My musings on different political topics relevant to America today.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Institutions, Risk, and Life Lessons

Its funny how everything worthwhile in life requires risk.  We risk our reputation when we decide to befriend someone.  We risk failure when we go to school, start a job, or even start a business.  We risk being wrong when we commit to an opinion, worldview, or political philosophy.  We really can't achieve anything worthwhile without risk.  Yet admittedly its often easier to just sit there and watch life pass us by.  Its often easier to live in misery than to actually live a full life.  Thus no surprise, thats exactly what many do, including myself most of the time.

Its funny how we have many institutions in society that are there for the very purpose of forcing us out of our comfort zones, yet I fear we have forgotten how important these institutions are, whether they be sports, extracurricular activities, clubs, etc.  We need these things and much more to push us out of our comfort zone because if it was up to us we usually choose the easy way out.  Thus the more I think about it, the more I realize a culture that goes overboard on the value of self ownership can lead to disaster.  If parents do not actively try to push their students to try new things, or if the school they go to growing up doesn't push it either, then its likely those students will grow up and be permanently handicapped in handling adverse situations and taking risks.

I find it revealing that its my generation that has become obsessed with micro-aggressions and not offending each other.  Its interesting that my generation is the one that believes we must be warned before anything potentially offensive has been said to us.  Its my generation that has originated the concept that actions must be taken preemptively to ensure we don't feel uncomfortable.  I can't help but think this stems from an upbringing of never being pushed out of our comfort zones.  I believe the soft skills of conflict resolution and emotional maturity and a healthy attitude toward risk have been handicapped by an upbringing which did not appreciate the importance of these.  Everybody had to win "honorable mention" and everyone had to be told they were special because it might hurt their feelings if they weren't.

I don't at all think all millennial are this way, and I know I am painting very broad strokes when I talk about "my generation," but the trend still greatly disturbs me.  The fact is the benefits of going out of your comfort zone are immense.  One, you learn pretty quickly that you are not as awesome as you think you are.  However, even more important, you realize that failure in different situations isn't a big deal.  You learn that getting upset and hurt are parts of life that are unavoidable, and the harder you try to avoid them, the easier it is to get upset or hurt.  These are not easy things to teach, they pretty much have to be learned through experience.

I think society needs to revalue activities that teach our youth to be okay with failure and okay with being uncomfortable.  There is a lot at stake from ignoring the importance of these lessons.  I hope my generation can turn things around for the next generation.  We are all capable of so much more than we realize, and the last thing I want is for someone to neglect their talents and passions because they are afraid of something as senseless as rejection or failure.

Monday, August 1, 2016

Modernism, History, and Politics

Lately I have been reading two intriguing books and also watching House Hunters International.  I acknowledge that last point reluctantly, since its embarassing, but the combination of these activities has lead me to strange insights that may be completely wrong, but nonetheless I will share them with you.  I will let you be the judge.

There is one episode in House Hunters International in which a New Yorker moves to Cyprus with her two kids.  They look at three homes as is routine on the show, and must evaluate which they prefer.  I couldn't help but notice that two of them were super modern.  Meanwhile, Cyprus has a very ancient feel to it, with ruins all around.

The more I thought about it, the more intriguing it was to me that modern architecture and slowly crept into mainstream appeal, and that its basically the same everywhere it is employed.  It is always very "squarish" for lack of a better term, and there are large windows everywhere.  The structure itself almost appears as a blank slate, clean, but lacking flaws or character that give any sense of place or time.  The main characteristic of it is simplicity in design, and an adaptability to multiple environments.  Its like an isolated prism through which the alien inhabitants can gaze upon the earthlings as they mill around doing whatever earthlings do.

Its hard to say exactly what it is without saying what it isn't.  It isn't historical.  It isn't rooted.  It has no culture.  It has no place.  Thats modern architecture.  Its the architecture of what I believe is an emerging cosmopolitan global citizen.  This global citizen has no ties to particular places or a particular culture.  His culture is that of the world.  Its a global cosmopolitan culture.  While most people are still tied to regions of various sizes, and thus are tied to the heritage and history of their homeland.  The global citizen has forsaken her regional heritage in order to embrace a global one.

This global culture is still in its infancy, and thus must make sure to tread lightly.  It does so by taking unassuming forms that cannot offend.  Modern architecture cannot offend because its not rooted in anything.  A steeple can offend because it is rooted in Christian tradition.  A dome found on a mosque can offend for the same reason.  Cowboy boots, hijabs, etc. can all offend because one associates these symbols with history and culture.  Meanwhile, the dress of the modern person is intentionally ambiguous.  Same for the architecture and other modes of cultural expression.  Modernism can traverse space like no other cultural mode because its the absence of culture, while counter intuitively rising as an alternative culture.  It can assume both functions because the new Cosmopolitan elite can overlay a new global culture onto the seemingly benign blueprint of Modernism.

This all might make little sense, so I will give an example.  The modern houses built in Cyprus do not express or imitate the local culture in any way.  They are alien invaders so to speak.  However, they are accepted because they are not seen as cultural invaders.  If someone was to build a house that was blatantly French, British, or Japanese in character, I think the residents of Cyprus would complain.  However, since the houses were modern, aka lacked a culture, offense was not possible.  The people of cyprus could not claim there was cultural imperialism to modernist structures precisely because modernist structures are rootless, they do not claim any cultural origination based off ethnicity or geography.  It is this supposed blankness of modernism that makes it so effective in traversing international boundaries and slowly assert itself as the better expression of culture versus the expressions original to the localities it invades.  The genius lies in its ability to slowly destroy the culture of localities and regions without ever directly challenging them.

The new cosmopolitan elite has adapted modernism as its form of cultural expression.  Modernism has become the new high culture, much in the same way high French culture used to rule amongst the elites in the early to mid 20th century.  However whats unique about modernism is its lack of a national origin.  Since High French Culture originated in France, its appeal would always be limited.  However since Modernism's origins are international, its not doomed to such a fate.

My theory for the rise of this bifurcation of regional versus global culture is the unique immigration policies of our time.  The best and brightest can always move around and intermingle.  Every nation around the world will bend over backwards to attract this meritocratic elite to live and work in their country.  Meanwhile migration is much harder for those with low to middling skill sets.  Thus regional culture and identity are much more likely to be retained amongst these groups than the former.

This divide I believe will be the ultimate dividing line politically for years to come.  The meritocratic, and thus globally oriented, elite will be far more likely to embrace modernism.  They will embrace modernism out of necessity to get along with different people all over the globe.  They will be truely global citizens, able to access any opportunity the world has to offer as part of the meritocratic elite.  The international intermingling of this elite will ensure a more international and globalist perspective by its members.  They will likely, in my view, favor free trade, free migration, while also favoring strong international institutions to combat climate change and counteract recessions.  They will be even more inclined to favor these institutions since they will be run by elites like themselves.

The other political group will be oriented around the needs of regional and national cultural and political units.  They will be the Trump supporters, the Brexit voters, and whatever other groups that are determined to preserve national and/or regional cultural identities.  They will view the globalist elite with suspicion, and will work to ensure their nation states work primarily to preserve their societies as distinct and to prevent the domination of the new globalized elite.  They will likely favor protectionism, capital controls, restricted migration, etc.

I never thought of architecture being political but after reading excerpts of The Closing of the American Mind, and The Contradictions of Capitalism.  its has dawned on me that all forms of expression are linked to a culture of some kind.  We are not autonomous individuals that customize every aspect of our identity.  Since we must interact with others, our tastes will always be influenced by those with which we associate.  Anyways just some food for thought, have fun overthinking!

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Needs and Wants

There are things I need, and there are things I want.  Its a fun exercise in my twisted brain to try and decipher exactly where that line is.  When does a need become a want?  And vice versa, can what we perceive as a want actually be a need?  Maybe you will like to venture with me in this endeavor.

According to the interwebs...
A need is something that is necessary for an organism to live a healthy life. Needs are distinguished from wants in that, in the case of a need, a deficiency causes a clear adverse outcome: a dysfunction or death.
What a wonderfully broad definition right?! Well lets start with whats obvious and work from there.  Humans need to eat and drink and breathe to live.  If we did not, we would die.  These are perhaps the most obvious needs.

Many would say that shelter is a need.  Indeed, most if not all human societies develop means to shelter its inhabitants from the elements.  The mongolians had yurts.  The Comanches had teepees. While one could imagine a circumstance in which shelter is not necessary, say out in California or the Mediterranean coast maybe,  its clear that such a life would be uncomfortable.  Then in other places it would be disastrous to have no shelter: aka Alaska, Siberia, the Sahara, etc. etc. 

Whats funny is that shelter, food, drink, and oxygen are needs, but they are needs of varying degree.  Shelter is less of a need than the others.  Another possible need are friends.  We seem to need friends and other people around us in order to stay grounded in the real world.  I have not looked at any studies on it but its clear that infants that receive less stimulus from the parents are handicapped versus those that don't.  Movies often portray this, such as Castaway, in which Tom Hanks goes a little nuts as he is stuck on an island by himself.  This social component is hard to understand, and its not a need in the sense that food is, yet one can argue its still a need of human existence.

Where then is the boundary?  Its strange that food is necessary, yet what was once a need has now become more than that.  We enjoy eating, and go to great lengths to dress up our food and make it something more than just sustenance.  The same is true with drink, and with friends, and with shelter.  We want our shelter to be an idol dedicated to our success.  We want our food and drink to give us great pleasure, as well as our friends.  We use all of these as status symbols, and as means for pleasure.  Its strange that what were once needs, become something else over time, while still being needs in the most basic sense.

Its also clear that mass society's definition of need evolves over time.  I confess I like watching reality shows about people shopping for houses, and especially tiny houses.  One thing I find enthralling is how people discern what they truly need.  When they commit to buying a tiny house, they are committing to live with only what they need, for they have no space for anything else.  Some people cannot imagine living without a flushing toilet, or less than 700 square feet, or without their special kitchen appliances.  Its very interesting to see how attached people can be to a certain way of living, and that they cringe at the idea of living without these things.  The things are not needs in an absolute sense, yet to these people they might as well be. 

100 years ago large window panes were a luxury item only the richest could afford, yet now people can't imagine not having large windows in their house, or at least many can't.  Its interesting that the base line of "needs" keeps growing.

This leads me to wonder if in our digital age of mass media if we are being inundated to believe that we need a lifestyle that is beyond the reach for the vast majority of people.  Perhaps we are unhappy because we expect a lifestyle that is out of sync with economic reality.  We want to blow all our money on our dream home, on our dream vacation, on the lastest trends, on the coolest car, on the craziest parties, on the best concerts, and all while having plenty for retirement.  Yet life is a game of tradeoffs, and if we don't recognize that we are doomed to financial ruin.  At the root of this predicament I believe is realizing what our true needs are, and what are just wants. 

I truly believe people can live happy lives with relatively little, as long as the basics are meant, and we have community.  We need community for mental health, and we need food, water, and shelter for physical health.  After we have those things, anything else is fleeting.  I truly believe that.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

America: Divided We Fall

The more I think about it the more I realize the reason our politics are so divisive is that America is simply a very divided place.  Its not homogenous and uniform like many other modern democracies like Germany and Japan.  Its a comglomerate of all different sorts of people racially, geographically, religiously, etc. etc.  Combine this with a two party system and its a recipe for the type of politics we currently see.  There is a great divide between the disparate groups that see themselves as conservative versus those other disparate groups that see themselves as liberal.  Those that align with one group or the other, despite the fluidity of these terms as descriptive labels, unfortunately see each other as the enemy.

These two sides are rooted in specific cultural and political temperaments.  I use the word temperament intentionally, because neither is really a political ideology.  This is key to understand.
Conservatism is essentially respect of tradition.  Its respect for the things our ancestors handed down to us.  Conservatives wish to preserve what was best from the past.  Juxtapose this to liberals, who wish to destroy and replace the things they believe were worse about the past.  In other words, conservatism and liberalism are temperaments more than specific positions on issues. 

 These definitions show that in reality, both parties have conservative and liberal elements.  While of course, both parties tend toward one or the other overall.  The crucial distinction to make politically is whether these conservatives and liberals, are authoritarian or libertarian.  In other words, do they believe the state should be used to enforce their agenda.

Our two parties are both mostly authoritarian now.  They wish to force their vision of the world on the other side.  Authoritarian liberals believe everyone must agree with them otherwise they are haters, and as haters do not deserve the right of free speech, and should be punished.   Authoritarian conservatives, with Donald Trump at the helm, believe that anyone that threatens what they see as American culture, should be forbidden from entering the country, or even deported.  Both believe the state should be used as a cudgel against their cultural enemy. 

Then there is the libertarian side.  This side believes in tolerating the other side.  They may vehemently disagree with the other side and their vision of America, but they refrain from using the state as a tool to suppress the side with which they disagree.  Now the reality is that both parties incorporate authoritarian and libertarian elements, however I find it a disturbing trend that the two parties are becoming more authoritarian instead of less.  Anything is justifed since afterall, the other side is not just wrong, they are the enemy.  As a result, anything done against the enemy is justified, no matter how abhorrent it is.

Donald Trump and everything he does practically is an example of this.  However one still sees plenty of this on the left.  Violently shutting down Donald Trump's rallies is considered acceptable since he is evil.  The Baltimore riots were justified by many on the left as an inevitable consequence of police brutality.  Meanwhile the ranchers occupying a federal building with guns is seen as evil.  Both had a grievance against the state, yet the left only saw the riots as justified.  Meanwhile of course the right sees the ranchers as justified.  I don't think either was justified frankly.  I don't think using violence as a political tool is justified.  I know there is a line somewhere in which it may be acceptable, however I don't believe we are anywhere near that. 

While I disagree with the left on alot of issues, I would never suggest they are the enemy.  The left are people, human beings.  Those on the right are human beings as well.  I think the great issue of our time, is this crazy divide between left and right.  We live in a world in which almost anything is justified because the other side is just that horrible.  We live in a modern retelling of Romeo and Juliet, in which the two bickering families cannot never let go of their resentment of the other.  Both have legitimate grievances, and as a result they continue to fight, inflicting senseless suffering on eachother because of past wounds.  If we don't learn to forgive and love our "enemies", as cheesy as that sounds, things will only get worse. 

There is a cynical side of me that wonders if this conflict is just inevitable from a historical standpoint.  Its very rare that two opposing sides forgive and learn to live with each other.  South Africa with Nelson Mandela is perhaps one of the few rare examples in modern history of this happening.  However those rare examples give me hope that we can turn this around.  I choose to believe we can, and I refuse to hate those that disagree with me.  I can only hope others will do the same.

Friday, May 20, 2016

If I were a Socialist

The left is a cognitively dissonant group.  While raging against inequality, their proposals would not actually reduce said inequality.  Their proposals in fact are nothing more than thinly disguised excuses to grow government and give goodies to particular special interests, like college students and the academic elite.  While inequality and the evils of rich bankers are used as the excuse for raising taxes on the "rich," in actuality the sources of income are high income earners in any given year.  If you are a highly indebted doctor that makes a high salary, your taxes will be just as high as that evil hedge fund manager that inherited his wealth under Bernie Sanders' plan.  Yet somehow the left has convinced themselves that anyone earning a six figure salary or more is part of this boogie man called the 1%.  Which that is technically true, that group is highly heterogeneous, and using the logic of punishing the politically well connected in finance to tax all high earners is straight up illogical. 

 The fact is that the provision of government programs is a different issue from that of inequality.  If the goal is to reduce inequality, then I would suggest one read's Thomas Pickety's book on the subject: Capital in the 21st Century.  In it he shows the increase in the total capital stock (capital is another word for wealth, which consists of savings, stocks, property, etc. etc.) over the past 50 years and how the return on capital tends to outpace the total growth rate of an economy.  As a result he argues that inequality will continue to increase to distopian proportions unless something is done by the government.  His solution is a tax on Capital, which I agree is clearly the logical solution for reducing inequality. 

Let me elaborate as to why.  The fact is that income inequality is trickier than wealth inequality.  A given group earning a certain income is highly heterogenous.  Some are highly wealthy and inherited their wealth, while others are newly rich and had to work extremely hard to get there.  The difference between the two groups is night and day.  The person who worked 80 hours a week to start up a company and had to take on tons of debt and fail business after business until he finally succeeded, is a far different creature than the person that inherited his wealth and can live comfortably just off the income his safe investments enjoy over time. 

The easiest way to separate these two groups is to look at total wealth.  The very wealthy are far more likely to have inherited their money than the less wealthy.  There are two reasons for this.  1) Unless you got extremely lucky, most new businesses don't grow exponentially enough to throw the owners into the class of the super rich.  2) As Thomas Pickety explains, wealth begets wealth so to speak.  The more money you have, the higher a return you can receive from your investments.  In the book he looks at college endowments, and shows that the biggest endowments at Harvard and Yale earn close to a 10% return while mid tier schools maybe earn 5%.  There are (in economist speak) economies of scale in investments so to speak, or to put it more colloquially, its easier to make money if you have money.

 Hence to increase income taxes off this basis makes little sense.  It makes more sense to keep income taxes low to allow new blood into the ranks of the super rich while increasing taxes on total wealth.  This in theory would prevent the super rich from consolidating an ever larger and larger share of the total wealth in society.   I actually have a sneaking suspicion that the super rich don't mind higher income taxes, because in general income taxes only affect income that comes from labor, so while CEOs and doctors will be punished, the super wealthy like Warren Buffet or George Soros would pay little since their income does not come from labor, but from capital.  It might even be a way for them and others to prevent the up and comers from joining their ranks. 

I point all this out to show that the logic leftists use to increase income taxes makes little sense.  If the goal is to punish Wall Street and the super rich and to reduce inequality, taxing incomes is not the way to do that.  The fact is that inequality has been increasing all over the world, not just in the US.  Indeed, in Thomas Pickety's book he shows that the super rich in France pay less than their working poor as a percent of income, yet they are more socialist?  I think leftists need to think more critically about what their goals actually are, and how to achieve them.  If their goals are to create a European style welfare state in America, then raising income taxes on high income earners is a way to do that, but don't confuse that with combating inequality.  You may redistribute that way from high income earners to low income earners, but the true enemies of the left, the speculators of Wall Street and the super rich, will pay little with such a policy. 

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

The Trump Factor

"Get him the hell out of here!" Trump thundered to insane applause as his crowd "assisted" the protester out of the rally.

Then he told China that they can go "fuck" themselves, or rather or mouthed it...as if that really makes a difference

Then he said about terrorists that "We need to take out their families."

Then he said about Megan Kelly that she was "bleeding out of her wherever."


No matter what happens this election, its clear that Donald Trump has bulldozed over the previous status quo.  Donald Trump will go down in the history books because he has done what no one has done before him in American politics.  He has hijacked the machinery of the Republican party and is remaking it in his own image, singehandedly, and amazingly without spending much money at all compared to the other candidates, even among those that dropped out.

Image result for Donald TrumpDonald Trump is exploiting the brand of trump that he has built over a very long time.  In addition he has tapped into the anger of the disillusioned Republican base (and in particular white blue collar men) and ran with it.  I talked to a barber that liked Donald Trump recently and he told me he liked Donald Trump because "he is not a politician."  Distrust of politicians is at an all time high, and Donald Trump also taps into that.

However what I find most striking is how Donald Trump exploited the average conservative voter's complete distrust of the media to catapult himself to the front of the primary.  His strategy was simple.  Say outrageous things, draw the ire of the media, then conservatives will love him simply out of their common hatred for the media and its "political correctness."

What I find genius about his strategy is that it lacks substance, much in the same way as 2008 Obama.  Also just like Obama's 2008 bid, he appeals to his voters at a gut cultural level.  His appeal is not based off policy, its based off identity.  Obama wanted "Hope and Change."  Trump wants "To Make America Great Again."

Trumps campaign slogan perfectly taps into the conservative Armageddon victim narrative that America used to be great, it used to be based off Judaeo-Christian values, it used to for the middle class, it used to have good paying jobs, it used to have stable families, it used to etc. etc. etc.  And the fact is, there is truth to this narrative.  There are alot of things America used to be, that it isn't anymore.  Some of those things I would argue were bad, but I digress.  The point is that America, as his voters see it, has moved past them.  America no longer has room for them and their values.

If you drive through middle America you will know why this is so.  Strewn through the landscape are abandoned small towns that were once vibrant communities.  In particular in the rust belt, many towns have devolved into slums.  The people who are left have lost their pride, and now idle away their time without hope since the factory they worked at closed down, and now they live off the government dole.  The family has fallen apart, with absentee fathers just as if not more likely than present ones.  Since the traditional American dream is no longer possible in their minds, young men in these communities embrace a machismo ethic to cope with the new reality they now live in.

The community is angry for obvious reasons.  The world is far more uncertain now, along with their place in it.  Things are literally falling apart around them, and all their jobs seem to be going to China.

Meanwhile the Republicans toy with these voters by attacking illegal aliens for taking jobs and government benefits.  The Republicans toy with these voters by giving them a mythical boogieman called sharia law, attacking Liberal elites, and even talking tough about China.

Then here comes Donald Trump, who gives them all they wanted and more.  They are sick of being toyed with by Republicans, and straight up being ignored by Democrats.  Donald Trump addresses all their concerns.  The Washington consensus that globalization is always good finally has been broken.  Maybe Donald Trump can turn back the clock and "Make America Great Again."

I know particularly those on the left can't understand Donald Trump's appeal.  They think all of his supporters are just prejudiced bigots.  I don't deny that is a factor, but I think its clear thats not the only or even the most important issue.

Image result for detroit slumsThe real issue is that these towns are no longer economically viable.  The current economic model of a heavily regulated domestic economy, combined with globalization, has made factory towns mostly a thing of the past.  Many people have moved because of this to larger metropolitan areas, but those that have not adjusted have been hit extremely hard.  However many have deep attachments to their homes, their communities, and don't want to move.  Its likely in the end the harsh realities of globalization will force them to abandon these towns once and for all, yet maybe not.

They believe Donald Trump can erect trade barriers that will allow their towns to prosper once again.  Its not entirely far fetched.  America has had periods of history in which its barriers to trade were much greater than now.  Granted, I am fairly certain such a move will plunge us into deep recession and in the long run will lower overall productivity and increase prices, but I suppose there are some who shrug at this.  Afterall for their town, recession has been the natural state for 20+ years anyway.  In addition to them, the promise of low skilled decent paid jobs seems a worthwhile trade off.

The deeper moral question I think we need to ask, is whats the role of community?  Do we need community?  If we believe communities are important and worth protecting, then how is the best way to do that?  The book "Bowling Alone" looks into the phenomenon of declining social participation by individuals in society.  Most now isolate themselves in their own worlds and don't bother to connect with their neighbors, neighborhoods, communities, etc.  I suppose this is because communities are extremely fluid now.  People move in and out all the time.  People are connected to eachother in more atomized ways via the internet and other activities, but community of place has died, at least in suburbs and I assume urban areas as well.  I do wonder if we have lost something important by neglecting community of place.  Was there something such community provided that our current social institutions no longer provide?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but clearly these Trump supporters think their communities are worth protecting and rehabilitating.  I can't understand it personally because I have always lived in Suburbs, where community of place is a well constructed illusion, a sham, an imitation of the real thing that is clearly fake.  I also think most voters throughout the country don't understand such loyalty to place.  Most voters are much like me in this regard.  Thus to them, the only reason these voters vote for trump must be bigotry.  I just don't think its that simple at all.   I also don't think its constructive to hate on these voters, which closes down dialogue instantly.  This does not mean that one has to be charitable to Trump.  I believe we should heartily condemn Trump, but at the same time I think its important to extend an olive branch to his voters and listen.  We really should listen to all people and engage them, and especially when we vehemently disagree (even if they offend us).  If we don't, if instead we incessantly denounce his voters as evil racists, I fear we risk creating a chasm that cannot so easily be bridged.  I fear the future of politics will become a war of hate filled grievance politics, where one half of the nation blames the other half for their problems.  I hope this does not happen.  I sincerely hope we can move onto a higher politics not based on victimization, but rather on mutual respect and a thorough debate on the issues and solutions.  I fear this is a pipe dream, but who knows, maybe I will be proved wrong.  I certainly hope so.