You Don't Have To Be Intelligent To Wear A Mask

It’s Election2020 season, in fact it is coming down to the last couple of laps of the races. There are plenty of issues and crises but mostly there is little of significance that is presented, discussed or apparently that matters in American elections that is of consequence. Yes, yet again our politicians and political parties are engaged in the “contest of ideologies”; not ‘ideas’ but their partisan political perspectives. Yes, these ideologies are types of ideas but not of substance; rather they are mostly hypothetical wish-lists for how they want things to be, even though the concepts bear little relationship to reality or even rationality. To add to the disappointments, we have the usual election fare of fear, anger, distortion and lies being offered buffet-style. All the usual divisive behaviors are ramped up to detriment of the nation’s interests and benefit. Even something as highly critical to the nation’s and public’s interest as the COVID-19 crisis, is being played out under partisan political party campaign strategies and themes.

The observation offered above regarding our politics and political environment is to point out that our society is highly dependent upon an “informed” public; and to be ‘informed’ there needs to be a number of conditions meet within our society. A significant condition is that information must be given to the public about what is happening that affects them, that they need to know in order to make appropriate decisions, that the information can be trusted, and that our government isn’t hiding, editing or misinforming the public for reasons that are not in the public’s interests. This last condition: the government providing the public with the necessary and proper information about situations that the public has a “need” to know and a “right” to know.

Take an important public policy issue as simple and normally as apolitical as one would have thought, and the 2020 Election has transformed it into a choice between our political parties. That public policy is: Wearing A Mask. Fundamentally this is a public health issue and not a political one. However, because of a personality and cognitive deficit situation, wearing or not wearing a mask has been elevated to a political litmus test. Normally this would just be another in a long line of inane positions that corrodes and corrupts our government, political system and society which is the typical and very essence of our political parties’ rigid adherence to their self-delusional ideologies. The Corona virus unfortunately is indifferent to ideologies, it does not differentiate between political parties and the consequences of the virus’ reach beyond the scope that misguided politicians are generally able to use to harm the nation and public. So, the Wearing A Mask issue warrants extricating it from the failure of our government, our politicians, our healthcare entities, and our news media. What is needed is for the Wear A Mask issue to be handled competently. Thus those normal entities seem to have demonstrated their competency in such a matter. Now, given that all of entities have failed to put the issue into a context that would ‘inform’ the public there is a need to proceed differently. This is necessary despite the politicians’ using masks as some issue having to do with some nebulous distractions completely unconnected with the public’s welfare and their duty to serve the nation’s interests.

Our government agencies have failed to set policies which are or would be effective due to the interference of political appointees and their self-interests. Additionally, while being world-class experts in the medical and healthcare arenas, our agency professionals lack the skills and abilities to manage their political ‘superiors’ effectively and thus unfortunately fail to fulfil their own responsibilities. This upward-facing management skill is not something that the vast majority of individuals possess, or are adept at, so this causal factor should not be viewed as a professional abnormality.

As to the news media, their contribution to this civic negligence that the wearing a mask issue has become is an example of their ‘state of the art’ journalist profession. The news media is highly engaged in reporting on the dynamics surrounding the issue and in providing the ‘balanced’ views of politicians and government officials on what the public policy is or isn’t or why it varies depending on to whomever you are talking. The news does interview healthcare experts with the standard questions about whether wearing a mask would be the right policy and receive the almost unanimous consensus that wearing a mask if one of the most useful things that the public should do. But the news media doesn’t seem equipped or able to ask substantive and informative questions of the politicians, the healthcare professionals, or even of the public about wearing a mask.

Consider just the following questions, and consider if you have ever heard a politician, a healthcare professional, or a news journalist deal with them.

1.       What legal authority does a Federal, State or Local elected official have regarding public healthcare policies?

2.       What cases taken to the Supreme Court have demonstrated their authority and jurisdiction?

3.       Is there any established precedent for which governmental entity has authoritative precedence over another?  E.g., does Federal override State which overrides Local; or some other jurisdictional layering?

4.       When the Federal, State or Local government changes some public policy, regulation or requirement as the COVID-19 epidemic plays out across the nation, what was the forecasted cases or other measurement of the virus expected to be before the change and what is projected because of the change? What data / change in outcomes will constitute a success of the policy or a failure to achieve the expected results?

5.       Why haven’t government healthcare or other entities proposed policies to businesses, private and public entities for dealing with Wear-A-Mask policies? What examples are there of governmental options suggested?

6.       In declaring that “essential workers” cannot sue an employer for COVID-19 health consequences are there any Constitutional rights being violated? After all, the government telling citizens that they cannot do something isn’t the same as them not having the right to do so.

While all this illustrates why America’s public policies around COVID-19 including the Mask-Wearing policy(ies) are confusing, inconsistent and problematic; it doesn’t explain the reasoning goes into should it be a public policy or just a recommendation/guidance from officials. If COVID is a threat to the US, and both parties actually agree that it is; then there ought to be a policy that addresses it. If the nation needs to have the virus controlled and eliminated, then there should be a policy for doing so.

Leadership on guiding the nation through this crisis is a type of intelligence test. Passing the test would have some pretty simple conditions. What you do either reduces new infections (passes) or it does not (fails). Changes in policies or transitions from one phase to another produce the forecasted changes (passes) or the situation related to the change gets worse beyond what was forecast (fail). If the policy change is based upon a “we hope” decision, it’s still a failure if it doesn’t deliver what you “hoped” was going to happen.

What this comes down to is that for our political and healthcare leaders, you pass the intelligence test if you can validate your reasoning and decisions from a forecast presented before the fact and the data from the facts that actually happened.

For individuals or businesses or companies the intelligence test comes with X dimensions. First, if you violate the ‘public policy’ then you are to be held accountable. If the policy is to “Wear A Mask” then you are to be receive the appropriate penalties. If you believe your right(s) are being violated then you can sue but until a judgement is made by a court with applicable jurisdiction you are not exempt from the policy. You fail the test.

Second, exercising your choice to be ‘civilly disobedient’ and not wearing a mask doesn’t exempt your from being counter-sued for any number of possible legal violations. For example, there is no personal right to ‘not wear a mask’ and thereby create a risk to the rights of other individuals in violation of an standing public policy, nor do you have a right that overrides a business’s own policy or a private or public entity which chooses to require one. You do have the right to not engage with anyone or a business but that does means you do not engage with them. Trying to apply your ‘right’ above that of others is to fail the test.

Third, having opinions about whether the COVID-19 virus is a risk to you or not doesn’t have any weight in whether you are still required to adhere to public policy. Even if you were an expert in virology, the medical degree does not override official public policy. The requirement that a court decision to vacate/void the policy is still required. Not wearing a mask because you don’t think you are at risk is failing the test.

Fourth, where someone is permitted to not wear a mask in accordance with the established public policy or a business’ policy (which doesn’t violate governmental policy) does not confer upon an individual the right to now wear a mask unless they also meet the conditions under which the established policy defines the allowance. You can remove a mask to eat your meal at your table in a restaurant for example. This does not allow you to not wear a mask when entering or leaving. Because someone physically-distanced from others is speaking at an event doesn’t mean that anyone else in attendance is free to not wear a mask if the applicable public policy(ies) do not allow. Doing otherwise fails the test.

Fifth, it doesn’t matter what your rationale is for not wearing a mask, there is no getting around a public policy where requires it and that has not been declared illegal and upheld by the courts. Not wearing a mask fails the test.

Lastly, nothing about abiding by the established public policy regarding wearing a mask in required conditions requires any notable level of intelligence. The policy can be followed by those that may not be fully capable of understanding why it is required from a medical perspective, for a healthcare perspective or from a social perspective. It is why even very young children can be taught to wear them. Similarly, there is an expectation that our elected officials, our healthcare professionals, and our governmental agencies will create public policies that are appropriate and necessary to safeguard the public when threatened by risks like the Corona virus. The presumption is that as a collective group they are applying the best knowledge, evidence, expertise, and judgement that is available to them. In other words, they are doing what would constitute the intelligent thing to do. To do contrary would logically be unintelligent, and yes you would fail the test.

The above reasoning would seem to adequately explain why the US has not performed well with regard to its reactions and efforts around the Corona virus. It would seem that as a nation, in aggregate we may well be failing the intelligence test.

The Coronal Economy - Diseased Capitalism

To American Citizens,

The US and the world are experiencing economic turmoil in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are other factors that have been promoting volatility, but the corona virus has, is and will continue to exert its outsized dominance on the global economies. In demonstrating its influence, it is creating conditions that ripple across the global economy and within national economies. Each ripple reveals connections that were not necessarily properly or fully understood, or even known to have existed. Understanding all these ripples is critical because we either react or don’t to them; and if we have a skewed understanding of why and how things are connected what we choose to do or not may have consequences that we/you will regret later.

While the health implications of COVID-19 range from transient discomfort to tragic outcomes, the societal consequences can be much greater. As already demonstrated in the US and other nations, COVID-19 has disrupted supply-chains, transportation, travel, education, businesses, commerce, services, and virtually every aspect of life, even politics. This broad and multi-faceted influencing character of COVID-19 enables the crisis to inform everyone from individual citizens to national leaders in every area: government, business, religious entities, healthcare, technology, and quite importantly financial & economics; about their inter-relationships and often over-looked interdependencies. Using the pandemic situation to become better informed about our society/societies is particularly important because in response to the pandemic we are making decisions on what to do not just about containing the virus and bringing it to heel; but what is going to be done about all those consequences that those rippling effects are having.

One particularly salient dimension that has different conceptual understandings is the economy is at risk of a virus induced recession, a Corona-Recession (C-Recession). At issue here is that it seems the recession concern is viewed as a recession caused by an economic slow-down that is equivalent or similar to any other recession. It’s very true that the economy is slowing down because of the virus, but not because there is some required linkage between a virus and a nation’s financial system or structure. This is not to say that there aren’t any economic impacts from a virus but that what levers you pull or not may depend on how you understand how basic principles of the economy have been effected by our own responses to the virus.

The current economic levers being pulled are attempting to deliver their results/benefits via a “stimulus” package approach.  In a ‘normal’ recession this is one of the well-established tools. Stimulus packages are expected to provide a boost to help kick-start some of the economic activities that have either been impacted or were primary causal factors of the recession. To be effective the requirement is that the ‘stimulus’ will change at least some of the financial problems that lead to the recession. Does the C-Recession fulfill the requirement(s) that a ‘stimulus’ solution would help resolve?

The initial domino that started the C-Recession wasn’t a fundamental financial factor, it wasn’t part of a Wealth of Nations capitalistic economic process (yet). It wasn’t capital, resources, labor or trade; it was biological, a virus. Global economies were already in various economic states, many dealing with low growth and thus vulnerable to anything that could push them past a manageable point of stability. The US’s economy was perceived to be generally in a good condition and even considered strong by some. And then COVID-19 virus infected a human host and fairly rapidly began its normal biological spread. As a virus, it didn’t change the state of financial systems or process. Nothing about capital was altered by the virus. Resources didn’t become more or less scarce from a physical world perspective. Labor initially was still able to produce the goods and services that underpinned commerce/trade.

Then the virus reached a level of infected hosts in a region of China that ‘tipped’ the vulnerable economy of China. The spread of infections began to strain their healthcare system and then was recognized as a threat to their production capacity because the requisite labor was now at risk to a health impairment. The COVID-19 spread triggered a quarantining of cities/regions in China which further impaired access to labor. Thus, as a second or third order effect, labor became perhaps the first financial/economic domino to fall. With that domino, combined with the global transmission of COVID-19, the same chain of dominos began to replicate across the globe. Even before it hit the US, there were concerns and ramifications to the US economy. Once COVID-19 appeared in the US, the dominos just kept expanding. And for the US, some of those consequences exerted pressures in some areas to greater degrees than in other economies.

The ‘strong’ US economy was fundamentally founded upon the ‘consumer’ and ‘services’. So if you pull a lever that depresses consumer behavior and/or reduces services used then you are playing with a non-linear lever. And that’s exactly what the US has had to do. To contain the contagion most states are engaging in efforts to promote or require public isolation and social-distancing. And of course, that reduces consumer consumption and less demand for services. By removing the consumer from the “Consumer Economy” the results should be very self-evident. Because employing these methods to contain and hopefully eliminate the spread of COVID-19 is a priority to limit the impact on the economy, there is an immediate cost to the economy. It is a double-edged weapon; and as with all such weapons one must be careful in choosing how one uses it.  This means you must understand how the tool works from bottom to top.

This is where the C-Recession needs to be understood in a different context than most or other recessions. Let’s consider why. In any economy suffering a recession you target the financial factor(s) that have caused the downturn. In a Consumer dominated Economy the fundamental financial factor is by definition consumer spending. Public isolation & social-distancing brings that factor down with each individual who suspends the bulk of their ‘consumer’ spending; but it doesn’t stop there. These consumers don’t just stop spending in one specific area, they suspend spending in many areas. Those lost consumer activities reduce each and every consumer-oriented business or service; and the employees and owners are also going to reduce their own spending. This reduction in spending spreads more rapidly than the virus itself because it doesn’t require a successful transmission; secession of spending is automatic and guaranteed when the consumer just stops spending. So, the shock to the economy occurs more rapidly than with almost any other recession.

The next reaction from the C-Recession is that the consumers are also the production resources that create what is no longer being purchased and this can result in lost wages, lost jobs, and lost businesses. As these dominoes fall, they create their own sub-chains of dominoes falling. And this illustrates two dimensions of the C-Recession.

First, this recession is due to consumers-labors-owners cannot engage in the normal exchange of value, a fundamental principle of capitalism. It has nothing to do with not wanting to, needing to, or having everything that each party needs to engage in these activities. It’s that they are prohibited from doing so for societal reasons and needs. If the virus disappeared tomorrow, the economy could return to normal. [Note: The disruptions that have been induced during the crisis timeframe would have to be ‘flushed’ through the system, but the requirements for the good Economy we had are still fundamentally there.]

Second, since COVID-19 won’t magically disappear the problem to preventing or minimizing a C-Recession isn’t to ‘stimulate’ the economy. The economy wasn’t lacking capital, so providing capital doesn’t address a causal problem nor does it create demand that can’t be responded to since the consumers can’t engage in many of the activities they’ve been forced to suspend or the services that they cannot use. A better terminology would be to “bridge” or “protect” the economy from the disruption of the economy’s transaction process.

The economy isn’t there for the financial industry or government. The economy is there for the citizens of a nation or the world. It only exists because every individual is both a consumer and a laborer. The US economy is strong and large because it allows everyone to seek their interests, and to do this they engage in transactions with and for all comers. The economy is an aggregate of all these transactions; and because the US’s transactions are numerous and valued the economy is strong. We aren’t trying to ‘stimulate’ the economy, we are seeking to restore the transactions that have been stifled by the outbreak. To do this requires understanding what providing government funding means in this context.

Who is providing the capital, the funding, to build the ‘bridge’ for our economy? If you think it’s Congress, the Administration, States, or businesses you would be wrong. Congress is authorizing spending funds. The Administration would have to deliver on distribution that funding to whomever Congress allows the funds to be given to. States are effecting laws & regulations to support businesses and citizens to avoid the loss of jobs, and businesses (at least some) are working to sustain their workers because it’s in their own interests and the economy’s.

So, if it’s none of those entities who is providing the capital? It’s you, the citizens of the nation of each country. In the US, capital only exists because of citizens. It’s your labor, your consumption, you products, and your businesses. Remove the people and there is no capital, no value, no products, no services, and no economy. All the other entities and financial concepts are just various rearrangements of processes for structuring how the transactions are operationalized. Even those processes and structures are simply reconfigurations of laborers. Adam Smith termed this ‘specialization’ of labor.

Given it’s the US citizens who are providing US citizens with the capital/funds to bridge the C-Recession crisis, it’s not a risk that we are collectively taking; it’s what is in own self-interests. We are loaning ourselves the money, so we don’t lose our jobs, or our customers, or businesses, or investments. This is the mistake that our Congress is making. They think, they are providing the funds and some are worried that the government can’t afford it. It’s not the government that has to afford it, it’s the people and we are going to pay for it either by restoring our economy or we are going to pay for it by impairing or crippling that economy for years.

This is why the response to the C-Recession isn’t comparable to most or perhaps any other financial crisis that treating it like its just another financially induced crisis to our economy is not just the wrong concept, it will lead to and result in misinformed and bad decisions. Bad decisions which we all are use to from government.

The challenge here is to find ways to retain the labor and businesses that we had before the crisis, and to do so quickly. Whether our leaders are up to this task is not guaranteed, and if they play their typical political games we should be prepared for the usual ineptitude and to suffer the consequences.

Election Interference - 2020: Foreign “Dirt”: What Should You Do?

President Trump caused another stir when responding in an interview about accepting information about a political opponent from a foreign nation/government? This all relates to his campaign’s repeated interactions with and contacts with foreign Russian agents noted in the Mueller Report. Trump’s initial response stated that he would, and he didn’t see anything wrong with doing so. He also stated that there was no need to inform the FBI about such contacts/offers.

Since making those comments, Trump has ‘clarified’ that would check the information and if it’s incorrect or badly stated then he’d turn it over to the FBI. He would still accept the information in order to determine what it was. As to be expected there has been a rather universal condemnation of his original position, and the clarification isn’t likely to settle the issue.

This seems to be a good topic for an American Intelligence Test (AIT). While the specific election interference connection makes this issue a hot news/political topic, the underlying issue contains a much more important array of topics. This AIT thus is both much more important and vastly more difficult to pass, though it’s hard to understand why passing should be at all difficult. In fact, the correct answers should be excessively easy to know because the all the questions ought to have been answered and established as a basic strategy dealing with the fundamental issue. And that explains why the test will be hard to pass.

Good luck

Question A:   Is accepting information about a political campaign and/or opponent from a foreign government against the law?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question B:   Does terming the information “opposition research” change the legality of accepting the information?         

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question C:   If you were offered “dirt” on your opponent, do you accept it, inform the FBI and when?

(1). Yes, Yes, and if the information is not correct.

(2). Yes, Yes, if after looking at the information and you determine it should be reported

(3). Yes, Yes, after receiving the information and reviewing it

(4). Yes, Yes, after being offered the information and before receiving it

(5). Yes, No

(6). No, Yes after the offer

Question D:   Is there a legal way to accept the “intel”?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question E:    Does accepting info from a foreign government put you at risk?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question F:    What if the information being offered doesn’t come from a foreign government, but from a foreign business, political party or other entity; is that the same issue?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question G:   Reverse the scenario, is a candidate required by law to inform the FBI about a foreign government or entity that indicates it has “dirt” about the candidate him/herself that it won’t release?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question H:   Does a foreign entity’s offer to a candidate, politician, government official, or American citizen that they and will provide ‘dirt’ on some other candidate, politician, government official, or American citizen provide any benefits if reported to the FBI or other intelligence community entity?

(1). Yes

(2). No

ANSWERS:

Answer - A:  Yes

Rationale - A:      You are not allowed to accept something of value from a foreign entity. In making the offer, the foreign government has determined that it has some value else there is no logic in offering it.

Answer - B:  No

Rationale - B:      Accepting the information is still something of value and thus an illegal contribution to a campaign which is against the law.

Answer - C:  4 and 3

Rationale - C:      Establishing that a foreign nation is attempting to intervene in our elections is critical to know about, simply rejecting the offer is not optimal strategy. Ans. 4 is the best option as long as you are not offered the information in a real time where you have to take it at the time of the offer. Ans. 3 is the fall-back option if you have to decide to physically receive the information at that moment. As soon as possible you then contact the FBI and provide whatever information you can about who, when, where, and what was provided.

Ans. 1 & 2 would be violations where you didn’t report the offer and information regardless of your views of the information.

Ans. 6 is just poor reasoning. You are protecting a foreign entity attempting to interfere in our elections, and trusting that they won’t continue to harm the nation.

Ans. 5 has already been identified as violating the law.

Answer - D:  Yes

Rationale - D:      By informing the FBI and abiding by the law.

Answer - E:  Yes

Rationale - E:      If you accept the information without informing the FBI then you have committed a crime. The foreign entity that offered you the info, now knows that you have broken the law.

Answer - F:  Yes

Rationale - F:      The law prohibits contributions from foreign entities, not just governments.

Answer - G:  Yes

Rationale - G:     This still constitutes foreign interference in our elections, and the offer establishes some ‘value’ that that entity is attempting to use to gain influence in our elections and more importantly over our political representatives.

Answer - H:  Yes

Rationale - H:      Foreign entities’ efforts to intervene in our democracy ought to be a concern of any American. If the foreign entity is attempting to assist the nation then their contact ought to be to a law enforcement, security and/or intelligence agency. When the offer is being made without the intention of having the ‘dirt’ being brought to the attention of a law enforcement, security or intelligence agency the offer is being made not to benefit the US.

Those Who Learn Of History, Do They Learn From It?

A civic issue has entered upon a venue of my past, so the issue has a context that is not simply one of abstract opinion but resonates with actual experience. The civic issue is: What is the socially correct policy for public buildings, areas or artifacts that are named after an historic personage with an association to a behavior, belief or set of values that by today’s standards would be intolerable or illegal? It’s an issue because there isn’t a consensus on what the policy is or should be.

This isn’t a new societal issue, objecting to what something is named after has been around before and I have every expectation that it will be around again. It turns out that my high-school (Washington & Lee) is embroiled in the controversy over having a public facility named after individuals who had owned or supported slavery. This puts my high-school in the cross-hairs of the issue for both the Founding Fathers era (G. Washington) and the Confederacy (R. E. Lee); both were slave owners.

So, there is an effort to rename the school because its namesakes were slaveholders. This of course is the core of the issue given there are those who support renaming and those who do not. What makes matters quite difficult is that there really isn’t a correct answer. Neither side can prove their position, they can only present their reasoning and opinions. While I am sure their positions are known to be ‘right’ to themselves, this is not a scientific or mathematical right; it is a right set in their own viewpoints. In these circumstances the question that must be confronted is what the basis for each sides’ principles, values and judgements is? Comparing where ‘they’ versus ‘us’ are coming from may provide some insight into what might logically follows from either.

A central aspect of the issue is a consideration of what constitutes whether historic individuals should be judged or assessed by today’s standards or by the ‘Standards of Their Times’. To make this determination, we also must interject the question of who gets to decide today’s standards. While slavery is hopefully a settled societal violation, not all factors are necessarily as clearly agreed to and decided as a value, let alone as a legal imperative.

How does the Standards of Their Times versus today’s weigh in whether the individual is a person who can be respected or honored for the totality of their lives? Since in the case of my high-school there are two individuals from two different eras in which they lived, we have a three-way case to examine. This perspective may clarify if this is an ‘all or none’ issue or if there are at least several different degrees or levels to the question. This same perspective can be extended to additional time-periods if there is any sense that just within these three even one salient point is meaningfully different.

 We might as well strike straight at the question: Do the Standards of someone’s own time not matter in how we judge them by our own Standards of today? As with the nature of the original issue, there is no absolute and indisputably correct answer; there is only an answer that has some compelling justification to people’s values who live today. Oddly that doesn’t mean that today’s Standards set the bar.

Let’s use a current Standard (and legal precedent) that you can’t be prosecuted for violation of a law that was legislated and enacted after the fact. Now vile and inhumane as we view slavery today, this wasn’t the case in the Standards of Their Times. There certainly were mixed attitudes and opinions on slavery in both eras; but it wasn’t settled in either, in fact it had major consequences in both. It would seem inconsistent with one of our values that people have the right to views and actions that are not illegal. We can condemn the views from our privileged position of today, but is that the same as condemning the people themselves for how society was in their time?

Now you may accept that we should not condemn, but that doesn’t mean that we should honor them?

Again, we can look at the three different eras for context and comparison. What justifies whether an individual can be honored by today’s society? The current proposition of renaming the high-school is that G. Washington and R. E. Lee are not deserving of being honor (because they were slaveholders). It seems odd to consider that George Washington wouldn’t have a decent claim for being a figure that we should remember and admire, even despite the fact that he was a slaveholder. He wasn’t alone among our Founding Fathers to be a slaveholder nor was he a diehard advocate for slavery. He struggled with slavery as an institution but only had his slaves freed after his and his wife’s death. Note: his wife freed their slaves before her death. By the Standards of his times, he failed to make it to our Standards but he moved the issue forward if ever so slightly. Washington isn’t honored because he was a slaveholder. He isn’t honored because he advocated for its preservation. He’s honored for other actions and values. We can view him as a flawed individual (by today’s Standards) and he would probably agree with that. So, if he deserves some recognition for those attributes and accomplishments then what Standard of today would we cite for denying him that honor? Do we apply the same denial to Jefferson, Franklin, and other founders who in their time acted against a Standard we set beyond their graves?

Robert E. Lee, in a different era that still permitted slavery during most of his life, represents a very different case. He inherited his slaveholder status from his wife’s father and apparently didn’t question the situation other than acting as the executor and was charged with settling the estate including the slaves. He then returned to his military career. Before the Civil War, Lee was as well-respected and promising officer. When the South seceded from the Union, he chose siding with his home state over the nation though he purportedly ‘desired’ the preservation of the nation. In his era, state/regional affiliations were much more important than that are today. And even today regional identity is salient factor in people’s attitudes. He soon took charge of the Confederacy’s main army and was quite successful in most of his battles against larger Union forces. By the time of his surrender to Grant, Lee commanded all Union forces. His surrender ended the war.

 After the war, Lee sought reconciliation of the North and South; but equality of the races was not known to be a view he ascribed to. What then is Lee being honored for that coincides with values and principles that we would consider consistent with not just our time but also his own? It certainly wasn’t upholding slavery which even in his own time was doubtful as being presented as a virtue or social value. He was a notable American military officer and subsequently a successful Confederate general. His ties, loyalty and allegiance to Virginia is perhaps understandable for the times but was it a virtue in the context of his oath to serve and protect the nation? Had he and others not been paroled by Grant at Lincoln’s instruction, it is likely that Lee would have been charged with treason. Even by the Standards of his times, it’s not clear why from an American perspective Lee would be honored as an American icon; and as an icon of the Confederacy what is being honored? He may not deserve to be reviled by the Standards of his day but defining what exceptional qualities and values he possessed that we would extoll isn’t obvious. Perhaps the most benefit that would come from preserving his name for the school would be having to explicitly explain to its current and future students that he was a major figure in the nation’s and Virginia’s history on the wrong side of the slavery issue and who deserted the Union when it might have benefited most from his talents. Lee’s significance may be that he was an exceptional man for his times, sadly a product of those times, and a tragic and flawed person who can be a lesson for the future by remembering the errors of our past.

Now our history with slavery is a big issue in American. It has affected that history from before we were a nation. I raise this point because the Standards of those times: Pre-America, Revolutionary America, Civil War American, and today are more complex than we think that hard about. As despicable as slavery is it existed in several forms. This is not intended to diminish the extent or heinous aspect of the slavery imposed upon the Afro-Americans but to provide some context for what was common in the treatment of other people at the time. Native Americans were also enslaved during these periods. America was also a location for the British to “transport” penal colonists, even though American colonies tried to have it stopped. These convicts were sentenced to seven or fourteen years of labor after which they could ‘return’ to Britain. There was also a class of people who were ‘indentured servants’. Indentured servitude was essentially a contract binding the person to service for a period of time (4 to 7 years) in return for passage, room, and board. The indentured servant worked for the individual holding the contract.

What can one learn about the attitudes of the American societies that existed during these times? One thing is clear, the treatment of other human beings was not even remotely anti-enslavement or for that matter viewed all people as even worthy of being inherently free, let alone as an equal. Judging the past from the present is an exercise in misdirection, it neither changes that history nor demonstrates that we are learning from it. Again, there is no ‘right’ answer; although there is maybe a ‘good’ question: What is the proper way to recognize the good and the bad facets of our historic personages?

If there’s truth to the idea that “those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it”, it would be advantageous for our society to present our history honestly and accurately. This would include not whitewashing or omitting aspects of individuals that we do not admire or accept as values and standards of our society. Realistically we should know from the start that no historic figure is or was perfect even for their own times, that our own standards are not faithfully adhered to, and that our national standards and values will evolve with society itself.

What then to do about the name: Washington-Lee High School? It’s simple. Define the rules and reasons that determine what disqualifies a person’s name from being used. This would include specifying the scope and nature of what the rules apply to. I suppose it’s not all that simple after all. Consider which of the following would be included in the defining the rules:

• ·         What are the Standards that establish a reason to justify a name change?

o   Slavery:  a slaveholder, slave trader, family member of slaveholder, member of Confederacy, person/entity employing an enslaved individual, …

o   Slavery of: any person, Afro-American, Native American, Oriental American, …

o   Indentured servant: contract holder, paid for use of servant, …

o   Robber Baron: capitalist who used exploitive business practices

o   Polygamy

o   Adultery

o   Avowed racist

o   Sex-offender

o   Murder

o   Drug trafficker

o   Other offenses

• ·         What items would be subject to the rules?

o   monuments

o   buildings,

o   public areas

o   city names

o   state’s name

o   name of nation’s capital

o   private buildings

o   Art work

o   other thing?

• ·         Who gets to decide?

o   Local government

o   State government

o   Federal government

o   Voters

o   A filed complaint against a specific item

o   Alumni (or individual who has a relationship with the item under consideration)

• ·         How is the process administered?

The name of my high school isn’t particularly important to me. It’s just a place and in the scope of its import it has little weight to me. I recognize however that it is more meaningful to others. So, I find myself once again with a ‘there is no right answer’ attitude. So, if you want to change the name, I think you must make the case for the larger society and get their agreement. Define why it should change and establish a general process to be applied not just to this one case but as a universal principle. Personally, I would recommend that we agree to identify the current social value that the named individual did not possess.

Calculus of 21st Century War: As Illustrated in Syria’s Civil & Regional War

With the 2^nd US military action against Syria in responding to its use of chemical weapons against its own citizens, the US and its allies have demonstrated another in a long line of examples of what constitutes a rationale and justification for engaging in a war-situation. You would think that we would know why nations go to war, and what the causes are that required it, and the objectives of ending the war are. If only it were that simple and that clear. Even an understanding of what defines being in a war is not something we understand.

When for example was the US last in a war? If you’re referring to a declared war, then it was World War II. This must seem not just incorrect but impossible given the events that have transpired in your own lives since then. But it was the term ‘declared’ that tripped you up. Instead of being at war as ‘declared’ by Congress, the US has been engaged in ‘military engagements’ that were authorized by Congress (Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq) or by the United Nations (e.g., Korean, Persian Gulf, Bosnian). So, the US’s engagement in Syria is an ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’, it’s not a war; well, not to us. So, this is one conceptual change that has taken place over the last sixty years. Wars are now the big threat to be denied even while we invest the lives of our military and civil servants, our national treasury, and our values in ‘military engagements’.  Now if you want to know why we do this, it’s primarily because of politics. The US can’t get involved in declared wars without Congressional approval, so Presidents have navigated our way into conflicts via alternate techniques. Congresses have likewise sought ways to curtail/limit the power (and concurrently the risk) of allowing the President in engaging in ‘wars’ while recognizing that there are situations that demand an ability to make decisions that cannot await a Congressional process.

So, whether we are at war or not, the US is absolutely engaged in armed conflicts. Syria is one such conflict. But the purpose in being in a conflict also has to be based on some rationale that serves the overall interests of the nation. In the case of Syria, the US’s involvement was targeted at the elimination of the ISIS caliphate in support of the War on Terror (it’s ok to use the term ‘War’ even for ‘engagements’). The objective was to prevent the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate lead by terrorists and to help resolve the Syria Civil War. Now the war to eliminate ISIS was another effort to protect American interests; the tangential goal to resolve the Syria Civil War may not have been a significant factor in that decision.

Now the missile attacks on Syria forces would seem inconsistent with both the ISIS and the Civil War objectives, in that it doesn’t have a readily available rationale for how those attacks apply. The prevalent reason given for the attacks is independent of those goals and is explained as required because of the illegal use of chemical weapons. This would seem to be a sound and reasoned justification, except for a couple of things.

First, if the use of chemical weapons requires a response then as there have been numerous chemical attacks and not just the two, it would seem the use of chemical weapons doesn’t require a response but can be used to justify one. Perhaps it’s because when chemical weapons are used they indiscriminately kill civilians.

Second, if indiscriminately killing non-combatants provides the basis for attacking the perpetrator then the US doesn’t appear to have a problem with members of the Syria coalition violating that condition. The use of random bombing and targeting by area is clearly killing many civilians without any apparent consideration of who is dying. So maybe it’s a simple ratio that must be violated; like 1 terrorist killed can justify 10 civilian deaths. There hasn’t been any disclosure of such a metric but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one although I would doubt politicians and military leaders would be stupid enough to use such a rule. Any time there will be both terrorist and civilian deaths, I suspect that there are assessments about how to minimize civilian deaths (at least by US forces).

Third, is the use of chemical weapons as a justification for such missile attacks consistent with concurrently allowing civilian deaths in other forms logically sound and reasoned? If more civilians are killed with conventional weapons then it isn’t the death of civilians that matters, it just the means used. This leads to a conclusion that other nations don’t care about the civilians dying, but the danger to themselves that allowing a chemical attach to go un-responded to. This is not a humane justification, but a self-interest rationale. One can argue that it makes sense to get international agreement that use of indiscriminate chemical weapons places the offending nation(s) under retaliatory penalties, but you can’t and should claim the penalty was because of the civilians who died. It even makes more sense to justify the attacks on the basis of ‘you use them, the world punishes you’.

So, if the US cares about the death of civilians by chemical weapons because it’s inhumane and cannot be tolerated then why is their death by other means humane? Do the civilians who die by other means not suffer, or is it that they only suffer less? Down this road is insanity, deciding what is ok and what is not when it comes to kill people indiscriminately provides a path to mass murder that is safe.

What then is the responsibility of the US in the Syrian Civil War? It comes down to what the US has determined its goals to be, why those goals are relevant to the nation and it’s interests, and what attaining those goals will require. The clarity of our policy is dubious or at least our actions are not clearly aligned with a policy that would seem reasoned.

Are we at War? Yes. Do we have a national policy for it? Unclear. Is the public informed and willing to support the War? No. And this leaves the US vulnerable to not having a policy, strategy or the will to serve the nation’s interests and values.

Why Are You Upset About Politics? It May Be Just Normal Behavior

It’s not surprising that America’s politics is partisan. After all the very essence of a two-party system is a two-sided contest pitting one group against the other. The evolution of our political parties hasn’t been constant or rational but it’s unquestionably highly driven by basic human motivations. We can hardly be shocked that a social enterprise is influenced, if not dictated by, the factors that control so much of what individuals do. You may want to believe that our politics and our political parties reflect the contest between different ideas for how to move society forward and fulfill the social contract that established our nation. So, does this mean that the public is inevitably doomed to being divided and opposed to the ‘other’ side? While that is what appears to be the case today, it isn’t necessary nor is it clearly true even today.

Now in establishing our nation, it should be noted that there were not two political parties as we would think of them today but there were two-perspectives on a variety of issues that fought over the structure, design and implementation of government. In the end, there were compromises on how to accommodate and reconcile the different views. This was done however without any definitive political party-based organizations or allegiances to ideologies blessed by those non-existent parties.

Regardless the seeds for parties were sown and quickly grew. This was as much due to how government was structured and required to operate as it was to basic human-nature. If you consider the idea of having three separate branches of government than getting anything done is going to necessitate getting a cohort of individuals to coalesce on agreeing to take an action. With the requirement to team-up you are going to join with a group that helps you, that you don’t have fundamental conflicts with, and that gives you a sense of belonging. Add to this that as a group you have more power and resources that can enable you to win small and big contests then a ‘party’ is created. A consequence of Party was the ‘them’ versus ‘us’ phenomenon; nothing new in human politics but initiating an evolutionary force shaping American politics.

Along with a ‘them versus us’ narrative were the emotional levers that politicians and political parties choose to employ.  If you’re unfamiliar with the emotional levers used in politics, I am sure you are aware of them in general. Politicians play on our emotions constantly, and they have done so from the beginning. Included in the emotional repertoire that politics will seek to exploit are: fear, hate, anger, greed, envy, desire, pride, vanity, revenge, popularity/belonging, sex/gender/appeal, and status/image; just to name a few. These are all basic human experiences that direct, motivate and guide a huge amount of our thinking, decisions and actions. It is for that reason that politicians use them, they work. That is, they work on you; that doesn’t mean that they work for you and your interests only on your behavior.

You may have learned in school that our Founding Fathers used some of these in their campaigns for themselves or against their opponents. You are probably more personally aware of some of these factors being used during elections that you have witnessed or participated in. You will surely experience them in upcoming elections. Why? Because the work! They even work again and again, from one generation to the next. Consider how long the ‘communism’ threat has been around, played by politicians and dictating the direction of campaigns, politicians and voters. This is hardly a rare example of emotional messaging being used to achieve a political advantage. America has lived through the politics of: communism/democracy, nationalism/globalism, climate change/not, environment/industry, racism/equality, sexism/equality, welfare/safety net/personal responsibility, universal healthcare/pay-as-you-go healthcare, gun-rights/gun-violence/gun-control, tax system: flat/progressive/corporate/individual/this way/that way, national security/immigration, trade: domestic/international/global, and …

If these issues, problems or societal questions need to be answered, and they do; then given that a partisan government and political process is intimately involved, the politicians must choose how to gain support for their position(s) and sufficient voters to elect them over their opponents. One dimension of that choice is how to present the issue to those voters you need to win over, or more easily to choose to adopt the views your voters will respond to emotionally and have that determine your positions.  And this is where the emotional factors come it. They are easy to use, and emotions are effective if you can connect them to the public’s (your voters’) general situation, concerns and local social views. Conveniently, you can use different emotional levers on separate issues with unique voter groups.

The ‘emotional’ voter could be considered an unused term for the ‘one-issue’ voters. By appealing to those aspects of their lives that evoke an emotional response, the politicians don’t have to do the heavy-lifting of informing or explaining their policies and positions. If the politician gets a connecting emotional response they have the voter. So, if I tell you that you’re being robbed by the ‘government’ to give your hard-earned money to people that didn’t earn it and that evokes some anger, hate, fear, or other emotion and as a politician you ‘promise’ to stop it, you have that voter on your side. You don’t have to prove your claim if the response comes first.

Now every voter isn’t an emotional voter, but you don’t need every voter to be. You just need enough to tip the scales. Add to this that some voters are ‘emotional’ regarding their political party itself. They have always been a member of the “Party”, their father and grandfather were, their brothers and sisters are, their neighbors and friends are, and they are a ‘loyal’ supporter of the “Party’s” ideological principles. This could as easily be an emotional determinant as a reasoned determinant. Being a member of the tribe, the community, the family is important and it may even be necessary to be able to succeed in the local environment.

So, is it any wonder that our Political Parties spend huge sums on negative campaign ads? The negative focus is nothing more than using the emotional dimension of an issue or situation to gain your support, because it’s easy. It’s certainly easier than providing a sound, reasoned, and fact-based explanation of what an issue is, what it’s underlying causal factors are, what your policies for addressing the issue are, and why those are the right policies and ones that will work. Even stating what you need to do instead of an emotional ad is more difficult than saying play to their ‘emotions’: fear, hate, anger, …

This describes the virulent and volatile divide that we see in our politics; playing to the crowd. Oddly, it doesn’t explain the closeness of the partisan divide; unless that divide is basically just random, that is each voter is little more than a chip drawn from a pool which is statistically 50 / 50. There’s a better explanation than that but you’ll have to await the “What Does the Divisive Polarized Partisan Divide Mean? Perhaps Not What You Think” article to come.