My musings on different political topics relevant to America today.

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.