution explicitly identifies bribery as an impeachable crime.

The House Intelligence Committee investigated the allegation in a number of televised hearings and found it completely credible. The few attempts at rebuttal were absurd, yet every Republican voted to reject the committee’s report. Like the Trump base, the House Trumpists are intransigent. There’s little doubt that when articles of impeachment reach the Senate, the Senate Trumpists will be the same. We are witnessing nothing less than the debasement of an entire political party.

Just last month, an Economist/YouGov poll reported that 53% of Republicans think Trump is a better leader than Lincoln was. I was gobsmacked. This was off-the-chart ignorance! But then I recalled that the heart of Trump’s base is in the South. Maybe after 154 years, they still don’t cotton to Lincoln. We know from examples of bloody animosity — Christian-Jewish, Catholic-Protestant, Sunni-Shiite, European American-Native American, Turkish-Armenian, Hutu-Tutsi — that hatred dissipates at pretty much the same pace as rocks erode.

These phenomena are symptoms of the fissure that separates the Red and Blue States. I think we can make these inferences about it:

• It’s long and deep. Religiosity, sexual expression, abortion, chauvinism, gun rights, the privileges of wealth, social democracy, racial animus, ethnic animus, and unconditional suffrage are all Red/Blue issues. They go right to the marrow of our society.

• It existed in much the same form when our nation was founded. It has simply been more manifest at some times than others. Trump is the catalyst that made it manifest in our time.

• There is no simple way to close it. When politicians say, “Vote for me. I will bring us together again,” turn away. No set of public policies will close a breach of this enormity, not in our lifetimes nor in our children’s or grandchildren’s lifetimes.

Who wants to wait a century or more to see a substantial majority — say, 75% of the electorate — be of one mind on issues that are vital to our happiness? There is, however, a way around this curse, and it could be implemented in a decade. It has a serious drawback, though — it’s disturbingly strong medicine. I’ll elaborate in my next post.

The ERA today

Many editorial pages this year have predicted that a new era has opened, one in which important men will increasingly be called to account for the sexual abuse or harassment of women. A sharp acceleration of accusations as the year progressed has made the prediction plausible.

I agree entirely—well, almost. We’re not in the vortex of a revolution; rather, a change has been building for a very long time. In 1963, The Feminine Mystique was published, documenting widespread feelings of unfulfillment among American women. A decade later, I recall a very sober meeting at work. My uber-boss told us that referring to the women in our organization as “girls” was taboo. And further, an affirmative action program was being rolled out so that women would be matched with more challenging jobs and helped to appreciate their worth and potential. At about the same time, Helen Reddy’s song “I Am Woman,” a hymn to the power of women, shot to the top of the pop music charts.

Throughout the 70’s, support for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) grew. The ERA proposed to grant equal rights to men and women in matters of divorce, property, employment, and much else tainted by sexual discrimination.

Congress passed the ERA and sent it on to the state legislatures, where it had a rush of successes. In just five years, it had 35 of the 38 state ratifications it needed. But it would budge no further, even though Congress extended the ratification deadline by three years. Conservative America spoke, issuing dire warnings of women forced to enter the draft and the inevitable shame of being a housewife.

Still, the approval of 70% of the states is something to reckon with. A movement like that doesn’t vaporize. On the contrary, a “virtuous circle” was born, a spiral in which beneficial events pile on one another and undergird more beneficial events to come. Affirmative action programs grew more common. Women continued to press for wage equality. Their numbers rose in elective offices, at the local, state, and federal levels. Glass ceilings shattered. A woman was nominated for the presidency. This year came the tipping point.

Last night on the news, I heard the story of Gitanjali Rao, a 12-year-old girl from Denver, who won the Young Scientist Challenge and $25,000. She had been upset on hearing about the high levels of lead in Flint, Michigan’s drinking water. It wasn’t just the harm lead does to the growth and brains of children, it takes days for a lab to report that a suspected water sample has been poisoned. So Gitanjali invented a device and a companion mobile app that can detect lead-contaminated water in seconds. Imagine the incredible rate of water sampling that can now be done anywhere in the world!

When Gitanjali’s science teacher was asked what made her special, she answered, “Gitanjali’s a risk taker; she’s not afraid to fail.” We should now say the same of tens of millions of girls and women, to the great betterment of us all.

Are we real?

In all likelihood, you haven’t thought much about this question. Even after watching The Matrix, you were probably unreflective. It will surprise you, then, that more and more people are pondering it every day, philosophers and cosmologists included. To me, the question is nontrivial. It gives rise to no anxiety; I just find the pros and cons fascinating.

The first person I know of who took it seriously was Rene Descartes. Way back in 1637, in his treatise Discourse on the Method (the short form of a mile-long title), he asserted, “Cogito ergo sum—I think, therefore I am.” He proudly supposed he had demonstrated his reality; that is, his existence. All well and good for a first try, but not at all convincing when I think about it. Consider this. If we’re merely characters in an immense simulation of reality, why shouldn’t our thoughts be simulated along with our homes, our cars, our friends, the Earth, the laws of physics, the entire cosmos, and Donald Trump? Any reason for thoughts to be exempt? No.

Some 80 years after Descartes, George Berkeley, an Irish bishop, promoted a radically different idea. He held that nothing was real other than mind. Material objects, our bodies included, were nothing but immaterial perceptions in our minds and in God’s. The problem with this is, Berkeley didn’t go far enough. Why are our minds even needed in his scheme of things? Why can’t they also be an idea in God’s mind? The logical end point of Berkeley’s thinking is a god who’s sitting in front of a stupendous IMAX screen, directing thoughts and actions. From there, it’s just a small hop to the realization that this god can be replaced by a group of hyper-intelligent beings who are simulating our cosmos. They and the IMAX god are exact equivalents. And in neither case is morality a reality. It’s merely one of many constructs within the projection/simulation.

Bringing superbeings into the discussion has its problems. For one thing, their work looks to be gratuitously complex. The laws of physics don’t seem to fit together. They may be unified on some undiscovered level, but why simulate something that appears chaotic? Another vexation is one that has occupied thinkers for millennia: the problems of suffering and horror. Is it really necessary for a simulation to contain huge helpings of both? Couldn’t the superbeings have done a more compassionate job? Sure they could have, if they gave a rat’s ass about us. But no, when you put on a play, the main thing is maximizing its entertainment value.

Ultimately, it’s our susceptibility to illusion that makes the possibility of simulated existence unimaginable. Magicians rely on this susceptibility; it’s their bread and butter. Sell a winning lottery ticket to a guy in Chipmunk, Oklahoma, and he creates an illusion on the spot. He believes his $100 million win is destiny. What about the people who win many times? They are fate’s favorites.

Tick through the millennia of human history and count the illusions. Gods control the elements of nature. Worship enhances our odds of survival. One god is all-powerful. We are made in that god’s image. We have a soul and a special place among living things. God sent us a flesh and blood son who is our ticket to eternal life in paradise. Virgins await virtuous men in heaven. (Nothing for women.) Illness is caused by demonic possession or by an imbalance of body fluids. Everything consists of earth, water, air, and fire. The Earth is the center of the universe. Gravity is a force of attraction. Time is a constant. Still intact, for the time being, are the Big Two: free will exists, and consciousness is real. They just have to be genuine, right?

OK, maybe we should draw a line there; maybe we’re real after all. If so, there’s another important reality to consider. Take a look around and notice the multitude of people—especially young ones—who are completely entranced by game-playing on computers of all types and sizes. They are so fixated, they are oblivious to an oncoming bus. Simulations of warfare and car racing seem to be especially popular, but a much richer kind of simulation is on the horizon. It’s called virtual reality. You can take a trip to Paris or Tahiti, all in your head, or travel to an alien landscape with violet skies, lit by two suns. Clearly, experiencing a simulated world is our cup of tea.

I’ll go so far as to offer a hypothesis: The more intelligent we become—from gene editing and high tech implants—the greater our propensity to entertain ourselves with more and more daring simulations, and the greater our expertise at creating them. In 10,000 years or so, assuming we don’t annihilate ourselves, we should be able to enjoy simulations of our own private cosmos, and the creatures that inhabit it won’t be aware of us at all.

Tribalism

Just about every Sunday, I watch Fareed Zakaria’s news show, “Global Public Square.” Recently, I saw Zakaria state that the story of the year was the wave of populism sweeping across Europe and America. There’s a wave all right, but his description of it missed the mark. Populism is all about the virtue and rights of everyday people, with the implication of a class struggle. The right word is tribalism, in its broad sense: a powerful loyalty among members of a homogeneous group connected by blood, race, ethnicity, religion, or some combination of these. Tribal loyalty expresses itself as an us-versus-them mentality and carries enormous destructive potential.

Tribalism has driven human events for millennia. It’s only in recent centuries that a counterforce has developed. It has many names—pluralism, diversity, multiculturalism. The meaning of each is a shade different from the others, but they express the same idea, and they are central to the same value: We are stronger together. Ever heard that one before?

Generally speaking, tribalism has been dominant, but the impulse toward pluralism has had its moments, too. I think of Martin Luther King as a model pluralist. He asserted, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” He saw pluralism—respect, fair treatment, and equal opportunity for everyone everywhere—at the end of the rainbow. A great many see the same arc, but I’m a doubter. Certainly, tribalism is on the ascent today. Its voice is strong in every nation that is economically or militarily consequential; specifically:

• In America, Donald Trump is our tribal leader. When he descended on his elevator in April of 2015, deus ex machina style, he gave us permission to fear Mexicans. Later that year, he gave us permission to fear Muslim Americans and Muslim refugees. We already had a tribal anxiety about these groups, but now we had his validation that our uneasiness was justified and prudent. Malevolent others, the Chinese included, were cheating us out of jobs and wealth. Iran was cheating its way toward nuclear weaponry. We were once a great nation, but now we were a tribe of victims! This message was so powerful that Trump could have handed out business cards reading “I am a shameless fraud” and not put a dent in his popularity. He said as much when he talked about committing murder without losing support. Tribalism causes a scary suspense of rational behavior.

• In Britain, where in 1992 the euro was shunned in favor of the pound, the populous saw a transfer of sovereignty to Brussels. They railed against the European Union for wresting away control of agricultural production and costs. Their hostility toward the EU was dubbed Euroskepticism. Of course, other EU members became Euroskeptical, but the British felt particularly wounded. They were once a proud empire; London was the focal point of the world’s economy. Now they were dictated to by a quasi-governmental entity. They struck back by voting to withdraw from the EU, hardly aware of the consequences for their currency and the survival of the EU itself.

• In France primarily, and in Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Italy, Euroskeptical anger was exacerbated by the influx of Muslims, with their alien dress habits, their own ethical code, their repression of women, and their hypersensitivity to religious criticism. The fear of savage reprisals from Islamic terrorists intruded upon the European consciousness. The fear of being dispossessed of culture and country became acute.

• In Russia and China, the fervor of nationalism grew dangerously. Russia continued to press against its western borders, expressing a protective interest in ethnic Russians. It committed military might to Assad’s regime in Syria, most likely to secure naval access to the Mediterranean. China claimed ownership of disputed islands in the South China Sea and threatened shipping lanes by turning an atoll into a military base.

The most disconcerting development is that these instances have not been self-contained. Rather, they are reinforcing each other. Tribalism has begotten more tribalism. A crescendo has been building, abetted by the megaphone of the Internet’s social media. When will the wave crest? No one can say, but two things are certain. A great deal of human damage will be done in the process, and our most urgent problem, climate change, will grow more critical as the hourglass drains.