The Week in Review (11-16-24)

I haven't posted for a couple weeks. The biggest event of course in the interim was the re-election of Donald Trump as president. He promised a lot of things on the campaign trail. I suspect a lot of people either weren't listening or don't believe he'll actually do them. We're about to find out.

We are in an experiment, so to speak. There seem to be three broad possible outcomes: 1) America will experience great benefit as a result ("make America great again"), 2) it will be much as the last presidency, or 3) we're in for a major crisis/crises. I've heard a lot of #2 from what I might call ordinary American people. They're not entirely thrilled about Trump but figure it will be like the last time.

Then there are the MAGA supporters who sound almost messianic in their love of the president. One meme comparing him to King David circulated the week of the election. Then there are those who think that the Constitution is about to be unraveled along with our representational democracy. Will there ever be a fair election again? 

The data collection is about to begin on the experiment. This week we have heard names for cabinet picks: Matt Gaetz, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., Pete Hegseth, Elon Musk, and Marco Rubio. Of these, Rubio is the only "normal" pick. Gaetz is under House investigation on the possibility of activities with a minor. The idea of him as Attorney General has raised a number of eyebrows. Gabbard has been accused of being too chummy with Russia, and she is nominated for director of National Intelligence.

Musk wants to cut trillions from the budget, possibly cutting the Department of Education. I've heard the CIA mentioned too. RFK Jr. is not only pro-abortion (over Health and Human Services) but is also anti-vaccine.

It remains to be seen what will happen. Let the experiment begin.

Whom should I vote for?

So the way this works is that, if you get past the first two questions, you should vote for whichever candidate gets the most total points by the end. The choices are loosely based on what the candidates have said. Feel free to reword the question to fit how you would put the alternative. Also you are welcome to count according to what you think they will actually do rather than what they've said.

1. More than anything else, do you want to protest both of the candidates or the system in general?
Vote for Gary Johnson, Evan McMullin, or Jill Stein. Don't read any further.

2. Is your overriding concern the possibility that a president might appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, thus making it possible for laws prohibiting abortion to be passed in individual states and Congress?
If so, vote for Donald Trump. He's your shot. Don't read any further.

If this is an important but not the overriding issue for you, give one or more to Trump if you believe he will decrease the number of abortions or to Clinton if you believe she will protect what you see as women's rights in this area. Then proceed.
_______________________
From this point on, give points to one or the other candidate, depending on your choice.

3. Which candidate, if either, do you think is less likely to use the presidency to advance his or her own financial or other corrupt interests to the detriment of the United States?
Give one or more points to the candidate you think is less likely to use the office of the presidency to advance their own personal financial or other interests to the detriment of the nation. Or give a zero if you think they are equally corrupt or that neither are corrupt.

4. Which candidate do you think will most improve the character and "feel" of the nation? Who will model most love of God and neighbor? Who will most improve optimism? Who will most model appropriate language and action for our children? Under whom will we have the least civil unrest due to tone?
If you think Trump, give him one or more points. If you think Clinton, give her one or more points. Or give a zero if you think it's a wash.

5. Should we should appoint more Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Thomas or more like Kagan and Ginsberg?
For Kagan and Ginsberg, give one or more to Clinton. For Scalia and Thomas, give one or more to Trump.

6. Do you believe that Obamacare should be completely repealed to start again from scratch or do you think it is a good start that needs to be fixed?
If it must be destroyed, give one or more to Trump. If it only needs to be fixed, give one or more to Clinton.

7. Do you think we need to set up trade walls to make it more difficult for foreign countries to trade with us (and us with them) or do you more or less support the status quo of trade? Alternatively, do you think that open trade victimizes the poor in the countries with which we trade?
If you believe we need to slow trade down for any of these reasons, give one or more to Trump. If you don't want to go protectionist, give one or more to Clinton. If you think it's a wash, give a zero.

8. Do you think a wall along the southern border would be an effective way of stopping illegal immigration and drug traffic, regardless of expense or cost to our relationship with Mexico?
If you do, give one or more to Trump. If you think it would be counterproductive, give one or more to Clinton. If you don't really care, give a zero.

9. Do you think we should have moderate gun control legislation or no limits gun use in the United States?
If you want moderate gun control, give one or more to Clinton. If you want free use by almost everyone, give one or more to Trump.

10. Do you believe that reducing taxes on the rich trickles money down to the poor? Perhaps you believe that taxes are wrong in themselves or that the government taxes the wealthy too much? Or do you believe that the wealthy bear a greater responsibility for resourcing government services than other classes?
If you trickle down, give one or more to Trump. If you think the wealthy need to help more, give one or more to Clinton.

11. Do you believe that Social Security and other government programs need to be privatized (or that it is not the government's job to take care of the needy), or do you think government programs should be expanded to cover more insured, to pay for education, etc?
If you want to privatize or reduce, give one or more to Trump. If you want to expand services, give one or more to Clinton. If you think both are crazy, enter a zero.

12. How well do you think each candidate would be on reducing the national debt, and how important do you think this issue is?
If you think Trump will reduce the national debt, give him a one or more. If you think Clinton will, give her a one or more. If you think they'll both expand the debt or if you don't think this is an important issue, give a zero.

13. On foreign policy, who do you think is less likely to get us into international trouble with other countries? 
Feel free to give one or more to either Clinton or Trump. Or give 0 if you think they are equal on this issue.

14. Do you value our relationships with NATO more or our relationships with Russia?
If you value NATO more, give a one or more to Clinton. If you value Russia more, give one or more to Trump. The more you support NATO and our current allies, give more to Clinton. The more you want to change things up, give more to Trump.

15. Do you believe that the United States should be fairly exclusive in its support to Israel over and against Palestinians and other Arab countries?
If we should focus on Israel to the exclusion of the surrounding Arab countries, give one or more to Trump. If you believe we should be more even-handed in our relationships with the Middle East, give one or more to Clinton.

16. Do you think we should let the Assad government in Syria retake full control? Do you favor more or less indiscriminate bombing regardless of civilians to get rid of Isis?
If so, give one or more to Trump. If you think we should continue to support civilians in Syria and those fighting against the regime, give one or more to Clinton. If you favor a slower but more targeted approach to Isis, give one or more to Clinton.

17. Do you believe that we should distinguish between illegal immigrants who are violent and those who are peaceful, many of whom have grown up here? Do you believe peace-loving illegals should be given a path to legality or even citizenship? 
If so, give one or more to Clinton. If you think we should pretty much kick them all out, give one or more to Trump.

18. Do you think the best approach to crime and urban unrest is to crack down with a heavier police hand, maybe even martial law, or does something need to be done to build up the inner cities from within?
If you think force is the answer, give one or more to Trump. If you think the criminal system needs to be revamped significantly, give one or more to Clinton. If you think it's a wash, give both a zero.

19. Which candidate do you think is more likely to support the rights of women, African-Americans, and other civil rights? Or do you think "political correctness" is out of control and needs to be curbed? 
Both seem to have the same stance on gay marriage and gay rights, but if you think Clinton will advance civil rights more, give her one or more points. If you think "political correctness" needs to be stopped, give Trump one or more points. If you think they cancel each other out, enter a zero.

20. Which candidate do you think is more likely to advance religious freedoms of concern to you?
If you think the religious freedoms of Christians are more in danger, give one or more to Trump. If you think the religious freedoms of other groups such as Muslims are more in danger, give one or more to Clinton. If you think it's a wash, enter a zero.

21. Do you think that climate change poses a serious threat to the planet or is it more or less hype without any basis?
If you think climate change is serious, give one or more to Clinton. If you believe climate change is an agenda with dangerous consequences, give one or more to Trump. If you don't think it matters either way, enter a zero.

How did you do? Who should you vote for?

11. The Truth behind Politics

It's deeply ironic that I finish my review of Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion on the day we here in Indiana go to the primary polls. My bet is that Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump will win. I plan to vote for a loser, but that doesn't really tell you anything. :-)

The review of the book so far is:

1. Introduction
2. Intuitive Dogs and Rational Tails
3. Elephants Rule
4. Three Domains of Morality
5. Taste Buds of the Righteous Mind
6. The Moral Foundations of Politics
7. The Conservative Advantage
8. Morality an Evolutionary Advantage
9. The "Chimp to Bee" Switch
10. Religion is like Football

1. He begins the book by talking about how contentiously divided America had become when he was writing in 2012. Little could he have imagined what the situation would look like for the 2016 election. The Republican field of candidates this year was a mud wrestling match, and the leading Republican candidate at one point endorsed violence against protesters at his rallies.

When Haidt was writing, it was things like the inability of Congress to conduct a routine vote to expand the debt ceiling to cover a budget it had already approved. He talked about how, since the 90s, partisans on both sides were discouraged from being friends with each other. Now members walk into the chamber full of hatred.

One key example of this shift, he argues, is when Newt Gingrich urged house members not to move their families to Washington. Without the social interaction of families (e.g., spouses socializing with spouses), an individualistic, isolated climate was advanced.

2. Where does political ideology come from? First, he defines ideology as "A set of beliefs about the proper order of society and how it can be achieved" (322).

A major cause, surprisingly, is genetic. Studies show that identical twins, even if they are separated at birth, will tend to have the same political affinities in later life. Meanwhile, "self-interest does a remarkably poor job of predicting political attitudes" (323).

How do our genes work there way into our later politics? He gives three key factors:

a. First, genes make our brains. "The genes (collectively) give some people brains that are more (or less) reactive to threats, and that produce less (or more) pleasure when exposed to novelty, change, and new experiences" (325). The more reactive mind tends toward the conservative. The more exploration-oriented mind tends toward the liberal.

b. But secondly, our traits interact with our environment to steer us in various directions. Dan McAdams speaks of three levels of our personality:

• dispositional traits, such as our basic reactivity to threats or our delight in exploration.
• characteristic adaptations, how our environment interacts with our default dispositions
• lastly, we construct life narratives. "The human mind is a story processor, not a logic processor" (328).

c. So we simplify and selectively reconstruct our pasts into stories, with idealized visions for the future. He gives a great hypothetical about a sister and brother, their default dispositions, and how they interact with a specific story to end up politically conservative or liberal. He also tells a little of Keith Richards' story. :-)

3. Both the left and the right have grand narratives. The terms come from which side of the assembly French delegates sat in 1789, depending on whether they wanted to preserve the past (right - conservatism) or wanted change (left - liberalism). The grand narrative of the left is one of progress. The past is full of inequality and exploitation, but we are throwing off the chains of social oppression and the future is bright because times they are a changin.

The narrative of the right is that America used to be great. Our country used to be strong and we were free to do what we wanted. But the liberals made government too big and they have undermined faith. Instead of punishing criminals and free-loaders, now we reward them. We need to take our country back from the liberals and make America great again like it used to be.

4. He then reminds us of his earlier thesis of the book. If there are something like six different moral areas in our brains (harm, freedom, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity), conservatism tends to hit most of them. Liberalism only hits two or three. For this reason, studies show that liberals find it hard to anticipate what conservatives will think on issues, while conservatives are better at the opposite. That is to say, conservatives tend to understand liberals better than liberals tend to understand conservatives.

He says that the blind spot of liberals is what he calls "moral capital." Moral capital refers to "the degree to which a community possesses interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, and technologies that... enable the community to suppress or regulate selfishness and make cooperation possible" (341).

"If you are trying to change and organization or a society and you do not consider the effects of your changes on moral capital, you're asking for trouble" (342).

This "explains why liberal reforms so often backfire, and why communist revolutions usually end up in despotism... Liberalism tends to overreach, change too many things too quickly, and reduce the stock of moral capital inadvertently. Conversely, while conservatives do a better job of preserving moral capital, they often fail to notice certain classes of victims, fail to limit the predations of certain powerful interests, and fail to see the need to change or update institutions as times change" (343).

5. He suggests a yin and yang relationship between these two forces in a society--innovation versus preservation. He gives the following as positive examples of these impulses:

• Liberal values care for victims of oppression. For example, liberals recognize that corporations can become superorganisms that are so powerful that only the government can control them. "When corporations operate in full view of the public, with a free press that is willing and able to report... they are likely to behave well, as most corporations do" (347).
• "Some problems really can be solved by regulation" (348). Haidt uses lead as an example. In what is very well documented, big corporations in collusion with government perpetuated a situation throughout the mid-twentieth century that retarded the IQ of American children and doubled the crime rate. Crime dropped in half in the 1990s once lead gasoline was completely worked out of the system.
• Markets are miraculous. When people are allowed to make their own choices on purchases, the law of supply and demand really does lower costs. A kind of "spontaneous order" emerges. When everything is provided for a person, there is little incentive to find innovative ways to reduce the cost of things or increase its quality.
• "You can't help the bees by destroying the hive" (358). If John Lennon had his way and there were no countries, no religion, no borders or boundaries, the world would quickly descend into hell because human selfishness would reign supreme. We thrive as humans because we have the capacity to hive and congeal together. A world without groups is a world of self-destructive anarchy.

Studies show that if the blending of diverse groups is done in the wrong way, the result is not hiving but "turtling." Individuals simply withdraw into their own shell. "Emphasizing differences makes many people more racist, not less" (361). Bonding comes from commonality.

6. What to do? Haidt seems to suggest that the first steps are social, not intellectual. Facebook is very painful these days, but this is just a sign of how far we have withdrawn into "lifestyle enclaves." Perhaps that social interaction--rough as it has been of late--is a kind of first step back toward civility.

If we truly want to understand the other, he suggests we "follow the sacredness." What are the moral foundations on which the other side is operating?

I'll plan to do a final post of take-aways on this book, political and religious.

Have you seen this?

From Jimmy Kimmel Live: