Freedom and Public Health

"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing." Abraham Lincoln said that in 1864, a historic time that provides very useful insight into our current situation. While it is not quite fair to equate our current issues with our Civil War, we still cling to our freedom in similar ways that Americans did in 1864. We are a free country. To many we are the free country. And yet freedom doesn't seem so cut-and-dry anymore. Fear is strangling us in ways few of us ever imagined, and in ways we can't even agree upon. A concern for health, both our own and of others, can have that effect. Mr. Lincoln lost two sons at early ages to illnesses that at the time were not understood. I suspect that he, like any other father, would have taken every possible precaution to prevent that, including changing his definition of freedom. It seems that we now have what we need to prevent hundreds, perhaps even thousands of deaths. Why is there pause? Why is there debate?

I find that if pressed on the issue, most Americans mistrust scientists and other "educated" people for one reason or another. What makes those people unworthy of trust is a discussion for another time (smugness?). The products of their labor, however, seem to have gained our approval. Scientists invented light bulbs, guns and hay balers and just as they invented cell phones and the internet. These are things we build our lives around and depend on. But now scientists are almost universally telling us to shut down our statistically stellar economy. To some, their work is suddenly flimsy, or overblown, or part of an immense conspiracy to redo 2016. It's a contradiction that we Americans wrestle with every day, because we love our myths. And to be fair, it's very satisfying and comforting when we have conspiracies and myths and plain bad feelings to fall back on when the facts give us answers we don't want. It happens every day, on both sides of the political spectrum. But the real question we're facing now is this: will we still feel satisfied when we stuck to our guns and stuck it to the elites, but caused people to die? We can't ask him, but I suspect I know what Mr. Lincoln would say.

Our president and many others appear at the moment to be chastened by the sheer numbers of our problem. After downplaying it, Mr. Trump now speaks in superlatives about the seriousness of the situation. He stands shoulder-to-shoulder with a doctor, making joint statements about how to save the country from what could become its worst economic and social disruption since the Great Depression. And yet, references to the "deep state" and complaints about democrats still slip through. It is a clash of two very serious realities: hard, unavoidable, scientifically proven facts, and the American talent for constructing sometimes self-defeating myths.

Most of us can understand the economic argument. While (almost) no one will admit that they would put people in danger to preserve bottom lines, what will be the impact of the huge spike in unemployment that will likely worsen with each day of a nationwide lockdown? Are we ready to trust doctors with our freedom? What will be the cost if we pretend that this is just like the flu?Another tough nut to crack. Thankfully, every prediction model indicates that cases will eventually level off, and then fall. Despite "essential"  businesses staying open (is the stock market really "essential"?) and in fact begging for new employees, unemployment is almost sure to reach very uncomfortable levels. If the situation drags on for months, will businesses be shuttered because they can't pay property taxes or rent? Plenty already have. It is not hard to see that we will almost certainly need a federal solution to such problems. But that is both politically risky for a conservative president and almost unprecedented.

We have already seen congress throw caution to the wind and cut us all a check for over $1,000. Will congressional and presidential necks continue to be bared for the sake of holding us over? They don't appear to have much of a choice, though every measure will erode a bit of what we currently define as economic freedom. Will that be acceptable? It might have to be, but I doubt it will be enough. I would define our economy is the collective will of people to work hard, not a temperamental gas engine that needs a little priming before it can get itself chugging again. It will take more than that. Many people are about to experience a particularly un-free feeling when their stimulus check is gone and unemployment benefits don't quite cut it. There will have to be a great deal of bootstrap-pulling and belt-tightening before we can get back to the good old days of 2019. We are approaching lean, uncertain times economically. I hope that one product of this crisis will be that after a period where so few of us are being productive, we will gain a renewed understanding of what it means to work. Maybe we will find that we are not as productive, hard working, or free as we would like to believe. Maybe that is our most cherished myth? I'm not sure.

Much ink will be spilled trying to predict x, make sense of y, etc. I do not envy the policy-makers. I personally have a lot more questions than answers. My job was one of the first to be deemed "non-essential." Maybe the most alarming part of this is that we are now in a situation where maybe the most important decisions of this entire crisis need to be made with the least information we will have. In fact, the time to make the most meaningful changes may have already passed. So what will sustain us? A check for a thousand dollars? The destruction of the political establishment? I'm not sure. Reagan and Buckley would rightly swell with pride if they could see the solidarity and grace many individuals and businesses have exhibited without the government's say-so. Karl Marx would be thrilled to see our newfound appreciation for our "essential" workers. Can we be so silly as to hope for an acceptance of common ground between the two?

In short, our idea of freedom appears to be at a crossroads, but what we almost certainly cannot do is stand pat and hope for the best. What Mr. Lincoln called the "dogmas of the quiet past" appear to be inadequate for what we are currently facing as the numbers continue to tick up and the situation becomes more and more difficult to understand. Every person who chooses to disobey the guidelines for social distancing/hoarding/etc., regardless of their reasons (economics, stupidity, delusion, etc.), will force our government to make increasingly uncomfortable decisions about what will be enforced, as well as how it will be enforced. Tanks will roll, tear gas will fly, and weekend warrior militia folks in Idaho will finally get their "I-told-you-so" moment about federal overreach. Whose fault will it be? Will the mental gymnastics undermining the response effort be worth it when thousands of people are sick and dead and we're living under martial law? I certainly hope that's hyperbole. I pray that it is. But I'm not sure.

The Ethics of Climate Change

The Moral Dilemma of "Buying American"

While most talking points in today's mostly conservative talk radio circuit pinball between the fact that Hillary Clinton "would have been so much worse" or a depraved obsession with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one that has actually felt substantial to me is China's international trade policies, which I think can be correctly characterized as "overtly devious." China rips off products from all over the world with the ruthless efficiency that almost certainly would have made Henry Ford giddy. They have pirated intellectual property in a way that brings international scorn to the people that gave the world movable type and gunpowder. It is a very complicated problem, and American politicians have predictably tried to come up with very simple solutions to it: have some talks, shake some hands, sign some papers, and consider the matter settled.

The Clinton Administration pulled a very "Peace in our Time" move and struck deals with China that most serious people knew they would not keep. Obama was only marginally more successful with what quickly became the world's second largest superpower during his presidency, keeping relative peace between China and Taiwan but failing to pressure them to be more honest in their dealings. Trump has promised to be tough with China, but his trade war does not seem to be working. With each new administration comes a new opportunity for China to take advantage of the lack of oversight needed to keep these things from happening. That statement underscores the political reality that gives the Chinese the advantage in this situation: their current leaders have no serious competition, nor any real checks on their power over the economy.

China's behavior has been that of a typically cynical, dishonest, and opportunistic actor, but as a capitalist, I can tell you that their behavior has been thoroughly capitalist. Lenin tells us that "capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them," and I have seen little that tells me that he was wrong. The pursuit of profit makes no distinction between nationality, race, or whether it was acquired in a strictly moral or legal way. It's the eyebrow-raising, shoulder-shrugging, upturned-palms look that we're familiar with in the United States: when someone is presented with a moral argument, most will acknowledge that they are doing something wrong, but rarely act on it. Sociologist call it the "agentic" personality, and for all of its fantastic benefits, modern capitalism encourages it: it's not my job, it's not my responsibility, yes it's bad, but what can I do? Modern China has not mandated safety or regulatory oversight or labor rights, they have mandated progress, and the common person in China is in no position to change that. 2010's China is 1920's America, and what has gone up will almost certainly come down in one fashion or another. For now at least, they are beating us at our own game.

Internationally, Trump has found himself in a pickle on China because in order to actually do anything about the currency manipulation and intellectual property theft that China is perpetrating, he needs the help of the international community, which is not very keen to help him in any way. The European Union seems more than content to watch Trump squirm and save their own issues with China for another day. He has dug this hole as much through his inability to be civil with people who are ideologically opposed to him as his actual policy "positions." It's become what I believe is the hallmark of Mr. Trump's presidency so far: an inability to deal with a situation in which he and the side he is dealing with have equal leverage.

By rights, globalization should be the end goal of true capitalism. Constraining an economy to what it can produce internally when there is an entire world of dynamic and flourishing economies outside of our borders is, to my mind, completely counterproductive. If China can produce comparable products for a lower price, should our reaction not be to find better, cheaper, and more reliable ways to remain competitive with them? Tariffs and bluster are a political solution to an economic problem, and have been shown to be almost completely ineffective. For all of his and his supporters desire to do so, Donald Trump will never undermine China's sovereignty. They can do whatever they want within their borders. Exposing China's dishonesty is the right and reasonable thing to do, but trying to change the way it does business by making their products more expensive to Americans is a route that only ends with both countries suffering. 

Domestically, Trump and most Republicans pat Middle America on the back and pander to them, telling them that the only reason their towns their way of life is decaying is because China is greedy, or because illegals are taking jobs, or because Wall Street is selling them out. To a certain degree, they is correct. The thing that no politician, Trump particularly included, has ever told folks in the heartland is that their troubles are at least in part their own fault. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics should be able see the problem in a city or a state or a group of people relying on one or two industries. This, coupled with the fact that "buying American" almost certainly means "paying more for the same thing" does not make economic sense.

The reason towns in the rust belt are dying is not because of China, it's because the one significant industry in these towns (usually the steel mill or coal mine) probably fell victim to the ebb and flow of the world's needs and wants. China and Wall Street have embraced the very American ethic of constantly seeking economic supremacy, and Americans vote for China's economic supremacy every day by buying their products without demanding American made ones. More rules and tariffs will not help the American working class. It will keep the working class in a cycle of economic uncertainly and will make China and Wall Street find more creative ways of getting around the rules.

The solution is not to ask for the mills and the mines back, because they will still offer jobs that are either useless or can be done far cheaper elsewhere. The solution is to create a more diverse set of economic possibilities for yourself and your family, and perhaps more importantly in encouraging American businesses to find better ways of making products that most Americans buy from overseas manufacturers instead of shielding them from the reality of the global economy. Perhaps creating more political pressure to make education more affordable and effective instead of wasting time with tariffs and walls and trade wars would be a more sustainable solution. It will always be a tough sell because it is very natural to distrust modern education and any process involved in changing traditional ways of life, but it's what has to happen. Perhaps the biggest problem I see in 21st century America is the belief that we are just one law (or repealed law) away from a sort of cartoonish Renaissance of how life used to be. The 20th Century was ours, but it is over, and the world will leave us in the dust if we fail to accept that reality.

Moonlight

It is in the stillness of a deepest autumn night
In the presence of the blind moonlight and the raw
That the terror comes to me.
It always comes, like an emotion or an old friend
To whom I have not spoken for a long time.
Is this the fear that the first men felt
As they cowered from predators?
Did they feel the vastness
That comes over me now?
Did they feel, as I often do,
That the world and its faceless anger
Would swallow them?
Is this the wonder
That made them call out to their creator?

Radical American Nationalism

Lots of people ask me why I teach history. There are lots of reasons, but this little scenario sums it up as well as anything:

The first time a student comes to class late, he knocks on the door, sheepishly enters, quietly acknowledges the instructor, and slumps into his chair, embarrassed.

The second time, the student enters without knocking. He looks at the teacher, maybe cracks a polite smile, and quietly sits.

The third time the student arrives late, he opens the door, nods to one of his friends, and sits without acknowledging the teacher at all. After sitting, he quietly begins a conversation with a student close by.

The fourth time, the student throws open the door and calls to his friend across the room. The student greets every student nearby as he or she slowly progresses to his seat, where he cracks a joke to a student sitting in front of him.

We've all seen it before in many places and in many situations. What's the key here? No one corrects the student. Even though the teacher obviously has rules pertaining to punctuality, they are not enforced. Of course, the real question is this: had you only seen that student arrive late the last time (without context), what would you assume about the teacher and their attitude toward someone breaking a rule, or about the rules in general? Almost without exception, people like to push the envelope. We like things to be easy, and rules and morals, even when talking about something as simple as classroom punctuality, are not easy. We always like to take as much as we can, until we bite the hand that feeds us. We take "little steps" towards a path of less resistance. This is the ripple effect. The "slippery slope."

As the world changes faster than it ever has, these slopes can appear even more slippery. For instance: one of the clearest failures of modern social behavior, particularly in America, is the inability to adjust to instant availability of proof. We've become so accustomed to lying that this simple change creates devastating problems. For instance, had the student in the example been presented early on with proof that he was late, and that this would be used to ensure his following punctuality rules in the future, the problem likely would have been solved. But in general, when incontrovertible evidence proves someone wrong, there are two general directions they can choose: admit failure and move on, or create a scheme in which the information at hand is out of context, misinterpreted, or even wrong completely. This, I believe, is the birthplace of our "complicated relationship" with the truth. With that in mind, let's begin.

It’s saddening, it’s maddening, it’s what’s worst about us not only as Americans, but as human beings. Most importantly, it’s real. It’s white supremacy, as well as all of its components. The modern iteration of this silly and confusing set of “principles” has chosen to rely on the internet and other technology, which of course owes its heritage to enlightened, democratic, humanist reasoning, to spread its message. I don't think I need to elaborate on why that is counterintuitive, hypocritical and altogether silly. As silly as it is, it has once again become deadly. I and most other people had hoped that we would be discussing things like flying cars and space colonization in 2017, but here we are discussing the merits of structured racism. Disappointing doesn’t begin to cut it. But alas, here we are.

For those who have suddenly acquired such a passionate interest in history, particularly that of America, I can only say that I wish they had payed more attention when they were being taught it in school. But then again, recent efforts to undermine public education would lead most to believe that their teachers were somehow out to get them. If we’re to believe the conservative radio talk show hosts, school teachers are slanted, radical left wing pawns that push the slanted, radical left wing agenda in the hopes of, if I am understanding their meaning, ruining America. As a part of my profession, I have become reasonably familiar with American history and school textbooks used to teach it. I have tried to enrich my education about it with as many perspectives on it as I have time for. That's a big part of my job. There is no plot to misinform future generations and push established ethnic groups to the fringes of society. But If there is one certainty I can say that I find consistently in our history, it is that we have always thrived on touchy-feely things like diversity, and we have always pushed back against them. We’ve always bitten the hand that feeds us, whether it has been that of immigrants or Native Americans, or any other group to which we owe our prosperity.

Our history is quite literally filled with contradictions like those, which is fine. We, like every nation, are imperfect. It is just, right, and perfectly healthy to accept things like that. But one of our imperfections lies in the fact that we have trouble taking a hard look at that stuff. For instance: subscribers to our “alt-right” of course represent the views of much of the country, only in a more overt way. That is fact. They represent everyone who is inherently suspicious of muslims or latinos or black people or jews. They represent people who will always blame their misfortunes and anxieties on other people, and never on their inability to adapt to the world that they live in and accept that it is and always will be changing. They represent the people who thought that European immigrants were ethnically inferior, until they were determined to be white enough to fit in. I assure you that that's a much bigger group than what shows up in polls and bar graphs about white supremacy. As flawed as our “founding fathers” were, they did not intend for America to be some sort of haven for white culture, or any culture in particular for that matter, to flourish. If they had, they would have been explicit about it in our founding documents. What those documents are explicit about, however, is the dignity and equality of every single person in this country in the eyes of the law.

In addressing our recent spat over monuments, I will be as brief as possible. What many (including our president) see as an assault on southern culture, in some sense, is just that. Southern culture continues to venerate the leaders of a misguided and failed rebellion because every day, in little towns and big cities alike, they see people like Stonewall Jackson still commanding the armies of the confederacy against the northern aggressors. They aren’t "culture and heritage." They are physical representations of a warped mindset that cannot accept the reality of the confederacy's failure. And let's be clear: our Civil War was fought over the right to continue the institution of slavery. When the dust settles and the mental gymnastics are over, those are the facts. No one needs to tell me that there were other factors. But the continuation of slavery was one, and a big one at that, and for me and most other people, that is enough. Monuments to men who fought to create a nation that would be economically dependent on slave labor do not belong in a country that professes a love of freedom. Those monuments sprang up during a time when klan membership was at its apex and when Jim Crow policies were growing like a malignant tumor. They should have never gone up in the first place, so they’re coming down. Put more frankly, they glorify losers, which I think is something I don’t believe our Commander in Chief is very keen on.

Folks who think that relegating the poor, defenseless confederacy to history books and stuffy museums is “erasing history” in the name of political correctness, again, disappoint this social studies teacher. I only wish that the energy spent defending these monuments had been spent learning about the denial that so many fans of the confederacy live in regarding the facts of the case. The chivalrous and well-mannered antebellum south is still on a pedestal, while the reality of the plantation system is conveniently glazed over, if not ignored altogether. That kind of denial is explicitly dangerous. And even with that in mind, modern technology has shown us that nothing is ever truly “erased.” No one is ever going to forget the confederacy, but alas, losing a war generally relegates you to secondary status. Perhaps that sounds a bit like gloating, but I think that is fair. It's not erasing history, it's not self-hate, it's just fair. Most of my peers and I learned about our Civil War and slavery and how they were intertwined, and we manage to still approve of America, the South included. So yes, in the future, those who wish to revel in the glory of the losing side of our bloodiest war may have to travel further than their local town square, but I have no doubt that they will be satisfied in their local library. I would hope that they might consider themselves lucky, because such easy access to information like that is truly exceptional, particularly when the total history of human conquest is taken into account.

All of this has struck a chord with me because I believe that our Civil War, the defining moment of this country, saw the maturation of some of the greatest leaders in modern history. It's very American to say so, but the men who saw the country through that conflict will represent what it means to be a truly great leader for generations. These people eventually found the clarity to not only understand the immensity of the situation that they were now a part of, but to understand what lay ahead for this country if the conflict did not end agreeably. They had 600,000 reasons to get it right. Those reasons would be quickly forgotten as time passed, but in those raw moments following our deadliest war, men like Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee set their sights on reconciliation and reflection rather than retribution. So for how poorly many southerners regard President Lincoln, one need only look at his terms of surrender for the rebellious states to see that they owe him a great debt of gratitude. Destruction of white culture, they say? Abraham Lincoln was within his rights to crush the south and it’s “culture and heritage” and make them a distant, wretched memory if he so wished. He knew that this was unwise, and gave southerners a brother’s welcome back into the union. His band played Dixie when the surrender was received. Let them keep their homes and their farms, he said. Let them keep their flags. So yes, folks, the scholars who proudly fly their confederate flag have liberal politics to thank for that right. Again, biting the hand that feeds us.

Where it has become complicated is where people cut from conservative cloth complain of our society giving people of traditionally disadvantaged groups a “leg up.” Maybe the most interesting thing I heard during my time attending college in central Pennsylvania was an interview with a man (who was about my age) who said that he was supportive of Donald Trump and his policies because he was “tired of the white guy always being wrong.” Interesting, no? There is, and likely always will be, a segment of America that sees words like “diversity” and “inclusiveness” as code words for the white guy being wrong. They will see efforts to promote people of different ethnic backgrounds, particularly in government and other public service, as unfair and an assault on their ethnicity. Step into their shoes, and you may see something worth discussing. Imagine growing up in a place where the majority of your formative interactions with people outside of your ethnic group were experienced through watching television or reading the newspaper. Then enhance those experiences with the anxieties and frustrations of older generations who have experienced the very same upbringing. The scattered dots begin to connect, and defeatist culture is born.

What I would tell that young man that I heard on the radio is that he is probably misinterpreting the situation he finds himself in. The white guy isn’t always wrong, but from now on he is probably not always going to be right. While the pieces of paper that came our of our independence spoke of enlightened equality, America's economy has always favored rich white protestant men, even before it was America. And while many of us strive for loftier aspirations than economic success, money matters. I don't think it is realistic to deny that. So for my part, that is where I see things like affirmative action and the like playing their role. People who are not white or rich or protestant or male are at an inherent economic and cultural disadvantage to those who are, and I think most people at least intrinsically understand that. So no, I don't think it is crazy to say that certain ethnic groups are inherently less powerful per capita, and are therefore "entitled" to opportunities like affirmative action. It's tricky, but it's the the right thing to do.

And yes, now that times are a little tighter and globalization is helping other countries and not just us, those "entitlements" feel very much like a modern invention to just help out minorities and other disadvantaged people. History tells a different story. The active style of government that gave birth to entitlements, as well as the entitlements themselves, saved the United States from a descent into total economic collapse during another fast-fading memory, the Great Depression. The men and the mentality that caused the Depression were not the people to look to for solutions in any crisis, let alone one as vast as this. So Franklin Roosevelt takes the reigns of a country in true crisis and changes things. He is perhaps the only president who can claim to have inherited a country which was brimming with genuine "carnage," and he resolved to use his power to moderate the impulses of large businesses and other wealthy interests. How did he sell his New Deal reforms to the country? Where did he go for his photo-ops? Not to the homes of sharecropping descendants of slaves in Mississippi, but to the Tennessee backwaters peopled by innocent looking German and Irish immigrant children. America was not prepared to support poor black people, even if it meant dragging the entire country to the bottom of the ocean. White children, even poor ones, would do the trick. Now that public perception leans towards black people and other minorities reaping most of the benefits from entitlements, those entitlements are on the political chopping block. That is not a coincidence.

I’ll again reference history when I say that a swing towards defensive conservative politics (and the corresponding liberal reaction) tend to signal when societies and dominant cultures are almost certainly in decline. For those who take the time to learn about every “civilization” that has come to an end, that is consistent. The Mayans and Aztecs, the great Muslim empires, imperial China, Rome, Soviet Russia, they all saw the same political trends as they descended into ruin. I believe that that is what America is experiencing. Why are we declining? Lots of reasons. The world has caught up with us economically, and we have been slow to adjust. Our infrastructure is, in fact, "crumbling," and it is becoming too expensive to replace.

Perhaps most importantly, our government is being led by a group of people who yearn for an idyllic past that is never going to come back, and they are quite literally changing the rules of government to keep themselves, their families and their culture in an advantageous position. It's not going to work, but can we really blame them? I think that is worth asking. Lawmakers may not seem so, but they are usually astute observers of social undercurrents. They understand that their culture will soon be just another minority, so pushback is only natural. They are adrift at sea, gasping for air while the rest of the world sails away, and they will eventually drown. My question is this: will they drag the rest of the country down with them? I will say to them what I will say to all of the alt-whatever groups that have allowed fear of other cultures and attitudes to occupy their entire being: God will forgive you, but history will not. One day many years from now, scholars will most likely look back at America and say, "All of the information was at their fingertips. How could they have not seen the parallels? How could they have ignored all of the 'little steps' towards ruin and waited for the one 'great shocking occasion?' How could they not have known?"

A bit depressing, I know. The takeaway? Like everything, I suppose it depends on who you ask. Our decision to abandon the opportunity to be moral leaders for the entire world puts us in quite a pickle. We let our extremes get the better of us. We got scared, we are still very scared, and ultimately we will regret it. We are discussing history and science as though they will change if we just fill ourselves with enough denial and hatred and contrived confidence. As I spoke of before, we are not inclined to make peace with difficult realities, but we must. Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Lee and every other person who has had the blood of hundreds of thousands of young people on their hands knows that no amount of well-wishing, torch-lit marching, or "little steps" can being a single person back from the dead. They were leaders who chose to take a moral high road. at least for a little while, they were able to put aside rivalries and political squabbles, because after what they had just experienced, they knew that those things were, in a word, bullshit. And for me, they chose to look to the better angels of their nature because they knew exactly what happens when any other path is chosen: entire generations from towns hundreds of miles from battle return home with broken bodies or broken minds, if they return at all.

Donald Trump: Addendum

So there you have it. Donald wins. On a technicality, but he wins. The "rigged" election system that he consistently railed against or at least cast doubt on during his campaign is the very reason he's going to be our next president. Red America rejoices, blue America weeps. I shake my head one last time. In hindsight, this should not have been an upset. In our quaint little nation, the guy who yells the loudest tends to win the argument, be it in a bar or a town hall meeting or a presidential race. The goldfish-esque memory that America has exhibited has taken every history book ever printed and thrown it onto the funeral pyre of our international reputation and dignity. We've elected a fucking reality TV personality to be our leader. To call the shots on our laws. To direct the military during wartime. To appoint supreme court justices. As a future teacher, I'm done telling adults to read their history books. At least in this instance, it's too late. The deterioration of the American attention span is now exactly where it should be: front and center. But what can I say. I can't expect people to understand why events a hundred years ago are important today when we can't remember what we were outraged about three days ago.

Calling Mrs. Clinton a "flawed" candidate means nothing to me. Mother Theresa was flawed. And you can bet everything you own that everyone who has ever run for president is a very "flawed" person. But come on. The mere thought of someone using a private email server to communicate was enough to disqualify that person from being president? Bullshit. She's a less liberal version of Obama without the silver-tongued charisma. That's it. As we should have expected, the candidate with the most recent scandal lost, not the better one. Never mind that candidate's decades of experience in situations where actual shit was on the line, not just whether Omarosa was cool enough to stay on The Apprentice. Was it actually because that person is a she? Was it actually because she was endorsed by the most powerful black man in the history of the world? Yes, that played pretty significant part. Some will admit it, some won't. Some will scream it from the mountaintops. I don't give a shit how it sounds. You want it "like it is?" There you go. Donald was too much of a pussy to say it. If you react with incredulity and are ready to get in a fight with me over that, you have proven me right. And for their part, the Democratic party was completely tone-deaf for a year and a half and tried to play personality politics. That was incalculably stupid and played up the qualities that wound up winning Trump the election. It was childish and they have now payed the price. But now that Mrs. Clinton is out of the way, let's take a look at how we've made the worst of a bad situation.

Throughout this nonsense, Mr. Trump appeared to make some comments that I will politely call ill-conceived. We all know the sound bites. The gold star insults, the unflattering generalizations, the "grab them by the pussy." Crazy, crazy shit. The kind of shit that would make any other candidate for any other public office in any other place at any other time say "I fucked up" and then bow out. Mr. Trump, however, is very familiar with the aforementioned American attention span. His colleagues in the reality TV and real estate business are, too. Go ahead and tell me  it's just Donald being Donald. Tell me it's locker room talk. If you're A. over 60 years old and B. have a wife who is expecting a child, it isn't locker room talk, it's disgusting and unacceptable.

On the whole, I would say we take politics about as seriously as Trump has. The Trump bros and broettes I meet at state-run universities in the red state of Pennsylvania seem unconcerned that Mr. Trump would privatize every college in the country if he could, and probably price many of them out of the education that they are receiving. He just speaks and acts like an angsty teenager who has a lot of pent-up emotion over having nothing significant to complain about, so they relate to him. On a larger scale, we've become a nation of people who will turn off the thoughtful, insightful debate and turn on the news about a shooting. We love drama. We are drawn to drama. We pay attention to drama. Plain and simple, want to be entertained more than we want to be educated. That is our sin. Period.

I suppose what has drawn many people to Trump has been his shoot-from-the-hip, wingin' it style. It sounds (and is) counter intuitive, but many people like the fact that he doesn't have legitimate plans. The plans that he has made have mostly been in the form of "first day" pledges. Stuff like starting to build the Mexican-funded wall, repealing the Affordable Care Act, rounding up illegal immigrants, prosecuting his campaign opponent, etc. Are these things actually going to get done? More importantly, was Trump serious when he proposed these things? Both are doubtful. At the very least, they won't get done as quickly as Mr. Trump wants them to. Although it may not seem that way (since they barely do anything anymore), congress sort of has the last say on a lot of these things. Will the republicans who gave up on Trump flock back to him and support him? Probably. I doubt we will ever see the limit to which those people will go in the name of political expediency.

Probably the biggest promise Trump has made is his pledge to "bring back the jobs" from overseas. How? Don't worry about the details, says Donald. I'm a very rich person. I'm a very smart person. Well I'm afraid that's not really how it works. I'm not an economic expert, so you can take this as seriously as you'd like: those precious jobs are probably not coming back, and definitely not without a fight. The shit that Mr. Trump's heartland supporters buy in Walmart is overwhelmingly made overseas. Donald says he wants Americans to make this stuff. Ok. Sure. Build a factory according to US standards and pay your employees what typical factory employees make. The factory has to lower its prices to compete with overseas manufacturers. It cuts wages. The people employed at the factory can't afford the very shit they're making. They get pissed. Maybe they go on strike. The factory (gasp) decides to move to Mexico or China in search of cheaper (and less fussy) labor. The way that things are set up now, that's exactly what's going to happen

Mr. Trump's solution? Maybe apply tariffs. Maybe cut regulations. You know, the ones that require paid maternity leave, keep hours reasonable, keep working conditions safe, etc. Sounds unattractive? Don't count on joining a union, which a Trump/Republican administration will fight tooth and nail. The thing Mr. Trump won't tell his devotees: if you want your jobs back, you're going to have to rethink what a "livable" wage is. Want to know what a Donald Trump economy looks like? Look up "New York Tenements 1890." You'll get the idea. Most serious economists with actual knowledge of how our economy works agree that the way to cut through the litigious bullshit that makes running a business in this country so difficult is to actually hold business owners accountable for their shittiness. The paralyzing fear of a lawsuit has turned our economy into a liability-limiting machine. But who actually suffers from those lawsuits? Not the CEOs. Not the bigwigs on Wall Street who actually call the shots. It's the mid-level managers who are just passing down orders. Case in point: Wells Fargo. Who got axed when the shit hit the fan? Mid and low level employees. It wasn't until Elizabeth Warren roasted the fuck our of the CEO that he stepped down. And guess what: he stepped down an extremely, extremely rich man. Just like Donald.

"The Wall" is the just the most publicized manifestation of the xenophobia and distrust of other races and nationalities that was a huge part of this election, whether we want to admit it or not. Go ahead Donald. Build your wall. Watch the bad guys laugh at you and find a way around it the day after it's done. Will Muslim communities really be subjected to steeply increased surveillance? Will they really be held accountable for violent radicals on the fringes of their faith? They better fucking not. There were no calls for greater surveillance of troubled Neo-Nazis when Scott M. Greene ambushed and killed two police officers in Urbandale, Iowa. Remember that? Probably not, it was in the headlines for all of two seconds. Talk about a crooked, biased media, right? But I digress.

Mr. Trump doesn't think we are at all responsible for providing refuge for some of the people displaced by the fighting in Syria. He also thinks that other countries in the area should foot the bill for our military presence. This is, of course, the man's complete and utter misunderstanding of the last 20 years on display. Donald. We. Created. The. Problem. We went into someone's house and set it on fire, and now we're mad at them for not wanting to put it out themselves? If you consider yourself an American, you need to be willing to accept the consequences of failed policies (the Iraq/Afghanistan Shitshow) even if you didn't agree with them (which he did). This shirking of the responsibility to answer for our asinine short-sightedness absolutely infuriates me, and it makes people in the Middle East hate us more, if that's possible. The more we turn our noses up at answering for bullshit wars we wage overseas, the more they will have those wars in our own back yards. If there is any symbolism in this election, it is the victory of violent extremists (Islamic or otherwise, it actually doesn't fucking matter) over the hearts and minds of the world's most powerful country. We are finally as afraid as they want us to be.

One of the more unsettling outcomes of this election is that the Republican party, the one that couldn't agree on a candidate, the one that shuddered and splintered and cowered at the first sign of trouble, is now in control of our government. The people that our new president refused to suck up to are now in charge. Republican leaders couldn't come up with a definitive answer to the question "what does your party stand for," and most of America said, "good enough for me." Horse. Shit. The Republican party is shit scared, paranoid to the point of paralysis, and completely without a serious plan for the future. The Democrats, for all of their stupidity, had a plan. I don't love it, but it's better than hot air. Limited government, you say? We've elected a group of people that are so scared of losing their power that they are willing to ride the coattails of a man who called the reliable part of their constituency "stupid." That's right. Trump called Republican voters stupid. So Republicans are faced with a dilemma: do we work with this guy who thinks we and those we represent are dumb? Do we give him what he wants? Votes are on the line, so yes, they probably will.

Even with all of this nonsense in mind, I would almost be willing to consider this man a serviceable president if he showed anything resembling level-headedness under pressure or a willingness to actually listen to his critics. Regardless of what we all want to hear, Hillary Clinton shredded Mr. Trump in the debates they participated in. I don't give a hot steaming shit if people thought the moderators were biased. They weren't. Donald just whined and bitched about them so much that people started to see something that wasn't there. Even if they were, how did he react? Embarrassingly childish. He has exhibited stress-management skills I would be concerned about in my seventh grade students. He gets defensive. He gets rude. He interrupts. He literally cannot control the things that come out of his mouth. In a nationally televised debate, that looks bad. In a crisis-level situation that Donald will almost certainly find himself in during his presidency, people will die. This affected fourth grade macho attitude that went over so well with the solid red voters of the American heartland is not going to go over well with foreign leaders. And no, having the biggest and baddest military in the world is not an excuse to say and do what you want in the Situation Room. Donald will be pushed and prodded and goaded into showing himself for the conflict lover that he is. I have said it before and I'll say it again: I will not fight in or support a war waged because an overgrown child couldn't keep his big fucking mouth shut.

So what now? What can we expect from President Trump? We don't really know. History is littered with underdogs who considered their popular support a mandate to seek revenge on those who doubted them. Does Mr. Trump want to make an example of liberals? Or of conservatives who jumped ship on him? I don't know. You don't know. Donald probably doesn't know. He's wingin' it all the way to the fuckin' White House. There is no indication that Donald's kumbaya moment of wanting to "unite the country" after a rough election is anything other than the post-win honeymoon champagne doing the talking. Trump ran a divisive campaign and he won. Why change now? He had every opportunity to push a unifying message and he didn't. Unfortunately for most of his die-hard supporters, they are probably in for a pretty nasty reality check. If the first few days of the Trump Era are any indication, President Trump will be spending a lot of time explaining why things that he said were going to happen aren't going to happen, and were actually never meant to happen.

The wall isn't going to be so great. ObamaCare is actually pretty good. Faced with the situation of actually speaking to Obama face-to-face, Donald now thinks he is a "very good man." Can you be any more of a two-faced coward? Maybe now he's finally realizing that for all the shit he talked about him, Obama didn't take anyone's guns, or incite any of any violence, or try to turn the country into a welfare state. He did what he was elected to do: be a slightly left of center establishment democrat, not satan. And all that talk about "draining the swamp" and getting rid of the crooked career politicians? Reince Priebus, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and a slew of others: all establishment conservative republicans, all career politicians. And yes, I'll say that again for those who thought they misread: Sarah Palin, Ms. Desperately in Need of a Lesson in Basic World Geography herself (and also a climate change denier), is on the short list for Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America. Absolute. Shitshow.

But now the election is over. There are no more nonsense rallies to hold. There are no more ires to stoke. The utter stupidity of his campaign has begun to reveal itself like a festering wound half-assedly concealed by a band-aid. And for what it's worth, Mr. Trump has not looked very enthusiastic about this new life he has embarked on. In his first interview after the election, he seemed to find himself in a situation that he has never found himself before: at a loss for words. It is my honest to goodness contention that we have elected a man who does not want to be president at all. Why would he? He has never had interest in being a public servant and he doesn't now. I'm sure that for all of the "wonderful" friends he's made, he's starting to experience how incredibly lonely the presidency is, and I don't think he likes it at all.

So yeah, I am very disappointed right now. But I genuinely hope for the sake of everyone involved that he doesn't fuck up too badly. Politics are what they are, and politicians are who they are, but I have faith in the majority of Americans who, like me, shook their head at every single thing that happened in this election. Most of us voted, some didn't. But we got up the day after the election and got back to the work of keeping what this country has always been: great. And in spite of all of his efforts, I don't think the Donald is going to change that.

"Nature," Beauty, and the Modern Concept of Dominance

In perhaps the most important book ever written, humans are given "dominion" over all other forms of life. "Subdue" my creation, said the Lord. The Bible's very first description of man's relationship with the rest of the world is not just one of separation, but one of dominion and unique authority. Like it or not, we are culturally bound to this book and what it has to say in more ways than we'd like to admit. According to the Bible, the rest of the world is here for us to do with whatever we darn well please. The lens of modern language presents "dominion" to us in that way. It has become synonymous with oppression, maltreatment, perhaps even hatred. This, I would argue, is at least partially because of our disillusionment with things like monarchies and the governing class itself during the last several centuries. Many people or groups of people who have been given "dominion" over the most important aspects of modern life have shirked their duties (selfish monarchs in Europe, corruption and the slave trade in Africa, hardcore isolationist /nationalist regimes in Asia, etc.), and as such have created a stigma around the idea of dominance. As anyone with even a passing interest in modern politics knows, there are few things more powerful than a disillusioned public.

Plenty of people distrust this kind of conventional religion and government because both seem to derive their authority from almost randomly bestowed dominance. There is no cause for their effects. The idea of a God giving man power over the world for no clear scientific reason seems foolish because nothing in the universe is just given, especially to humans, who seem determined to misuse it in every conceivable way. Matter and energy (and the ability to use them) don't just materialize out of thin air, at least through human efforts. Religious arguments over that statement aside, these things present us with perhaps the most important question one can ask, given the now widespread realization of our ecological imbalances: what should be our relationship with the things we call "nature?" Should we exploit our resources and trust science and technology to lead us down an ever more narrow path? Should we strive to preserve that which we deem "natural" and take steps to ensure that it remains almost entirely untouched by we silly humans? Should we make an effort to strike a bargain between our pragmatism and our love for aesthetics? Or are these seeing past a more basic, empirical view of our relationship to that which is not human? If it sounds broad and complicated, it is.

One of the best ways I can put my personal thoughts on this into context is to reference an artistic venture in which two Russian painters (Komar and Melamid, if you're curious) traveled to some of the most remote locations on the planet to ask all manner of people a simple question: what type of scene do you find beautiful? The artists polled people from small hamlets in Nepal to Manhattan, and understandably expected some diverse responses. Both artists admitted they were surprised and even a little disappointed by what they got. The results had many striking similarities: evidence of abundant plant and animal life, water, usually both in the fore and background, large trees with low branches (where one might be able to hide if one was being chased by a large predator). Perhaps most importantly, the scene was described from a place from which a large swath of land could be viewed. Sounds nice, right? What raises my eyebrow, just like it does for most people familiar with ancient history, is that this is precisely the same environment in which humans evolved on the African savannah and other places in Asia. To explain it more practically, this is the kind of landscape an ancient human would want to see if they were looking for everything essential to life: water, food, shelter, hiding places, etc. Quite a coincidence, no?

The question of what this really means for us today is a tough one. I could argue that this shows pretty compelling evidence to suggest that living the kind of hunter-gatherer lifestyle our ancient ancestor lived is the intersection of our practical and beautiful necessities. Studies like the one above show that humans are practically programmed to be drawn to these environments and to find them beautiful. While I'm sure it is true in some instances, I doubt many people look over a sea of office cubicles and says, "Ah, yes. This is the pinnacle of human prosperity." Monotony is the antithesis of the best aspects of human nature, and every major religious text (especially the Koran) describes gardens and scenic outdoor landscapes as their various versions of "paradise." With these things in mind, we are left with perhaps an even more imposing reality: we are almost completely removed not only from most of the landscapes that we crave, but also from the ability to live in them. So to whom could we possibly turn to for advice on how to live in such a way that gives credence to these natural tendencies?

As Americans, we're still culturally inclined to look at people like Native Americans and their way of life with the kind of pity we give wild animals. "It was quaint and maybe even dignified, but we know how to do it better." That was the attitude that drove the descendants of Europeans across this productive, bountiful land that we so luckily now inhabit. We pushed aside the people who had lived here for untold generations, and all but completely discounted the cultural knowledge they had accumulated regarding how to best use the land. Their bond to these beautiful places was sacred in a way few of those who overthrew them could likely understand. While there were of course variations from group to group in the ways in which they expressed it, the vast majority of the people who lived here before us saw no significant distinction between the land, the animals that inhabited it, and themselves. Maybe some don't, but when I read what they had to say about their connection with their land, only one thing comes to mind: beauty. The same kind of fantastic beauty one might expect from a painting of a wide-open savannah with an abundance of animals and trees and water.

While it is of little value to say so today, Native American knowledge on this topic would be invaluable in the modern world. These groups had built up a complex, nuanced, and effective way to use almost every area of America to provide for themselves, sometimes even in abundance. But they hadn't even heard of Jesus or the Christian God, and though modern archaeology has proven otherwise, they did not seem to operate as part of a complex, large scale society. Physically, they seemed similar to their European visitors, and they seemed capable of expressing themselves in a similar way. But what value could come of a people who were not Christian? Or technologically advanced? Or white? Without hesitation, I will say say that any "progress" that we as Americans have made in our time here has been a Faustian bargain that began when we told the caretakers of this land that their knowledge (and their lives) were without value.

The idea of "dominance" over nature takes on a much different role with Early North American ecological relationships in mind: Native Americans (and people who live like they do) see themselves as a part of what we refer to as the nebulous "nature," while we see ourselves as the masters of it. This mindset shows itself in many ways. Obviously, outright exploitation of nature is the most obvious example. Despite scientific consensuses pleading for an alternative, this is how most modern economies do business. Almost two hundred countries gave themselves a standing ovation at the Paris Climate "Agreement" last year because they all managed to not ignore a mountain of scientific evidence that any layperson with a computer (or an hour or two to spend outdoors) can plainly see. The axiom "Might makes right," in all of its applications, seems to have found perhaps its best traction in the relationship between man and the natural resources he uses to make his life easier. This is the strip mine, the oil rig, the sprawling parking lot that is never full. It is wastefulness, it is theft, it is stupidity incarnate. It is the almighty doctrine of Manifest Destiny, which of course owes its contemporary legacy to something called Lebensraum.

Our feelings of dominance show themselves in more subtle, ostensibly compassionate ways as well. National Parks are a fantastic, well-intentioned and beautiful thing. I visit them often. But in spite of the feelings they inspire in me as they do in many, I believe they are in effect pulling the wool over our eyes. Any park ranger will readily describe the amount of hands-on work they do to make sure that National Parks look as hands-off as possible. In fact, there are a great deal of resources that go into preserving the scenic beauty of the land so that we can look, but not touch. This fascination with "nature" as a separate thing that we think about and spend time in when we feel like it or get a chance to is manufactured reality, as evidenced in our natural history. How did Native Americans manage to be extremely hands-on with these places and not completely ruin them? Read some of Chief Luther Standing Bear's writings. Read a speech by Sitting Bull or Chief Seattle. It will come to you, as it has come to me.

The equal and opposite reactions to our exploitative compulsions are the active, vocal and sometimes aggressive groups which are preoccupied by the fear of man completely ruining earth as a source of life. These groups, again, are well-intentioned. But to suggest that we humans can "ruin" nature and make earth a permanent wasteland through our foolishness is ignoring almost as much scientific evidence as those who would see every coal-bearing mountain mined and every advantageously positioned river dammed. This kind of thinking both overestimates the effect humans have on the earth long-term and the tenacity of life on this planet. Natural processes survived (and continue to survive) through conditions and cataclysms that are practically impossible for modern humans to accurately understand. They will weather the pathetic nuisance of our foolishness.

I do believe that we humans have dominion over earth. At least for the short time that we are going to be here, we are the ultimate alpha predator. But even alpha predators are in some ways more susceptible to imbalances in nature than other, less imposing members of the natural world. Example: sharks don't eat some of the whale and put the rest away for later, they eat every bit they can and leave the rest to rot. Wasteful? One could say so. But nature has ways of making sure that nothing is ever wasted. The shark leaves some of the whale, the microbes eat the rest, the plankton eat the microbes, the krill eat the plankton, the whale eats the krill, the shark eats the whale. Billions of years of evolution has made processes like this (very oversimplified) one very efficient. Humans, however, either ignore or refute evidence that shows our dependence on the processes that give us life and relative comfort. Nature hands us a simple road map to how best to use our world, and we ask, "but where is the room for profit," or "the way that I interpret this other book tells me that if I play by its rules I'll live in paradise forever after I die." In our very natural efforts to improve our own lives in tangible, immediate ways, we've forgotten how to care for the most basic sources of life itself. What I think we've forgotten about "dominance" is that it implies grave, burdensome responsibility to ensure that everything under our dominion flourishes.

Historically, good rulers have understood this. They have seen themselves as servants to their constituents, or at least as humble equals. When our "Founding Fathers" decided to cast aside foreign dominance and govern themselves, it was fashionable for an elected leader to say that he was unequal to the task given to them. George Washington, perhaps the most revered figure in our nation's history, at least publicly felt that way. He said the highest office in a newly minted nation was bigger than him in every way. That could certainly be attributed to a gentleman's modesty, but can we seriously fathom a modern president openly admitting that he or she is unequal to their task? Certainly not. We want our leaders to be fearless and proud and strong far more than we want them to be wise and thoughtful. Our moral cynicism has lowered us to the level of an odd collection of people who are unsure of what we really want from our government until vain, self-absorbed people remind us. We've thrown off the yoke of out-of-touch monarchs, wandered aimlessly but forcefully for two hundred years, and now we seem to want them back. I promise you, if they have their way, "nature" will become something our children only read about in textbooks.

Let me be clear, I do not fear for nature. It has made its way without us, just as it will when we are gone. When I see people weep for a river turned orange by toxins or for a bird whose habitat is mulched, I think of another Bible verse: "Do not weep for me, weep for yourselves and your children." For me, our divine gift as a species is the keys to our own destruction. We have been given both the tools to end our existence and the wisdom to use those same tools wisely. Is a Luddite utopia of hunting and gathering ever going to be possible again? Not soon. Eight billion people living the same way a few million did millenia ago is not practical, or even feasible, but we still must learn from it. We must look to how our ancestors lived and accept it as part of the way we should live now. We have an invaluable intellectual endowment that was developed over tens of thousands of years that shows us what we need through what we instinctively find beautiful. Beauty is the world's way of telling humans to go after things, to long for things, to live a certain way. Of course, we teach ourselves to ignore things like that and call them impractical and foolhardy. We relagate our most fundamental and essential motivations into the bottom of our minds and the bottom of our cultural conscience. That is perhaps our gravest sin.

This all begs the question: now that we know what we're up against, are we "equal to our task?" There's plenty of evidence which points directly to our prehistoric past as the key to understanding how to exercise our dominion in a way we can sustain for the foreseeable future. We are born with the answer in our minds. The feeling of ecstasy that comes over us when we look out over a scenic vista isn't a culturally conditioned reaction to something we've been told is beautiful. We find it to be beautiful because it is and has always been our home. Likewise, we find a landfill or a clear-cut forest ugly because it shows us the opportunity we have been given to make the most of this world and how we have squandered it. Irresponsible leaders of our recent past squandered their opportunities to exercise responsible dominance, and we see ugliness. We see a parent beat their child when that child trusted his or her parents to use their dominance wisely, and we see ugliness. That is nature at work. There is nothing culturally distinct or relative about things like that. When we are at our best, we exercise dominion with fortitude and grace and a sense of massive responsibility for the things whose care we are entrusted with. It has always been that way, and it always will be.

So what do I learn from "nature?" I know you're not asking, but I will tell you anyway. I learn how to be a person with one eye to the past, one eye on the present, and one eye to the future. Perhaps my feelings on this subject would be more clear if I could give a pivitol moment for when that was made clear to me, but I do not have one. It's been a gradual, relationship with things outside of modern life. Every time I take a break from things and "wash my spirit clean" in the forest, I get more satisfaction from it. Perhaps I am not in a very advantageous position to talk to other people about the power of what we call nature because I have always lived in it. I will let those who read this judge that. But I have found that the best parts of what it is to be a human are reflected in the places where we became human. "Nature" is patient, but it does not waste time. It does not wage war. It does nothing out of spite or fear of an uncertain future. It invites us to come and live from it as well as in it. It poses dangers and sometimes mortal threats, but it offers priceless rewards if they are met with steady, thoughtful action. It is the both the greatest library and the greatest church ever created. It shows us what unadulterated joy is possible when we listen to it and treat it as we would family, and it shows us what harm it can inflict when we use our dominance selfishly and without forethought. And yes, it will one day show us that we need it far, far more that it needs us. When you cut a limb from a tree, it retaliates by growing another. It's difficult for us to understand that kind of patience, but it is the closest thing we have to a tangible example of a truly balanced and fruitful existence. At its core, "nature" is where I see the kind of beauty I always have and always will seek and admire. It's where I talk to God, and where he talks back.