Picking Your Poison

Murder by police. Voters as "deplorables." Does anyone see a pattern here? This is an infrastructure that is showing hostility toward its citizens. That is, the sum is beginning to despise its parts.



                            Picking Your Poison

In his review of Never Trump, Kling has an interesting summary of the political spectrum of intellectuals:

"For progressives, intellectuals are the technocrats who design and implement policies on behalf of a public that must defer to their scientific and technical expertise. Progressive intellectuals are optimistic that the public will support them in their efforts, as long as people are not fooled or blinded by right-wing opposition.

For libertarians, intellectuals are the philosophers who continually remind people of the intrinsic and practical value of individual liberty. Libertarian intellectuals are optimistic that people will be receptive to the message that freedom is a natural entitlement and economic prosperity comes from voluntary exchange.

For conservatives, intellectuals are the realists who take into account the ignorance and moral weaknesses that characterize all human beings, themselves included. Conservative intellectuals are pessimistic that such imperfect people will form a well-ordered society in the absence of strong social norms and well-established institutions."

Only the libertarians are non-combatants. The progressives and the conservatives both have enough faith in their respective leaders to give them terrific powers toward their noble ends through their separate systems. After this year, all of those dreams must surely be gone. What remains are zombies.

The Arrows or the Cycles of History

Charles Krauthammer had a very worthwhile article in The Telegraph which is instructive about how different world views are organized.

How, he asks, do you see the world? Is there a direction in history, a progress from our more primitive selves to a higher moral and social plane? Obama's arrow of history: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Or is history just cycles of repeated behavior--"the same damn thing all over again"--where the names and battle cries change and the only improvement is in the weaponry? Those who see a direction are of two camps, the liberal and the neoconservative. Clinton, he says, is of the liberal stripe where  "the creation of a dense web of treaties, agreements, transnational institutions and international organizations (like the U.N., NGOs, the World Trade Organization) can give substance to a cohesive community of nations that would, in time, ensure order and stability." Bush is of a similar--he calls neoconservative--view with a different methodology where "the better way to ensure order and stability is not through international institutions, which are flimsy and generally powerless, but through the spread of democracy. Because, in the end, democracies are inherently more inclined to live in peace."

(Note: Krauthammer, here, is speaking of the current, Western world. Other "arrows of history" would include Islam, Imperial Japan, the Nazis and the homicidal Communist movement all who see--or saw--themselves as part of an inevitable historical progression.)

Liberal internationalists count on globalization, neoconservatives on democratization to ascend the heights, to fulfill the arrow of history.
Those who do not believe in the arrow--he calls them realists (vs. the first group are "idealists")--believe that idealists give "high purpose to international exertions where none exists. Sovereign nations remain in incessant pursuit of power and self-interest. The pursuit can be carried out more or less wisely. But nothing fundamentally changes." This group wants only to limit the potential damage  created by the baser instincts of ambitious leaders and political units.

He says much of Obama's international behavior has been to realize this "arc of justice." Thus his "'apology tour,' that burst of confessional soul-searching abroad about America and its sins, from slavery to the loss of our moral compass after 9/11 ....appeasing Vladimir Putin, the Iranian mullahs, the butchers of Tiananmen Square and lately the Castros." But peace did not follow "justice." "The consequent withdrawal of American power, that agent of injustice or at least arrogant overreach, has yielded nothing but geopolitical chaos and immense human suffering."

One would think his recent trip to the Far East, highlighted by his Hiroshima display signals more of the same. But Krauthammer says no, that Obama has shown a real effort to be a realist with his trip to Vietnam, "accepted the reality of an abusive dictatorship while announcing a warming of relations and the lifting of the U.S. arms embargo, thereby enlisting Vietnam as a full partner in the containment of China."
This he called "raw, soulless realpolitik. No moral arc. No uplifting historical arrow. In fact, it is the same damn thing all over again."

A Parcel of Rogues

There was an interesting party recently with a theme: The Separation Vote in Scotland.
There were two tasked, one to present each side. The Pro position was well-spoken with an interesting take. He said any revolution which resulted in the improvement of liberty was valid and just. For example he offered the American Revolution in 1776 as a good revolution, the Southern States revolution in the Civil War as bad. The freedom gained in the Scottish separation, he said, justified it.
The Nay position was presented by the host, a Scot, who argued that the Scots had virtual independence already with autonomous control of education, welfare, law and justice with Great Britain controlling only taxation and military. Thus the point is moot.
I offered nationalistic animosity as bait but no one took it. Indeed, the Pro said, the fact that so little animosity existed raised the level of debate to a purer sort.
This question is bigger than it looks. The Separation vote is quite vague. "Should Scotland be an independent country?" is almost adolescent in its simplicity. And the debate is youthful. There is a large Green contingent that wants nothing more than NATO's nuclear warships out of Scottish ports. A large segment fears that Scotland's predominate Social Democrat political feelings will be swamped by Great Britain's stable-looking Tory vote. These are small foundations on which to build a country. (One alarming observation showed that the vote for separation grew noticeably after Mel Gibson's fanciful "Braveheart.")
One opinion, from a young woman, was dismissive of the current Western structure, giving the back of her hand to the U.S. over what she said was America's poor "human rights" record, in support of the separation vote as sort-of morally deserved rebuke of the status quo.
While this argument is, I think, anti-historical and a bit askew it points to much of the problem here. "Should Scotland be an independent country?" is not a political question, it is a debating proposition for colleges. It is a position without a direction. The question is a starting point, not a solution, and attracts youth fervor, idealism, nationalism and heartfelt inaccuracy more than any other element. It is not a coincidence that sixteen-year-olds are allowed to vote on the question. But it is, indeed, a question for our age.
In truth, the separation of the two entities would have dramatic fallout, much unforeseen. What will be the currency? How will the debt be shared? What about the EU and NATO? Is the current momentum of paring political entities into smaller and smaller coherent shards a good idea? After separation, should the Shetlands go with the Danes and, if no, why not? The most important revolution in history, the American Revolution, took almost one hundred years to complete, and it is considered quite successful. Many of the objections to the current political status in Scotland would be solved by simply thinking out the government infrastructure. (For example, the problem of Scotland being submerged by its more populous opponents would be solved by an American-type regional based Senate.)
Countries as entities are under attack all over the world. The powers-that-be discourage nationalism which they think has led to much of the world's instability and conflict. But some countries are founded upon principle, not ethnicity, and those entities deserve respect. What is the positive motive for the separation? What are the new nation's energizing principles? More, those ethnic creations tend to be the real villains in nationalism.
The separation vote means much more than it asks but it is unlikely that a state initiated by the Greens, the Social Democrats and sixteen-year-olds will rise to the occasion. The lack of animosity adds little when the debate is over sentiment and not ideas. More, such a shallow notion should not be allowed the disruption it promises. 
Incidentally, the vote at the party went 9 to 8 against separation.

Presidents' Day Collage

Presidents' Day is a bad idea. It drags all the individuals in and celebrates none. It submerges each individual with his special abilities into a meaningless composite. In a world of Armstrong, Bonds and Grass we should elevate heroes and men of integrity, not mix them in a stew.

This new world of equality-through-sameness may not tolerate such distinctions, though. We have not had a real hero since Pat Tillman and he, symbolically, was killed by friendly fire.

We Are The World, Snowed In

We are so busy; life is so fast. We are bombarded with notions, concepts and good ideas without the opportunity of ever fully participating in them. Idealism seems a luxury. Remarkably, I have recently felt a part of the society around me; I have participated, joined, shared and been part of an uplifting redistribution of talent, effort and wealth.
Big storms change people. They make the world smaller. Perhaps it is the demonstration of Nature's power that subdues us, chastens us, rubs our sharp edges smooth. Perhaps storms homogenizes us before the same powerful and leveling force. Perhaps it is nothing more than the paralysis the community suffers, the negation of the automobile and the limiting of transportation. A big storm simplifies us, reduces us to basics. Everyone on the street is polite and helpful, despite the cold and inconvenience. Everyone goes out of his way. People pitch in to clean walks and shovel cars out of their snow traps. On our street it was multinational with me, a German and an Asian working on our cars, the street, the walks, other cars. It was a communal experience, all selfless and constructive towards the general, unseen welfare.
Later someone stole my shovel.