Part One: Debunking the Myth of Cultural Appropropriation

The Beat Goes On…

Five years ago, the British writer Kenan Malik penned an op-ed piece, “In Defense of Cultural Appropriation,” which raised significant issues with the trend of objecting to members of one culture “appropriating” the experiences, sentiments, or cultural output of another.

Alas, Malik’s thoughtful defense of artistic freedom has not stemmed the tide—or tirade—against what many claim to be a form of “theft of intellectual property.”

Since then, there have been numerous complaints about “outsiders” depicting members of another group in written or visual material; or discussing someone else’s history; even of preparing another culture’s cuisine. The latest eruption, involving street protests in Paris, targets a Dior skirt that is based on a traditional Chinese garment. 

We Don’t Own Our Own

I believe it is simply incorrect to describe this kind of activity as a form of theft. Do cultures really “own” everything that defines them as a distinct culture? Do they own their history, their artistic production, the supposed thoughts of their own members throughout history? And must we “respect” all elements of a culture and be forbidden to criticize those aspects we find less desirable, even deplorable?

What we are really talking about is sharing, not appropriating. Ideas, lifestyles, modes of artistic expression, and values flow readily from one culture to another. This is the basis for our shared humanity, and needs to be protected, not restricted.

Cultures have always influenced others with which they have come into contact, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. Ancient Rome was very strongly and positively affected by its contact with Greek culture. Today, many national cuisines are suffering from the spread of American fast-food outlets. 

Arts Across Borders

In terms of the arts, cross-cultural fertilization has been one of the giant engines not only of the spread of artistic styles, but the very evolution of artistic development. Artists often incorporate specific elements from another culture into their own, and something new emerges. (Take, for example, Debussy’s adoption of the pentatonic scale into his work.)

Creative artists have also used their imagination to project their own cultural assumptions on to other cultures, or members of other groups, particularly those distant in time or place. Consider the many Renaissance paintings of Biblical scenes, in which the characters look and dress like 15^th century noblemen and women. Or the Hollywood depictions of the “Wild West” or “exotic” locales featured in the “Road” pictures. 

Yes, these depictions can be strongly affected by prejudices and reinforce negative stereotypes. But the best antidote for this is a forceful exposure and denunciation of the inaccuracy displayed, not censorship; and certainly not a claim that artists in one culture have no “right” to depict members of another. 

Even if we were to allow such claims of ownership, how do we define a culture to be protected? Does a population need to be or have been oppressed to claim this protection? Malik uses the example of Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley and their respective roles in bringing elements of African American music into the mainstream. 

Giving Credit Where Due

There is one aspect of the opposing perspective that does deserve consideration. That is the artist’s acknowledgment of another culture’s contribution to his or her work, especially if the influence is not readily recognized.

It should be no problem to say a work product of any sort is “inspired by” or “based on” whatever influenced its creation. That seems to be the main thrust behind the Dior controversy—failure to acknowledge the historical Chinese design of the skirt.

But this is really a “nice to have” rather than a “must do.” Artists aren’t always honest about the sources of their inspiration (or about a lot of other things). The best we can hope is that those who do recognize an unacknowledged influence in someone’s output point it out. But not as a failure of the creator but as a matter of interest. An observer might post, “What’s so fascinating about X’s latest mural is his strong reliance on traditional Bolivian styles.” 

Want to read yet more of my argument? Read on.

Part Two: A Muscular Musical Tour

Since my own expertise lies in the history of classical music, I will draw further examples from that sector. 

A Baroquen Record

Compositional innovations and styles travel widely, often as composers themselves moved around. Take what we now call the Baroque style, that began in Italy and soon found expression throughout Europe and even the Americas. Did German and French composers, let alone their Polish and Peruvian counterparts, have the “right” to compose in this new style? 

And were they committing cultural heresy when they took it upon themselves to meld elements of this new style with those of their own cultural heritage, such as the chorale tradition in Northern Germany?

And since the cutting edge of this new wave was opera, were these “foreign” composers “appropriating” Italy’s heritage when they composed their own operas, in Italian, no less? To use a somewhat later example, should Don Giovanni be banned because it violated the Italian “ownership” of opera, and cast the Spanish nobility in a negative light? (Ironically, Mozart’s Italian operas are the only ones from the later 18^th century that remain in the common repertory around the world.)

Composers were certainly aware of the different musical styles of various countries, and often deliberately imitated them. A German composer might designate a piece as “in the French style” or “in the Italian manner.” Some suites even exist in which each movement is devoted to the depiction of the music of different countries.

A Taste for the Exotic

By the later 18^th and well into the 19^th centuries, composers succumbed to the urge to depict “exotic” music of “exotic” peoples. The fad for “Turkish” music found expression in Mozart’s and Beethoven’s output. Spain attracted numerous composers as a source of “local color” and as a setting for such steamy works as Carmen. Saint-Saens incorporated North African stylistic elements in a number of works. Gilbert and Sullivan’s Mikado provides a Victorian perspective on Japanese music and society. And Dvořák found inspiration in African American and native American music.

In all these cases, foreign composers relied on stylistic patterns that could be considered stereotypes. Moreover, by emphasizing the “exotic” aspects for their own homegrown audiences, they often displayed a bit of condescension towards the less sophisticated cultures from whom they were borrowing.

Drawing Conclusions (Finally)

Where does all this lead? To the conclusion that if we believe in a shared humanity, and in the concept that we can all relate, at least to some degree, to the experiences of people in other times and places, and in the recognition that in the long run, humanity benefits rather than loses when we share our cultural experiences, then unhampered access to one another’s experiences is far preferable to the rigid imposition of cultural silos. 

That’s the “downside” of living in a free society. The alternative is a society devoted to maintaining a false civility free of conflict by protecting its members from exposure to disturbing stimuli. The result is almost always a forced conformity, as we see in many parts of the world today. Or the world depicted in Fahrenheit 451.

My conclusion is clear. Limiting artistic and intellectual discussion and setting up “do not trespass” signs around individual cultures violate our basic right of free speech, and harms society as a whole. It also ultimately deprives humanity of the benefits of shared cultural experiences that enrich us now and through the centuries. 

So, my bottom line: cultures create, humanity owns.

As Putin threatens his military might against Ukraine, many see him in total control of the narrative. Others caution that he may have underestimated the West’s response. With the exception of Germany, most of the NATO alliance is united, and the US presence in Eastern Europe has increased. Perhaps that was always part of his masterplan: to create a perceived “threat” to justify intervention.

But the risks of attacking Ukraine are great, not only to his vision of a restored “Greater Russia,” but to the leader himself. Could Putin go the way of Rasputin? 

That mystical monk achieved a strange hold over the last tsarina, in fact exercising a sort of absolute control over an absolute monarchy. But in the end, some nobles decided enough was enough, and did him in.

Putin has secured his absolute control by cultivating and coopting a bunch of oligarchs and other flunkies, maintaining a grip on the military and security forces, and destroying civil society and any other form of opposition.

But such forms of control are a two-way street. When he stole the 2012 election and brutally crushed the popular response, he undermined any illusion of legitimacy, becoming more and more dependent on these elites. He is not their puppet. But if they turn on him, he has nowhere else to go. 

Already, these groups see their leader’s Ukrainian posturing has not produced the expected result. If he does go through with a full-scale invasion, things will go from bad to worse fairly quickly.

Yes, Russia can overrun the Ukraine easily, and perhaps even install a “friendly” government. That’s the end of the good news. Western sanctions will hit the Russian economy hard, and will certainly target the oligarchs. 

For the military, the invasion will be costly, and occupying Ukraine will turn into a version of Afghanistan. Sabotage and rear-guard actions will become the norm, prompting ever more severe responses. But the greatest threat will be the popular reaction—endless demonstrations against the invaders and their installed stodges. 

How harshly can the Russian military and security forces react? This will only produce more popular opposition. And what will the impact be on the Russian troops themselves, to fire indiscriminately on their supposed Ukrainian compatriots? And how might these scenes energize the populations in Belarus, already dismayed by their own false government’s reliance on Russian support?

Ultimately, the impact on the home front may prove decisive. As the body bags come home, and the Russian public comes to recognize their noble warriors have not been welcomed as liberators but brutal invaders, the heroic myths will start to unravel. Combined with an unraveling economy and no ready end to the conflict, opposition may grow through a much broader segment of society. Protests in solidarity with the Ukrainians and Belarusians will spread.

Putin will, of course, unleash his “usual suspects” to deal with these popular uprisings. But how will they ultimately respond? The oligarchs can no longer prosper under Putin, the army faces another humiliating defeat, and the security forces will realize their power to suppress is waning (and may start to fear the fate of the Stasi).

Perhaps, they will think, it is time to depose our failing leader. And then? Who knows. 

Waiting for Godot

A quote falsely attributed to Einstein informs us that “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Alas, we seem to be ready for the asylum, regardless who initially posed this truism.

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt emphasized the critical importance of informal norms and other guardrails for the preservation of democracy in their seminal book, How Democracies Die. Writing in 2018, when the Trump administration was already in full swing, they declare that “Democracy’s fate during the remainder of Trump’s presidency will depend on several factors. The first is the behavior of Republican leaders.” 

Considering a number of scenarios, they suggest some of these leaders may try a strategy of containment, working with the president whenever possible, but “take steps to ensure that he does not abuse power.” The authors note a few examples of their restraining the president, but displaying loyalty most of the time. They believe a long-term solution to our drift away from democracy will require the significant reduction of societal polarization. Which “requires that the Republican party be reformed.”

Perpetual Insanity?

Ever since Levitsy and Ziblatt placed the future hopes for our nation in the hands of Republicans, numerous commentators have essentially predicted, implored, or hoped for the same source of salvation, believing that now, finally, the better angels of their nature will prevail.  Yet we know today that whenever push comes to shove, the party leadership has adhered to the president. 

The three most glaring examples are their refusal to take the impeachment process seriously, ignoring the charges and even refusing to hear witnesses. The second is ramming through a Supreme Court nomination weeks before an election. And the third and indeed the worst is their refusing (so far, at least) to accept the election of Joe Biden. 

But even today, despite this long history of collusion, columnists and commentators appear confident that the “Cavalry will arrive in time” to save the day. Delusional, as Einstein might have said.

The Cavalry Has Arrived

Now many will object to my use of the old Western idiom, based as it is on the narrative in which the heroic soldiers appear just in time to save the white cowboys or settlers from the threatening Native Americans. This image is particularly repugnant since we know now far better than when the Westerns of yesteryear were filmed how the cavalry really behaved in the 1870s. 

But that’s my point. The Republican leaders really are the cavalry of today, and they have arrived. But they are not here to save democracy. They still appear on the horizon to save the day for the favored white population threatened by a loss of their hegemony, by keeping people of color in their place and demographic and social forces at bay.

Perhaps it is time to find another source for our deliverance.

Unfair to Black Swans

Reacting to recent events as if they were “black swans” is false on at least two fronts. First, the metaphor is simply incorrect. “Black swans” are supposed to be totally unexpected phenomena. Yet real black swans have been swimming around Australia for quite a while, and were recorded by a British zoologist in 1790. So rather than serve as a metaphor for the improbable, they betray the ignorance of those who cast them in that role.

More to the point, the epidemic and related events cited by Trump and others as “totally unexpected” were not only predicted as possible but as highly likely developments. In this case, the level of ignorance must be considered willful blindness.

Many commentators have introduced potential events occurring between now and Jan. 20. In the spirit of scenario spinning, I offer my own list of possible developments that could impact the political scene to a greater or lesser extent. None of these are “black swans,” but events that have some level of probability. 

Please note: I am not “rooting” for any of these. 

A Litany of Possible Events

1. Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies or is otherwise forced to retire. Many fear this, knowing that an anti-abortion candidate is sure to be nominated and approved even if after the election but before a new Senate is sworn in.

2. A conservative justice dies or is otherwise forced to retire. While this would not shift the balance of the court, a younger anti-abortion justice could become a court fixture for decades.

3. Jimmy Carter passes away. This could have a multi-fold impact. Considerable media attention would be devoted to his accomplishments both as president (greater than is generally acknowledged) and humanitarian. Also, a consideration of his character, which is so much more admirable than that of the present occupant of the White House. All of this attention would, of course, pull the focus away from Trump as the McCain and senior Bush’s funerals did. 

Then there are the funerial optics. The Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas will be seen huddled, maybe even sitting together. Trump, if he attends, will be the odd man out. Will he greet his predecessors? Shake Obama’s hand after accusing him of the crime of the century? He’ll decide based on how he thinks his base will react. But the nation will see just how removed this man is from the traditions of normality, decency, and civility.

4. Several Republican senators get seriously ill. Many of them have been attending White House meetings without adequate masking and social distancing, and continue to exhibit less than perfect behavior in their own court. If one catches the virus and spreads it to his peers, we could have an outbreak forcing some to bed and others to self-quarantine, in the process losing a voting majority. Which means Senate activity would grind to a halt, and no more incompetent judges and officials would be approved.

5. The second peak this summer causes a second lock-down. Rising infection/death tolls are fairly likely as many states open up without the required testing/tracing infrastructure in place, and all too many blasé citizens discard masks and social distancing. While the president has vowed we would never go back to a lock-down, many governors, mayors, and irate citizens might demand a renewed shelter-in-place. The economy would further erode, and the cheer leaders for opening up might even be blamed.

6. A second wave in the fall might have the same impact. Timing is critical here, since it its impact on the election will depend on how hard it hits before then.

7. A real breakthrough in either Covid-19 treatment or a vaccine. This would be terrific for everyone on the planet. It would no doubt help Trump, who would receive (and take) credit, although it’s unlikely to happen before the election. While it might embolden those who “knew” the pandemic would end soon, popular attitudes will be largely shaped by the speed with which these solutions become readily available.

8. Emergence of a real foreign crisis. The probability of such an event increases daily as foreign leaders continue to assess Trump’s weaknesses and incompetence, and our focus on the pandemic and recession provide ample opportunities for mischief. There are too many possibilities to list; here are just a few.

a) China: Steps up aggressive action in the South China Sea; Uses military or enhanced police force to subdue Hong Kong; Threatens Taiwan.

b) Russia: Increases military presence in Ukraine; Invades the Baltics; Increases military role in Syria and/or Yemen.

c) Iran: A rogue hardliner force attacks a US ship or other target. Or a desperate government does the same as the economy sinks even further.

d) North Korea: Tests a missile that can reach the US, and/or develops a nuclear warhead.

e) Israel/Palestine: An Israeli annexation move provokes a major response from a wide range of players and renewed terrorist attacks around the world.

f) Saudi Arabia: MBS (Mister Bone Saw) overplays his hand in a show of strength, dragging the US into another crisis that pits the Administration against everyone else; or MBS faces a real internal challenge that ousts him or provokes a vicious reaction.

g. UK/EU: The continued economic and health crises caused by the pandemic may produce a crisis in their respective relations with the US. While Brexit seems to have stepped off center stage, the clock is still ticking and there is no resolution on key issues, and Boris’ position seems to be eroding like Trump’s. 

9. Another summer of violent weather stemming from global warming. On top of the pandemic, this would stretch our ability to respond beyond the breaking point, and further demonstrate the inadequate planning, unwillingness to prepare, and refusal to accept the challenge posed by global warming. Much of the blame will be placed on the Administration, and those governors and other officials who simply fail in the face of disaster.

10. Killings of minority members by police trigger widespread protests, leading to increasingly violent confrontations between protesters and police/national guard. Further national divisions would result, between those calling for justice and those demanding “law and order.” 

As I said, none of these are “black swan events” in the usual sense of the term, nor are they certain like the migratory patterns of birds who always return to the same habitat at the same time. Rather these are possible developments enjoying a wide range of probabilities I would not dare to assign.

Feel free to add your own.

A Problem > 1

Many of us recognize that a child occupies the Oval Office. Not a cute, well-behaved, adorable child that you might find in a heart-warming 1930s movie, but a nasty, selfish, willful, and destructive child who bucks any kind of authority. Worse, a classic bully who operates without restraints. 

But it’s also worth considering that we have become, in a many ways, a nation of children. Not just happily irresponsible, like a pack of Peter Pan’s lost boys, but often cruel and vindictive. This is, of course, unfair. I’m really talking about a sizable portion of the population, probably a minority, but one that has taken over many of our institutions and has set not only the tone of discourse but the national agenda.

The most glaring example of this childishness is the refusal to accept the reality of the pandemic, especially those who gleefully refuse to wear masks or follow social distancing. They justify their resistance with claims their rights are being infringed, the threat is exaggerated, conspiracy theories, and a false sense they are somehow immune. But what’s really behind it is a joyful exuberance in defying authority.

It’s like when a parent tells a child not to play in the street because of the traffic and he runs out the door anyway, yelling “Try and stop me!” Yes, a part of him may realize there’s a risk, and even that some other kids may get hurt. But not me—I’m too fast and smart. And anyway, the thrill of defying authority is too great to resist.

Historical Roots

Resistance to authority has deep roots in the American psyche, and is replayed over and over again in popular films and stories in which an everyman/woman is forced to confront corrupt officials or even agents of a national conspiracy, or powerful corporations. And usually, the antihero somehow prevails. 

This national trait complements the myth of rugged individualism, whereby strong-willed, independent pioneers conquered a wilderness and founded a country, conveniently forgetting this incredible land grab could never have happened without the cavalry to back it up.

But this diminution of governments’ role, along with a natural suspicion of all authority, has produced a childish mentality. The anti-tax movement promoted the idea that “government” was taking “your” money for its own purposes. You could certainly spend it better. This coupled with the belief in massive waste and fraud, and also in the incompetence of the public sector encapsulated in Reagan’s memorable phrase.

The Prevalence of Magical Thinking

Of course, this is nonsense. Taxes are the fuel that enables governments to function and civilizations to flourish. Only children believe they can get what they want without really paying for it. It’s magical thinking.

So, what do these adult children want? They want the local government to build the roads and bridges they travel on, provide schools for their kids and the basic services (police, fire, traffic lights, etc.) they need. And they expect the national government to protect the country, facilitate trade and commerce, and provide other services, like mail delivery. And they are convinced they can get all this on the cheap, 

Moreover, they want clean air and water and food without poisons, but oppose government regulations that would make this happen. More magical thinking.  

Hoarding the Cookie Jar

But they don’t want to pay for things that benefit society as a whole, or that only benefit others, and certainly not for those whom they do not believe are deserving—the poor who won’t work, the elderly who didn’t save enough for their “golden years,” and the physically or mentally challenged who are just a burden on society. 

Here, magical thinking—I can get what I want for very little—combines with a selfishness that, miraculously, is converted into a virtue—I want to save these lazy good-for-nothings from their dependence. But it also fuses with the rejection of any kind of responsibility—for the greater social good, or for those less fortunate.

Defying and Denying

The child also emerges in the willful defiance of authority (“you can’t make me!”) and the stubborn denial of unpleasant truths, especially about risks, where bravado trumps common sense. But the defiance goes beyond downplaying threats and assuming unnecessary risks. It unleashes a destructive impulse targeting social norms, civility, fairness, rationality, authoritative sources of information, the rights of others, and ultimately others as well. And it does so without taking any responsibility for the results, the ultimate definition of childishness.

This group elected the President because of his own destructive impulses, and now they cheer each other on as they continuously gut the legal and social norms of society.

So what we have now is a perfect storm: a spoiled child in the White House, a mob of unruly adults with a mind-set akin to the children in Lord for the Flies, numerous officials elected by this mob or selected by the President who share many of these childish traits, a pack of adult officials who know better but still enable the child President in pursuit of their own agendas or careers, and a national crisis that demands leadership at every level and a truly united citizenry. 

Abnormal Times

Among the subsidiary debates raging as the virus rages among us is whether or not now is the time to cast blame, or the time to come together. This is a false proposition: to come together, we need to hold those responsible for our plight accountable. Now.

In normal times, it makes sense for opposing sides to put aside their differences in a crisis to forge a united front against a common enemy or natural disaster. Matters of accountability for lack of preparedness or an initial inadequate response could be considered later, after the crisis has passed.

But these are not normal times, and there is no “later.” This administration has avoided the very notion of accountability from its inception. The president takes no responsibility for his lies, for his emoluments, for the pain and suffering he has visited on immigrants, asylum seekers, and those unable to afford health services, among others, or for breaking laws and ignoring subpoenas.

He has avoided any accountability for the ten plus acts of obstruction cited in the Mueller Report, or for the attempted corruption of the Ukrainian alliance. Instead, the administration has sought to silence, condemn and whenever possible, punish its critics. Its mantra is simply that the president, and his whole administration, is above and beyond the law.

Under these circumstances, it is absurd to assume there will ever be a time when a dispassionate review of the handling of the Covid-19 emergency will have any impact. While much of the public might find its worst fears confirmed, the Republican base and elected officials will shrug it off as partisan. In any event, there would be no consequences.  

A Chamberlain, Not a Churchill

We are living through tumultuous times that demand inspiring leadership. Instead, we have a Chamberlain, not a Churchill: A man unwilling to accept the reality of the situation, just as the doomed prime minister refused to acknowledge the real threat posed by Hitler. A man unable to formulate a bold plan, too timid to take the necessary actions, and too focused on maintaining his own grip on power to serve as the bulwark that the nation so desperately craves.

The argument to “hold the blame” might have some validity if the president had taken responsibility for the delayed response and somehow transformed himself into a Churchill. Neither has happened. 

Seeking accountability for the earlier failures of the administration, from firing the pandemic experts and ignoring multiple warnings about a potential outbreak, to taking no action for weeks once the threat had emerged, is not a trivial exercise in hindsight. Democracy depends on accountability. Especially in a case like this.

These initial failures may have enormous consequences. Maybe a million more Americans will die than might have had the government taken the necessary actions as soon as the virus erupted.

Even more alarming, the president’s response continues to be abysmal. There is no clear, overall strategic plan. He has refused to mobilize the federal government to organize and manage the response, taking only piecemeal steps reluctantly. He continues to spread false information and hopes, leaving his aides and experts to correct or clarify his comments after the fact. 

Worse, he has subverted what should be medical briefings into a platform to showcase himself and spin his own theories, as well as attack his critics. He portrays himself as a wartime leader, but in fact it is only an act he plays poorly. For him, the briefings are just another campaign opportunity. And he continues to undermine the credibility of the media just when the public needs a source they can trust.

Many have begged him to leave the stage and let Mike Pence, who at least seems to have some sense of how to work with experts and a wide range of government officials, and how to establish consistent policies, take control. Yes, he praises Trump too much, but that comes with the territory. Or even better, let a non-political healthcare administrator run the show. 

But this will never happen. Trump will never yield the limelight, no matter how many people die or how strong the criticism even from some Republicans. His singular goal is reelection, and for now the best “role” he can play is wartime leader. 

In a parliamentary system, we would like to believe he would have been canned long ago, certainly after his multiple claims that the virus was “under control” proved false. But then, Chamberlain wasn’t forced to resign until long after Munich, and the die was already cast for a long, bloody, war. 

Daggers Out

Once again, Donald Trump won a Democratic debate. As the candidates tore each other to pieces, he and his supporters must have been smiling, as they gleefully continue to dismantle our democratic system.

Basically, I believe the best way to enhance your relative stature is to raise yourself up rather than trying to reduce that of those around you. But I recognize that in a political competition, some attacks on rivals are par for the course. But in the Nevada debate, mutual bashing became the primary activity, with a viciousness and purposelessness that will only come back to haunt the ultimate nominee.

In most cases, the attack points were trivial, even petty. The candidates seemed to be randomly sticking pins in their opponents, searching for Achilles Heals that would destroy them. This went beyond purity testing to brute nastiness, for which Mayor Pete deserves first prize.

The only exception I feel was truly constructive were the challenges to Bloomberg on his toleration of stop-and-frisk abuse, and on charges of a sexist environment in his company. These were legitimate questions, and his responses were not only evasive but revealing. Pretending that releasing victims from NDAs, allowing them to speak out if they chose to do so, would somehow compromise their privacy is absurd. 

An Exercise in Repetition

The substantive aspects of the debate were also pathetic, and boring. Far too much time was spent, once again, on Medicare for All and its alternatives. Everyone agreed the current system needs to be dramatically improved, and the efforts to destroy Obamacare, flawed as it is, needs to be stopped. Everyone favors universal coverage, with different solutions and approaches to getting there. 

But remember: Obamacare was the best compromise solution a very popular president, with a politically savvy vice-president, could achieve. Realizing anyone’s vision will require control of both houses of Congress and a lot of patience and flexibility. 

So, we had to listen to everyone saying what they have already said countless times, about healthcare, global warming, and the few other issues discussed, while sniping against their opponents. Many other major topics were never even raised, or received one-liners which were just throw-aways. What about the huge, huge elephant in the room?

Elephantry, My Dear Candidates

A casual viewer who had been off the grid for the last few months would hardly have guessed the nation’s democratic institutions were under assault and our alliances were being undone, and the only thing standing in the way of their complete destruction was a sweeping Democratic victory in November. 

Sure, all the candidates proclaimed the need to defeat Trump. But this became like a formula in a responsive prayer, that alternates a phrase like “Lord have mercy” with a litany of lengthy appeals that in this case were hardly addressed to our better angels. The sense of urgency demanded to address this threat has only intensified over the past week was totally lacking.

A true recognition of the critical juncture in our national history would have led all the candidates to focus their ire on the president, underscoring the absolute imperative for the Democratic Party to remain unified and refraining from the suicidal attacks on each other. They failed to do so.

Another Media Failure

But to be fair, much of the blame for the disastrous debate falls upon Lester Holt and the NBC management who structured the event as a food fight. Holt announced from the beginning he wanted the candidates to engage with each other, and many of the questions asked one candidate to react to the positions of another. 

Many of the other questions were challenges intended to provoke, putting responders on the defensive and opening them up to criticism from their peers. Of course, that’s part of any moderated debate, but the balance was tipped much too far in that direction. And the candidates just fell into the trap rather than rise above it.

In fact, they could have changed the narrative forced on them by the moderators, much as they regularly changed the topics from the questions asked. They didn’t.

One can only imagine that NBC decided that an acrimonious spectacle was what viewers wanted, rather than what the nation needed. In other words, they made the same calculation the media did in 2016 when they realized Trump’s outrageous behavior would attract far more viewers than Hillary’s (or his Republican opponents’) more serious, policy-focused appearances, so gave him far greater coverage than he really deserved.

And so, the results could be the same this time around, with NBC joining the other enablers of a thoroughly discredited president. 

Part One: The Cutting Edge

Tribalism vs. Individual Self-Interest

In a recent New York Times Op-Ed column, David Brooks makes a forceful argument for broad-based cooperation as the best solution to our tribalized times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/opinion/us-politics.html

Essentially, he argues that the notion that society is primarily driven by individual self-interest is false: it’s really driven by intense competition among groups. 

He points out populism of both right and left have adopted a “winner take all,” “Us vs. Them” mentality that has come to dominate institutions, including government, as well as permeating society as a whole. While he focuses on the US, his observations really apply across the planet.

Basically, I agree with Brooks’ analysis and his ultimate conclusion that a healthier future demands genuine cooperation across diverse groups. Getting there, however, requires a deeper dive into the conflicting benefits of cooperation, as well as recognizing the conflicting demands of multiple identities.

There is little doubt that a genetic propensity to cooperate ensured those so endowed to survive as the fittest. As Brooks notes, “We thrived because we are better at cooperation.” Clearly, hunting a woolly mammoth as a group activity, and sharing the results with all those sitting around the fire, were far more conducive to success and survival than an individual effort followed by selfishly hoarding the carcass. 

Two aspects emerged from these primal experiences—the recognition of the superior effectiveness of group undertaking and sharing, and the ethical mandate of contributing to, and even sacrificing for the greater good.

But cooperation within the group also enabled effective competition against other groups, much of it violent. From extended family groups to clans to tribes to nations and nation states and empires, internal cohesion has enhanced the ability of one group of humanity to plunder, dominate, or decimate others. 

Whose Greater Good?

Much of this carnage has been driven by the moral imperative of furthering the greater good, which brings us to the question, whose greater good? The answer lies in an individual’s primary identification with a specific group. The options not only include familial and political groupings but race, gender, class, religion, and ideology, among others. And sadly, the moral frameworks that shape acceptable behavior within the group do not seem to apply when dealing with those on the outside. 

Complicating this is the fact that most people identify with multiple groups with potentially conflicting loyalties that may force people to choose, at critical moments, which one is primary. The ancient Greek city states fought each other mercilessly, but also enjoyed a common identity. They shared a religion, an oracle, the Olympics, and a vision of humanity divided between Greeks and barbarians. When faced with a common threat, they united to defeat the Persians.

Similar choices have played out over the centuries. Sometimes people have opted for a broader sense of identification, for better or worse, when joining Crusades and jihads, founding the United Nations and EU, adopting the Geneva Conventions, and launching the Marshall Plan. 

At other times, they have pinned their primary loyalty to a narrower framework, such as the Confederate generals who placed allegiance to their states above that to the Union; members of organized crime syndicates devoted to their own “families;” the far right in Europe and America who strive to keep their societies as white as possible; and the Bharatiya Janata Party that wants to convert India into a Hindu state.

Part Two: Stretching the Envelope

Seeking the Greatest Good

So how do we stretch the cooperation imperative to engage productively with other groups? And how do we blunt the tendency to increase internal cohesiveness at the expense of everyone else? 

These are two sides of the same coin, and offer the same answer. We need, as individuals and as a society, to strive to place our loyalty with the highest common denominator, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Ultimately, this should be our shared humanity. But in many cases, it may just be our common citizenship, shared history, political party, or sense of community. 

How do we do that? There are two critical components to achieving this goal. The first requires consciously modifying our behavior as individuals and as organizations. We can change our own behavior, and must also insist that the organizations to which we belong or support modify theirs. 

Specifically, we all need to stop demonizing opponents or members of other groups. You can criticize others’ beliefs and actions, but avoid ad hominems. Strongly condemn white nationalism, but don’t call your opponent’s supporters “deplorables.” Criticize a legislator’s vote, but not challenge his or her patriotism. 

This requires particular restraint on the part of public figures, especially candidates and elected officials, who are tempted to use group identity to galvanize their supporters. We need to hold them accountable, constantly reminding them that we’re all Americans with equal rights to shaping our future.

There are many ways of achieving this, but ultimately it comes down to the vote. As Brooks indicates, we need to resist the siren call of those who would divide people but focus on “electing leaders who are masters at cooperation.”

We should demand the same self-restraint from all kinds of associations to which we belong, religious, civic, and social, as well as the media, who set the tone of public debate. 

In other words, it’s ultimately up to us, the people. 

None of this will be easy, especially given the self-righteousness that dominant groups have always relied on to assert their priority. This moral imperative to strive to serve the greater good of one’s own group (race, class, religion, party, etc.) is the strongest impediment to cross-societal cooperation.

Embracing Multiple Identities

Here the second component of achieving our goal comes into play—acknowledging the multiple layers of identities that people possess. If we expect people to go beyond the parochial, you must first recognize and value the entire pyramid of group identities and loyalties that define them. Listen to an elderly World War II vet, a disappointed Brexit Remainer who described himself as follows: “First of all, I am Welsh, and I’m British, and I’m European, and I’m a human being.” (Watch the video 

https://twitter.com/bydonkeys/status/1223175366421946369; the quote comes at 1:03.)

In fact, embracing multiple identities, especially ethnic ones, is one of the true characteristics of American exceptionalism (or as I prefer to call it, American idiosyncrasy). In a recent New York Times profile, Alma Zadic, Austria’s justice minister born in Bosnia, explains how she overcame her own ambivalence about her ethnicity through her time in New York: “People were Italian and American, or Mexican and American, and it was totally normal. It was such a revelation. For years I had struggled with this question: ‘Am I Bosnian or Austrian?’ In New York, I learned that I can be Austrian and Bosnian and European at the same time.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/world/europe/austria-greens-alma-zadic.html?ref=oembed

We hold a genuine advantage over most places in the world where primary social distinctions tend to be singular and rigid. In contrast, we recognize multiple simultaneous identities while assuming that when push comes to shove, the “American” label will be primary. 

And now with globalization and a wider knowledge of the world, the idea of a common humanity has taken on a greater reality for many, especially in discussions of global warming and the environment.

The Community as Ground Zero

The place to start for many of us will be at the community level, where the fair resolution of local concerns demands inclusiveness, so solutions do not come at the expense of one or another group, generally the least affluent. This does not mean that every decision must take into account how it might impact humanity as a whole. (“What’s the impact on the fate of our species if we add this traffic light on Main Street?”) 

But it does suggest that recognizing the humanity of all of those who would be affected by these local decisions is a prerequisite for a fair solution. In America, and in many other places on this planet, the diversity of the population impacted by decisions at all different levels is far greater than we have historically been willing to accept. Accepting our shared humanity weakens the grip of more parochial loyalties, and strengthens our commitment to a truly democratic society. And that’s a start. 

Many ludicrous excuses for the Senate’s taking no action were offered during the non-impeachment trial of Donald Trump. One that superficially sounds sensible is the argument that “the voters should decide.” But this is categorically wrong. The responsibility lies squarely with the Senate, and they have, for the second time, passed the buck onto us.

The first time, of course, was when the Senate refused to even consider the Garland nomination. “Let the people decide,” they said. But the people had decided—they elected Barack Obama, twice. It was his prerogative—and his responsibility—to nominate a candidate for Supreme Court Justice, and the Senate’s responsibility to advise and consent. They did neither.

The latest abdication is even more pernicious, and requires an even greater sleight of hand. It pretends to follow the long tradition that if the voters find an official objectionable, they should “throw the rascal out.” This advice can cover a wide range of concerns from policy disagreements, incompetence, lack of attention to duty, making unworthy appointments, personal scandals, and even petty corruption. 

But the accusations against Trump are far more serious, and have led the House to issue articles of impeachment, analogous to an indictment. This demands a trial. In any other situation, a trial would follow rigorous procedures, require a jury compelled to consider all the evidence, and a neutral judge to make sure the rules are followed and to instruct the jury on the law.

Now imagine if I were arrested for a serious crime and demanded that my guilt or innocence be determined not by a court of law but by a vote among the general public, none of whom would be required to study the facts or the law. They could read about the case in whatever media they chose, or none at all. In other words, I could opt for a popularity contest.

This is the nub of the question. The Senate is charged with determining whether Trump had committed an impeachable offense. We all know that this is a two-part question—what had he done, and did it rise to that level? They scrupulously avoided delving deeply into his activity. And they deftly side-stepped an adult discussion about whether seeking foreign assistance in an election and rejecting all Congressional subpoenas should be considered high crimes. 

But an election is not a trial established to decide guilt or innocence. It’s a choice between two or more candidates for office. There can be many reasons to oppose Trump, not just that you believe he committed an impeachable offence. And there can be many reasons to vote for him rather than an opponent regardless of whether you feel he is guilty or not.

We live in a representative republic in which we delegate most governmental decision-making to those we elect or are selected by those we elect. While we do entertain occasional ballot initiatives, referenda, and recalls of officials, these are rare exceptions, hardly a drop in the ocean of legislation. 

Pretending an election can double as some sort of trial is absurd. For our elected representatives to delegate their responsibilities to the population at large is not only irresponsible, it runs counter to our very foundation as a representative republic. Perhaps they just don’t want to keep it, Mr. Franklin.