Patterns of American Extremism

John Calhoun and the coming of the Civil War. Review of "Heirs of the Founders", by H. W. Brands.

Our politics are straining under back-breaking burdens. We are still saddled with several undemocratic compromises of the founders, are corrupted by money and corporate interests, and profess a democracy which in even its best incarnations is, historically, a brief reprieve betwixt tyrannies and oligarchies of various forms, inevitably brought down by the greed, fears, and passions of its subjects. We are experiencing division to a degree not seen since the civil war, and corruption, even treason at the highest levels of government. Where is all this going?

A recent multi-biography focused on the leading politicians of the early to mid-1800's: Daniel Webster, from Massachusetts, Henry Clay, from Kentucky, and John Calhoun, from South Carolina. Yoking them together this way is common in the teaching of this era, but it does something of a disservice to their strikingly divergent contexts and paths. Webster was a natural supporter of Northern interests, including Union, tariffs, but not abolition. He eventually agreed with the compromise of 1850 that enforced the fugative slave policy of the South, since that policy was written explicitly into the constitution. Clay was the most ambitious of the set, leading the Senate through decades of policy and legislative compromise. His lodestar was also Union, made increasingly difficult by the relative economic decline of the South, the entrenchment of slavery, and the fatal compromises that had already been made in the original constitution.

Mysterious, Romanesque bust of John Calhoun, senator and vice president from South Carolina.

John Calhoun was different altogether. While the others tacked repeatedly to maintain the Union and its institutions, Calhoun lit out towards a bitter and uncompromising pro-Southern, pro-slavery position. He was the one who repeatedly threatened secession before the Congress. He was the one who turned intellectual and moral summersaults to defend slavery as consonant with the constitution, the founders, and human decency and progress. This was a time, of course, when Native Americans did not even get this level of discussion- they were packed off to Oklahoma with hardly a bleeding heart on their side. Racism was endemic, and the point of America was not harmony, but the manifest destiny of the Europeans who were remaking the continent. Still, the blatant FOX-news quality of Calhoun's arguments is unmistakable. Here he compares the state of African Americans in Massachusetts to those in the South:

"By the very latest authentic accounts, there was one our of every twenty-one of the black population in jails of houses of correction, and one out of every thirteen was either deaf and dumb, blind, idiot, insane, or in prison. ... The condition of the African race throughout all the states where the ancient relation between the two races has been retained enjoys a degree of health and comfort which may well compare with that of the laboring population of any coiuntry in Christendome; and it may be added that in no other condition or in any other age or country, has the negro race ever attained so high an elevation in morals, intelligence, or civilization."

All this led to a clear break:

"I have, Senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of each of the two great parties which divide the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed, with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a period where it can no longer be denied or disguised that the Union is in danger. You have thus forced upon you the greatest and the gravest question that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Union be preserved?"

Calhoun brooked no embarrassment or qualm about slavery. As an institution, it was good, not bad; growing, not dying. While Clay and the founders generally hoped that it would wither away, though economic evolution and plain moral decency, Calhoun stood for its unrepentant expansion. The constitution was also behind him. The constitution gave Southern states the representation of 3/5 of its slaves, but none of their voting. The constitution said nothing about any powers the Union might have to restrict slavery in new states. The constution explicitly forbade the harboring of runaway slaves. The country had lost sight of its duties to the South, and were the abolitionists not muzzled from speaking their inconvenient moral truths, the South would have no more of it.

It is a story of a whole section of America gone off its moral rocker, in service of plain greed and conservatism. A religion has also evolved in the South that seems to blend the authoritarianism and social conservatism of Catholicism with independent elite governance and a scrim of protestant theology. When the South did secede, the Union government let loose a torrent of progressive legislation. One senses strongly that we could and would do the same today but for the anchor of a Southern political culture still petrified by true equality, dedicated to feudal economic relations, and to defend itself, still spouting the mantra of state's rights. The map of Red states tells the story.

Political divisions over the last sixty years, by presidential election.

But it is the media and media leaders that serve to normalize immoral positions. Climate change is only an example, but perhaps the clearest and most dire of our time. Failure to act is simply criminal- an act of sabatoge against the future of every citizen and the entire biosphere. A fair portion of our culture, driven by right wing media and its nexus of money and fear, drives an utterly immoral political culture of denial, mean-ness, and blind conservatism. Trump has nowhere near the intellect or facility of John Calhoun, but the brazen support of palpably destructive policies, the headlong divisiveness, the antipodean moral compass have a certain resemblance.

• It isn't just Trump who is nuts.
• How much does China love us?
• The upstairs-downstairs society.
• Corruption and health of institutions.
• MMT and left economics.
• Mainstream economics is in a rut.
• Technical thoughts on deficits and seigniorage ... in a world where governments are forced to sell bonds to "back" deficits.

The Problem With Atheism

Bernard Mandeville and the impossibility of getting along without lying.

We live in a little cloud of lies. From the simplest white lie and social protocol for hiding unpleasantness, to the universal belief that one's own family, city, country are better than the other ones, untruth is pervasive, and also essential. Vanity, optimism, a standard set of cognitive biases.. are opposed to the reality principle. The economic commonplaces which are, as Keynes noted, unknowningly derived from some defunct economist. Our unconscious is resolutely irrational. Euphemism, humor and swearing are ways to refer to truths that are difficult to bring up in straightforward fashion. But more serious truths are the more deeply hidden. Such as death, the final stop on everyone's trip. Full-on honesty and truth? No one wants that, or could live with it.

Many thinkers have plumbed these depths, from Machiavelli to Freud. Bernard Mandeville was one, profiled in a recent BBC podcast. His most enduring (and brief) work was the Fable of the Bees, which portrays a society much like Britain's, rife with greed, ambition, corruption, and crime. Due to moralist complaints, god decides to make this hive moral and good, upon which everything promptly goes to pot. The economy, previously held up by a love of luxury, collapses. Courts and lawyers have nothing to do, clothing fashions fail to change. The traders leave the seas for lack of demand, and the military succumbs for lack of population. The hive ends up resembling one truly composed of bees, and goes to live a hollow tree, never to be heard from again.

"Those, that were in the Wrong, stood mute,
And dropt the patch'd vexatious Suit.
On which, since nothing less can thrive,
Than Lawyers in an honest Hive."
... 

"Do we not owe the Growth of Wine
To the dry, crooked, shabby Vine?
Which, whist its shutes neglected stood,
Choak'd other Plants, and ran to Wood;
But blest us with his Noble Fruit;
As soon as it was tied, and cut:
So Vice is beneficial found,
When it's by Justice lopt and bound;"

His point, naturally, was that vice is both natural and to a some extent the underpinning of national greatness and economic vitality (given some beneficial management). Greed is good, as is irrational optimism and ambition. Mandeville was also a famous anticlericalist in his day, but that is another story. It was a classic contrarian point, that what we fight tooth and nail to vanquish or hide has, in reality, a role to play in the national character and success, for all its embarrassment. And that we routinely lie, to ourselves above all, to hide the truth of reality so that we can go on our way from one day to the next.

"My aim is to make Men penetrate into their Consciences, and be searching without Flattery into the true Motives of their Actions, learn to know themselves."
- Bernard Mandeville, in Free Thoughts on Religion, the Church, and National Happiness.

What is our most florid and communal lie, but religion? This is the salve of social togetherness, moral self righteousness, and imaginary immortality. It is the finely tuned instrument that addresses alike our private fears and social needs. And atheists know it is completely, utterly wrong! But what is the point of saying so? Religions have been corrupt, abusive, greedy and murderous from time immemorial- they have many faults. But untruth is not a flaw.. it is the reigning feature of this imaginative confection, providing the credulous a full belief system to support a positive and hopeful self-image, (not to mention conventional authority!), so important to happiness, providing the more skeptical an endless labyrinth of theological puzzles, while providing even the most skeptical or apathetic a social institution to call home.

So why go around ripping the clothes from believers, crying that their cherished narratives of meaning are senseless- that they should go forth theologically naked? It is a serious question for atheists, going to the heart of our project. For Freud, after all, repression had a positive function, and was not to be comprehensively cleared away, root and branch, only pruned judiciously. Lying is indeed integral to mature social functioning. Clearly, untruth is not, by itself, an unacceptable portion of the human condition. This implies that atheists need to be generally gentle in approach, and selective in what they address directly- the most significant outrages and injustices perpetrated by religions, of which there is no shortage. When religions invade the territory of science, making bone-headed proclamations about biology and geology, that clearly crosses such a line. And likewise when religions insinuate themselves into governmental institutions, bent on seeking power to foist their beliefs and neuroses on others.

The so-called arrogance of atheists consists of their opposing / exposing the cherished verities of others as false. Such arrogance is of course not unknown among religious believers and zealots either, and for much more modest cause. The secular state settlement of the West has forced religions to forego armed conflict and state violence in the pursuit of their truths and enemies. Atheists should take a page from this success to lead by example and humor, rather than frontal assault, even rhetorically.

• BBC to continue spouting religion.
• Silicon valley has its religion as well- a sort of Stockholm syndrome.
• But lies in politics.. is there no limit?
• Hate is in the textbooks, in Saudi Arabia.
• Euro countries are not independent.
• 5G to rule them all.
• Heredity counts for a lot.. more than parenting.
• The labor market could run much, much better.

Work-a-Day Addiction

We are all addicted to the normal hormones of motivation.

I am watching the World Cup from time to time, and wonder- why? Why do we get so involved in competition, why are men particularly motivated to participate and watch, why do whole nations believe themselves to be "represented" by a sporting team, and feel emotional loss or gain by their fate? It is all very odd, from logical perspective- even a grand waste of effort, money and time, second only to that wasted on religion!

Naturally, one has to look at our biology and evolutionary history. A recent article in Salon outlined an interesting contrast between hormones that drive men to their characteristic activities- testosterone and oxytocin. Success gives us a testosterone boost, while social bonding gives us an oxytocin boost. Both are powerful drugs that give us highly conditional, precise motivation. If one's success serves the group, such as a successful hunt, (or war), both systems reinforce, and we are maximally happy. If the two systems are in conflict, such as a bar brawl, civil war, or domestic intrigue, we take our bonding resources were we can- from whichever group will have us, or do without, becoming loners or outcasts living on testosterone alone, if that. That really isn't much fun, and one gets the distinct impression that oxytocin is ultimately the more significant motivator. Winning only works if you have someone to share it with.

Another recent experience was going to a concert. It was transporting, highly socially bonding, and its happy effects lasted long, long after, surely involving something like a surge of oxytocin. One might even call it "religious", a related activity carefully engineered to bring people together to get positive hits of social bonding, though with a veneer of pompous folderol. These are in some ways the poles of our culture- the incessant competition in sports, business, and politics, which divide us, versus bonding experiences that bring us back together. The latter are getting, perhaps, pushed to the margins as live music becomes rarer, religion dies a slow death, and our arts turn into violent superhero extravaganzas. Granted, that in competitive situations, we bond with our team, our party, our religion versus their religion. But the mixture of testosterone-fueled competitiveness makes such group-i-ness a mixed blessing, easily turning to mean, if not violent ends. Just look at our political system, where civility has turned into blood sport. We need to find a more consistently positive and unifying way to be.

The drugs we abuse follow a similar pattern. Cocaine is probably a fair testosterone analog, making one feel invincible- ready to take wing. On the other hand, there are downers like alcohol and opioids- what's up with them? One can speculate that they give an oxytocin kind of buzz- the comfortable, disinhibited state of reduced social anxiety, which melts barriers to some degree, though quickly becomes destructive in excess. The opioid epidemic is, as many have observed, a direct index of social malaise and atomization. One might add that 12-step programs to treat alcoholism attempt (mostly unsuccessfully) to supply the missing social bonding with a sort of regimented friendship. Most people, with robust lives and brain chemistry, don't fall for the fake pleasures of either drug, but get their fix from actual accomplishments and actual social connections, which generate the internal rewards which are just as chemical, but much more subtly, finely, and productively regulated.

(All this is terribly reductive, of course, and misses all kinds of details of how our motivation systems work. Yet it is clear that in a broad brush way, positive and negative feelings are strongly influenced by these and other chemicals that form the internal motivation and reward systems, for which drugs of abuse and recreation are blunderbuss versions. Whether we add in serotonin, dopamine, and others, to make more accurate models of the internal workings does not alter this picture. There is also no law that cognition can not generate emotions. But it seems to make sense that our general emotional tenor is shifted in rather gross ways, over many cognitive (and bodily) systems at once, which dictates the use of hormones and hormone-like neurotransmitters to create such wide-spread regulatory effects.)

But many forces are set against our happiness and bonding, sending us toward competition instead. Traditionally, the (testosterone-addled) patriarchy has been a major culprit, as we have experienced so clearly in the traditional setting of the society of Afghanistan. Scarcity in general, of course, generates warfare and competition, to which primitive cultures are far more prone than our own, despite their otherwise idyllic nature.

But our current version of modernity may be even worse. Society-wide bonding experiences, like patriotism, universal religion, and traditions in the very general sense, are all being corroded. Some of the corrosion comes from competitive market forces, which are invading every aspect of our lives with the retreat of public services, civic responsibility, and family structure. Some comes from our very prosperity, which allows us each more independence and freedom- which is to say, an escape from close, maybe suffocating, social ties. Some of it comes from sheer population growth, which makes everything more competitive, particularly space- the space to live, to not be homeless, to find a country in which one can make a future, instead of being crushed under poverty and corruption. And some of it comes from environmenal degradation, another consequence of population growth and rampant capitalism, which makes agriculture and subsistance more difficult in already-poor areas and degrades the spiritual balms of nature. The internet, which was supposed to bring us all together, has instead balkanized us into ever-smaller tribes, enabled anonymous flame-throwing and rampant bullying, including from the highest offices. And into the bargain, it has grievously wounded the music industry- that keystone of positive social bonding.

What is going to put all this together again? How will we re-establish healthy lives and communities against all these forces? Clearly, Scandinavian countries, which have followed a less strictly capitalistic model, with less testosterone and more social awareness and conscience, have succeeded in building happier societies. It takes a change in emphasis, and a renunciation of the imbalanced invasion of competition in every nook and cranny of our lives, where few win and most lose. Otherwise our only recourse is the artificial versions of social bonding reward.

• A depressing withdrawal from opioids.
• Trump is a bad drug.
• Remember that 81% of evangelicals support Trump. Because they are white and pure.
• The supreme court is the next domino to fall for our creeping Nazi-ism.
• Death of the middle class, cont.
• And the decline is gathering speed.
• Science takes a theory, and sometimes a little PR.
• Love ...

Hitler and Donald Trump

With apologies to "God and Donald Trump". An authoritarian comparison.

Hitler did not pounce on Germany suddenly and unannounced. His rise was a lengthy story of norms broken, lies told, prejudices nurtured, institutions destroyed, brilliant propaganda, judicious bullying, and the age-old scapegoating alchemy of victimization and hate. We are in the midst of a similar process, with the worser angels of our natures being seduced and exemplified by the current president. Trump loves authoritarian leaders, pines for authoritarian methods, (reads authoritarian speeches), and, overall, seems to use a playbook from one of the greatest authoritarians of all time. Maybe it is worth counting up the similarities. One of the best books on this remains William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Propaganda
Trump had a few difficulties with FOX at first, as they had a few components still beholden to the old GOP, or with principles otherwise. But nothing succeeds like success, and FOX could not deny the beast they themselves had created through years of alternative reality and hate-filled programming. It is now a fully consumated marriage, with daily hate, direct policy integration, and personnel going back and forth. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud, though he would have criticized us for still allowing free media to exist. Trump has been doing his best to discredit all responsible media, and is getting a sympathetic hearing from those in his camp. Whether this infection of corrupt media values spreads into the rest of the culture is one of the biggest questions of our time.

Novel modes of communication
The Nazis used film, radio, graphics, and other media in very innovative ways, still admired today in some instances. Mass communication was still young, and they made great use of it for their propaganda. Now we have the first twitter president, marrying his lack of self-control and need to bully and  lash out at every source of anxiety with the new media of our time which narrow-casts and broadcasts simultaneously and instantly. These new media themselves are not the problem, rather it is the content, obviously. The issue is whether we neglect to take a longer view and are able to maintain our intellects and moral values while marinating involuntarily in this cesspool of Newspeak.

Scapegoats and concentration camps
Immigrants are the current administration's scapegoats and objects of hatred. No insult is too vile, no policy too harsh. Walls are to be built, detention centers filled, children ruined. Germany never had organized and nation-wide resistance to the antisemitism of the Nazis, so we are slightly ahead there. But in Germany too, the concentration camp system started slowly, first only holding communists and political opponents, and only gradually developing into the slaughterhouses found by the allies in the end. Immigrants are right now an easy target, not being citizens, with nebulous rights, if any.

Bullying
Trump's bullying is instinctive, relentless, and always personal. (Just ask Stormy Daniels!) If there is policy involved, it is decades out of date, and uninformed. The Nazis were obviously bullies as well, with far more lattitude, given their paramilitary organizations and eventual totalitarian control. Hitler's temper tantrums were evidently very Trumpian. But in foreign policy, they directed their bullying more sensibly- against their enemies rather than their friends. First Austria, then Czechoslovakia, were crushed by propaganda and threats. England was cowed from interfering, Russia was subborned and bribed, before being turned on later. There was method to the madness, where with Trump, we have daily lashing out without much sense let alone long term strategy. China is our friend, then our enemy. Russia is complemented on one hand, and sanctioned with the other. Canada is turned from our best friend to a bitter spouse. The authoritarian instinct is obviously the same, but with Trump, the point gets lost in personal narcissim, short attention span, and poor judgement.

Narcissism
Was Hitler a narcissist? Perhaps not as flagrantly as Trump, but anyone who starts a world war and ends up incinerating his own country in the pyre of his ambition probably gets the nod. There was also the personality cult, Führer, etc. So yes, he and Trump are cut from the same cloth there. Trump has tried mightily to identify himself with the nation and its wounds and salvation- just listen to his clunky inauguration speech. He is the only one who can fix what is wrong with the nation! The instincts are there, and the charismatic connection to at least some of his base. But he is far, far, from closing the deal with the country at large, and also has such appalling lack of judgement, intellect, and self-control that the whole project simply falls flat on purely operational grounds.

Economic policy
Here we get to a big constrast between the two. Trump has talked alot about infrastructure spending and beautiful airports and roads. But he has not lifted a finger to get there. His version of deficit spending is to give a lot more money to the rich- he's no national socialist! Hitler, on the other hand, really built the autobahn, the Beetle and other infrastructure. His Keynesian policies put everyone to work, as well as re-arming the nation. Of course all this led to tears, but it illustrates the difference between someone who really wants to rebuild the nation, and someone who only wants to get a feeling from a crowd of believers, while selling them down the river to his rich friends.

Crony capitalism
Yes, Hitler's economics put the big companies in control. But the program was obviously derigiste- under the state, and secondly, with the ultimate goals, successfully achieved, of rebuilding both the economy and the armed forces. Trump, in contrast, is spending all his efforts in strightforward Republican projects of favoring the corporate class generally over the wroking class. The tarriffs, the death of consumer protection, the death of the EPA, the corporate tax cuts- none of that is making America as a whole better let alone great. The nationalist rhetoric expresses Trump's authoritarian instincts, but his heart and whatever else passes for his head is with his corporate cronies, not with workers, or the nation at large.

Tastelessness
Here, Trump is almost in a class of his own. Hitler was a notoriously bad painter, but not entirely talent-less, and led a party that innovated in media, graphics, public displays, and architecture (if of an oppressively bombastic and brutalist style). Trump's style is more classic mobster and nouveau-riche. Both cases betray a lack of empathy and human feeling. As the Greeks and many after them maintained, aethetics are moral. We express ourselves and our vision of humanity through the art we make, support, and appreciate. It is a window into the soul or lack thereof of our leaders to see what they are capable of appreciating. Trump's case is one of edifice complex with a slather of gilt.

Fighting the last war
Hitler took a great deal of his ultimate program from America. We shamelessly swept Native Americans from our fertile prairies. We had slavery. We supported eugenics. He thought that the Ukrainian and Russian breadbasket could be the great fertile frontier for Germany. Too bad that the people already living there had airplanes and tanks! In this case, Hitler was several decades, if not centuries out of date, and paid grievously for it. For all his prowess in harnessing modern technology and economics to a program of national rebuilding and totalitarian control, Hitler was additionally obsessed with the the defeat by France in World War 1. It was all very backward-looking. Trump's errors of history are smaller-bore, but analogous, in that his conceptions, such as they are, are generally decades out of date. Is coal going to come back? That is absurd, not to mention environmentally suicidal. Is manufacturing coming back? Only with robots. He is harping on the nefarious trade policies of China (and Canada!). Well, that ship has mostly sailed. China has developed with our implicit help and support (not to mention funding our prodigious deficits). The remaking of a poverty-stricken communist basket case into a prosperous capitalist nation over the recent decades is the strongest possible compliment to our ideology and generous guidance of the international system. (Though further work remains to make our democracy functional and attractive as an alternative to China and Russia's new model of authoritarian capitalism). We should concentrate on fostering an increasingly rule-based and legitimate international system that keeps China on a responsible and lawful path, rather than introducing instability that only diminishes our current and future standing.

Love for fellow authoritarians
Whether there is a compromising Russian dossier on Trump or not, his love for Putin is unfeigned. G. W. Bush looking into Putin's eyes was bad enough, but this is revolting. Whether Duterte, Jinping, bin Salman, or Jong Un, Trump seems to love them all. Naked power is his elixir and dream. How sad that America's power has been built over the last century on more subtle foundations- the attractiveness of a properous, lawful, and respectful system that other peoples and nations can aspire to rather than cow before. Making America great used to involve opposing dictatorships rather then trying to emulate them.

• A linguistic emergency.
• State of the border. 
• Turning the international order upside down.. on Putin's orders?
• Mental illness.
• Remember the dust bowl? 
• Empathy is not weakness.

Why no Russian Renaissance?

Russia was much closer to Byzantium than Western Europe. So why didn't it feed from the scholarship of the East on the fall of Constantinople, as the West did? Books by John Lawrence and Martin Sixsmith.

OK, this is an unfair question. But if one's closeness to the learning and culture of Byzantium is supposed to be related to one's ability to assimilate it and recover the riches of antiquity that supposedly fed so much of the Western European Renaissance, then Russia was far better positioned than Florence. Russia had long-standing trade relationships and routes to Constantinople, and shared the same Orthodox Christianity. Indeed it still sees itself as the last inheritor of Byzantine culture. Some of the largest cities in Europe in 1000's were Novgorod and Kiev, of the early Rus period after Viking/Varangian invasion of the nascent Slavic areas.

But there were countless hindrances. When the scholars of Byzantium fled the Muslim takeover in the 1400's, did they want to go to Russia? Not likely. Western Europe had already gone through a mini-renaissance in the 1200's, and was incomparably more diverse, academically advanced, and wealthy than Russia at the time. Also, the Mongols invaded Russia in 1237, ruling with a slowly loosening grip till 1480. This would obviously put a serious crimp into any renaissance.

Poland, next-door, had its own mini-renaissance, roughly through the 1500's. Even in this most distant province of Europe, Italian architecture, arts, and science penetrated, and yielded the brilliant response of Copernicus, among others. It turned out that exposure to Byzantium was only a small part of the recipe- a spark, but far from the most important ingredient. Poland's great period was based on riches from trade with the Baltics, and dominion over a great deal of what is Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia today, plus quite a bit of travel to Italy. Prosperity and its consequent cosmopolitanism was perhaps more imporant than contact with Byzantium alone.

Holy investiture

One could also imagine getting too much of a good thing. Byzantium itself was Orthodox Christian, and inheritor of Greek and Roman learning, but had itself nothing we would call a renaissance. There was something about Greek Orthodox Christianity that seems to have been, and still is, stultifying to free thought and scholarship.

Was Islam an influence? In the West, Islam was a transmitter of ancient texts and a source of independent scholarship, via the lengthy occupation of al-Andalus, as well as trade throughout the Mediterranian. This was at least as influential as the recovered treasures of Byzantium. But, being present at the very gates of Constantinople, and as a significant part of the Mongol empire, the Islamic influences must have been at least as strong in Byzantium itself as well as in Russia- but to little avail.

It is not a big point, but the historical irony is that Russia inherited the strong ruler model, the love of ornate ceremony, iconography, architecture, and the deeply entwined church-state model of Byzantium- some of which were rather retrograde characteristics- leaving the West to gain from some of its other, more positive achievements, or perhaps rather, transmissions from a deeper past.

• Taliban poised for success. Despite hearts and minds operation... while the American military seems delusional, like in Vietnam.
• Librarians- on the front lines of homelessness and drug addiction, and community.
• Lawless organization ... our border system.
• Fake news / warfare from Russia. Or Trump. Or Fox.
• Some problems with Bill Clinton.
• "As much as 54% of present high-seas fishing grounds would be unprofitable without large government subsidies."
• Who really owns the jobs issue?

Heroes, Superheroes, and Saviors

What do we see in the hero myth? With apologies to Joseph Campbell.

I was watching the TV version of Dune, which, while much better than the movie, hardly matches the book. Seeing it again made it painfully clear how this story, so gripping to my younger self, is a formulaic hero tale, just as Harry Potter would be for the next generation, Frodo Baggins was for the one before, and Arthur, Beowulf, Jesus, Buddha, Rama, and Odysseus have been since antiquity. What do we see in them, and why are they so riveting?

Obviously, these tales speak to the meaning of life, in a direct and comprehensive way. Though mostly for males- Heroes and their students are, as a rule, male. They go on adventures, lead others, resolve mysteries, and ultimately solve communal problems. What they achieve is status, renown, and perhaps the hand of the princess, who is the typical hero of the female archetypal tale (though see also Dorothy, Alice, Mulan, et al.).

These qualities have relatively little to do with one's purely individual path through life, judged by, say, happiness, or one's success in earning a living, attending to the humdrum affairs of personal life, comfort, and family. Rather, it is a wider social role and service that is the point, and fame is the coin of this realm. The hero slays monsters that have terrified the people and despoiled their crops. Or he retrieves the chalice that gives everlasting life and salvation. Or he uses a mysterious force to lead a rebel alliance against the totalitarian galactic empire.

Horses? This quest needs no horses!

Hero tales are formative for those in formation- the maturing child, who instinctively yearns to accomplish something significant, which is the path to status in the collective, and thus to relative power and reproductive success. But what defines success and significance? It is necessarily the collective that must define what is important, via its bards who recite its problems both perennial and topical, provide the grist of heroic adventure and conflict, and award fame for their successful conclusion. Whether it is raging beasts in the countryside, Orwellian tyranny, taunting goddesses, or a world-wide conspiracy of death-eaters, the threat is not individual, but collective, and thus the hero serves the collective, something "greater than himself", as many people express their seeking behavior. Success of any kind is attractive, but to be truly compelling, success needs to resolve big problems and be valued by others. (Though in fairness, the hero may toil in obscurity and only be recognized in retrospect, perhaps long after his death, to have solved the momentous problem. Such a tale may have additional romance, and happen in reality all too often, but is not typically what a reader wishes to emulate for her or his own life path.)

One characteristic element of the standard hero tale is the reckoning with the father. Luke Skywalker finally meets his maker in a climactic scene. Jesus naturally has mixed emotions about his father, whoever that might be, who has left him up on the cross. The father represents the existing system, which has formed the hero, but which also perpetuates all the problems that he exists to solve. The father must be transcended for the tale to conclude successfully. Paul Atreides has spiritual and temporal powers far beyond his father's, and succeeds where the father had failed. More interestingly, Jesus, while always respectful of the father and putatively acting in his service, ends up totally upending the father's theology and bringing a new dispensation, whether that was "in reality" his intention or not.

Sometimes the goal of a quest is so abstract and theologically attenuated as to be absurd. Maybe the quest was the important thing after all.

More complicated is the role of the special gift. Harry Potter has the mark of the lightning flash, and special powers of leadership and magic. All the Marvel heros have some special power. Heroes are typically born of noble houses, though they may be unrecognized or abused for some of the story. What is the function of all this apparatus? Isn't the point of the hero tale to inspire normal boys to seek glory for themselves from/for their collective? Why start with abnormal heroes? The quest needs to be done in a noble way, morally upright. But that hardly requires a particular form of birth.

I think much of this has to do with the inner quest, which is another aspect of the hero tale. In order to seek outer glory, the hero needs first an inner quest, to find the confidence, knowledge, and personal resources to do extraordinary things. Jesus grappled with satan in the desert, while Paul Atreides grapples with sandworms in the desert (always an epic setting; Lawrence of Arabia grappled there with a recalcitrant, but noble, Arab culture). Each person has some special gifts and skills, and an important aspect of life, particularly adolescence, is to find what those might be. The ability to be clairvoyant, or to accumulate The Force are symbolic of momentous discoveries about the self which happen during growth to adulthood. While few of us will find nirvanna, or that we are the son of god, nevertheless whatever we do find will be the key to our ability to differentiate ourselves from the crowd, while earning its respect. Each person follows this archetypal path, and it is typically a difficult and uncertain one, thus the universal interest it evokes.

The noble house and lineage aspect seems more atavistic. One of the hero's special gifts / typical traits (which is key to the story's cultural and pedagogical significance) is to be naturally noble in deportment, morals, and martial prowess. Given our instinctive racism and appreciation for inheritance of traits, it is then natural to make this occur by having the hero some secret child of the king, or an acknowledged child who breaks out of the mold and takes a different path (Buddha). Or who comes both from a noble family and from the planet Krypton. Surely we could come up with a more modern way to handle this! Even the Black Panther is of noble birth. Tolkein gets points on this score for his low-class heroes in the Lord of the Rings.

But there is also a superstitious element. Luck is one thing the hero needs to have on his side, and this has traditionally been bound up with cosmic forces and mysteries, instinctively (and animistically) personified. Special forms of communication with these forces, or at least encouraging signs from them, would by this primitive instinct, be essential to success. One can take this in more rational way, however, to indicate a certain humility and appreciation before the complex and often inscrutable real forces that form our basis of operations, including the social forces that may not be ready for the hero's revolutionary work and need to be brought along by way of their primitive beliefs, whatever their nature and value.

Maybe a little self-flagellation would help?

It is particularly pathetic when a hero is so venerated and his boons are so attractive that his devotees make a fetish or even religion of him, employing a priesthood to retail third-hand boons of a studiously invisible nature. Generally, the emulation of nobility, and inner quests modeled on that of the hero, are not a bad thing. But the whole point of the tale was to find and develop one's own self and one's own resources- one's unique gifts and path in life- rather than to adopt another's wholesale, or worse yet, to fantasize about fictional powers and benefits that can be cadged via supplication and abasement. That would be to fundamentally misunderstand the point of the hero archetype, going so far as to reverse it as an engine for the most unheroic behavior. Thankfully, such overblown renditions have been relatively rare over the recent centuries (though Scientology, and before that, Mormonism, stand as significant and unfortunate counter-examples). Yet overall, absurd hero-religions, mostly stemming from more distant epochs, remain all too common.

The quality of the hero story plays an important role in its society, of which it is a gauge and exemplar. Just think of the pervasive influence of Homer's epics, or of Christianity. It defines not only the archetypal problems to be faced, but the standard of morality / nobility the aspiring hero must have to engage in its quest / solution. Star Wars cast the enemy as a Stalinist totalitarianism, while Buddhism cast the enemy as Maya and attachment to outer and fleeting things. While moral good and bad are perennial problems of the human condition, other aspects can change. The balance between inner and outer quests is a key indicator of a tale's maturity and spiritual content. Our current tales seem to center on the Marvel universe, of which I know very little. But it seems generally dedicated to extravagant violence and justice, with a somewhat infantile/regressive tone, overall. There is limited inner focus. They seem on the level of the Bond franchise, but without the understatement or style. It was extremely disturbing when, after 9/11, there was a rash of corner-cutting hero tales that supported the use of torture.

John Cleese strikes a heroic pose.

At this time when the actual culture is run by those fitting an antihero archetype, (technically, the heel), and the planet truly in peril, it is even more imperative that the stories that form our hero mythology and guide our questing youth be well-constructed, compelling, positive, and timely in their selection and portrayal of problems. Vietnam was a watershed in this regard, sending us from the morally simple comforts of the old Westerns and Hollywood classics, into self-lacerating work like Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter, and most recently, Game of Thrones. This depressing trajectory reflects changes in American culture, which has become more complicated and self-doubting, (perhaps mature), even mean. Realistic? That is hardly the point of the hero tale, frankly. Many recent film-makers have tried their hand at the saving-the-planet story, surely the one we need most of all, (from Avatar to Independence Day), but none seem to have become canonical. Someone needs to do a better job painting the deep challenges of the day for tomorrow's heroes.

• Unfit to serve on a sewer board. But then, who helped elect him?
• In praise of curated data. Sort of the opposite of Twitter, Facebook, and the other new news, but not cheap to do.
• New tech, same as the old tech.
• Liberals sometimes can't help drinking the right-wing economic koolaid.

"I Think the Second Amendment is There For a Reason."

A Senator alludes to insurrection against the state he is sworn to uphold.

This is not a new phenomenon. Before the Civil war, many senators and other politicians from the South tried their best to undermine the federal government, going so far as to capture armories and other supplies for the looming conflict. Today, a similar mind-set arises from similar sources- the Southern and Southern-inspired strategists of "State's rights" and a new decentralized feudalism. On guns, their argument is that the free ownership of guns allows the insurrectionists a fair chance against a totalitarian state, much as the original colonists waged a guerrilla war against Britain.

One first question is - in what way is our democracy defective? Does it over-represent the totalitarian, state-centered interests? Only if one construes those to be represented by the Republican party, ironically. Does it over-regulate and construct collective and long-term interests against the wishes of short-term greed and small-minded ideologues? Yes, it certainly does, but we have the "democratic" process to thank for a dramatic pushback, in the form of unchecked spending by corporate and other greedy interests, flame-throwing conservative media, plus the Russian government. It is hard to see where these complaints can find purchase, in such an atmosphere.

A second question is, even supposing that our state is or could be tyrannical in some irremediable way, where does one draw the line on armaments? What arms are valid for this hypothetical use, and which are not? We all seem to agree that nuclear bombs are not proper for civilian use. But why? Is it that the danger they pose is far beyond what is reasonable to put into the hands of one person, without some organized institutional oversight? Is it that we do not want to live in a MAD society, each armed to the teeth, in a petrified defensive crouch, waiting to see what the next madman will do?

This logic applies down the line to other military weapons, naturally, given that our fellow citizens (even presidents) are not to be relied upon to be uniformly sane and good-natured. Great firepower implies great danger and great responsibility. Where do machine guns fall in this scale, for that is what the semi-automatic and other assult-style weapons amount to? Obviously, in light of the many mass shootings in the US over recent years, they fall into the dangerous class of weapons that should be restricted to organizations with structured oversight. That, of course, was the original meaning of the second amendment, with its justification through an organized, state-supporting milita, something which has been lost on our Supreme Court, not to mention our rabid gun nuts.

The Civil war should have disabused our home-grown insurrectionists from any notion of armed resistance against whatever bogeyman they make the "guvmint" out to be. People power is the only effective power. They can never win without a political movement. Their arms are merely a fascistic decoration, not an effective form of policy. That we let off the Bundy gang so lightly was a travesty, both legally and politically. But their intended revolution against government control of government lands never took off on a popular, armed basis, and now is being accomplished from the inside, in the new administration, via the "democratic" process.

There is a mental health issue afoot, and it is that people with military-grade guns are mentally ill, as are open-carriers and other maximalist acolytes of the NRA. These attitudes are uncivil, insurrectionary, and deranged. The idea that others will be politically and socially intimidated by their weapons and various forms of rage is absurd and insulting, apart from spineless politicians, who don't seem to understand the first thing about our constitution, their duties, or statehood in general.

• Pakistan is still at it. Not even Trump lies quite like the Pakistanis lie.
• An infrastructure nothing burger.

The Purpose-Driven Pastor

Robert Price answers Rick Warren, in The Reason-Driven Life.

We are all seekers for purpose and meaning. But what happens if someone has the answer? We react, naturally, with a good bit of suspicion and skepticism. For we know instinctively that this search is not only difficult and unlikely to yield definitive answers, but also highly personal. Those peddling pat answers and coookie-cutter solutions may have confidence, but rarely have true answers.

So it is with Rich Warren and his book The Purpose-Driven Life. This has been a fundamentalist staple now for one and a half decades, with sales to rival the Bible itself. "You Were Planned for God's Pleasure." Wow! But what pleasures God? Well, now that we are done with sacrificing chickens and committing genocide, it seems that God is most pleasured by people joining fundamentalist churches like Rick Warren's, imagining they are abasing themselves before God, while lording it over all the sorry sinners who haven't gotten the message. Then they are sent out to spread the word and get more people to join up. Warren's ultimate message is to be a drone for the church: "You Were Made for a Mission". As Robert Price quotes:

'World-class Christians are the only fully alive people on the planet.' The outrageous arrogance of this insane boast never seems to dawn on him. Eric Hoffer has Warren pegged: 'The impression somehow prevails that the true believer, particularly the religious individual, is a humble person. The truth is that the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himslef as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen shall perish.'

But Robert Price isn't just taking pot-shots. He is a post-fundamentalist, biblical scholar, and church-goer, as well as an atheist. He has great respect and love for the Bible, enabling a critique that makes Warren's literalism and pretensions to a biblical foundation ludicrous. Time and again, citations that seem so pat are exposed as far more complex, even contradictory, both among themselves, and to the points Warren is making. Warren quotes: "He is a God who is passionate about his relationship with you" Exodus 34:14. But his source is a custom version of the Bible for Warren's fundamentalists. The real translation is " The LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God", which lies among a discussion of how the Israelites should storm and desecrate the shrines of other religions.

Likewise, Warren cites "What pleases the LORD more: burnt offerings and sacrifices, or obedience to his voice? It is better to obey than to sacrifice." 1 Samuel 15:22. The language here is accurate, but this is no invitation to tea and scones, or to a Saddleback encounter group. The obedience demanded in this passage is genocide against the Amalek. One wonders whether this is a god that Warren's parishoners have any knowledge of or desire to get to know. The fact is that the Bible is a cobbled-together melange of historical and poetic texts, riven with inconsistencies, cross-purposes, and moral evil. To believe that one can take it literally, as Warren does, (most hilariously with the Noah story), is intellectually dishonest and incoherent.

And that is the fundamental lesson, in this age of fake news. The internet was hardly the first method of purveying falsehoods. Historians such as Homer and Herodotus never let truth get in the way of a good story, and standards were no higher among the many ancient story tellers and scribes who contributed to the Bible. They all had agendas, as does Rick Warren. Their narratives often begin in fact, and then veer into myth and fantasy, as most evident in the book of Revelations. The whole Jesus story is so full of archtypes and "purpose-driven" fables that it is impossible at this point to separate anything out that might have had to do with an actual person.

No, the Bible is an amazing cultural document, from our brutish and benighted, yet hopeful, forebears. It documents substantial moral and intellectual progress on its pages, in its transition towards a more or less pacifist dispensation (though whether that was by choice, or by Roman force is another matter). We have continued that progress in the modern age by, ironically, leaving its fervid fantasies behind and basing our intellectual life on the firmer foundations of empiricism and humanistic empathy. Fundmentalists work double-time to "prove" that their literal views of God and the Bible are true, but they are doomed to failure. That general intellectual failure is seen both in their amazingly corrupt bargain with Donald Trump and the revanchist Republicans, and in the declining numbers of parishoners in the pews. The decline of religion has been far slower than many had imagined, given that its intellectual foundations have been defunct for centuries, but is ever so slowly coming to pass, however purposeful its pastors.

• Vae victis.
• If the net won't be neutral, why not go to a dark net?
• Saunas may be better than SSRIs.
• Could Ismail Khan solve Afghanistan?
• It hardly needs repeating, whom the tax plan really benefits.
• Medicare is on the chopping block.
• America is in crisis.
• A history of redistribution.
• Online ads for online content ... is not working.

The Sierra Club as a Religious Organization

Yes, and a good one, too.

The divides in the US have many dimensions, but a significant one is religious. Conservatives crow about their traditional religion- Christianity- and then, bizarrely, vote for Trump. What they really seem to be for is patriarchy and its traditional society-wide hierarchy (based on male-ness, but also on its accessory patriarchal religion and on race). Their model in the South shows that a bare-majority or even minority race can maintain power for decades in an ostensibly democratic society if enough levers of social, political, overt, violent, as well as covert power are used consistently. The movement against Confederate monuments is a watershed in consciousness of the thoroughgoing way the social gestalt of the South has been shaped by its treasonous and revanchist elite.

As far as rural and Southern America are concerned, the bicoastal elite live in another country entirely. In that country, we tend to think we have no narrative, no gestalt at all, but purely a functional this-is-the-way-it-is approach to reality and truth. A committment to reason, science, innovation, good public policy, social justice, etc. But of course, that can not be true. We have a narrative as well, and nothing illustrates it better than the Sierra Club.

This is the home of the shamans of environmentalism- the tree-huggers, whale watchers, and activists, inhabiting a completely different narrative from that of traditional Christianity and patriarchial conservatism. Its roots go deep into paganism and the natural reverence humans have for nature. It is a nature religion, but not animistic. There are no anthropomorphic deities or weird powers. We are the gods, but are fallen, now that we have inherited this awe-ful responsibility of taking care of a world that we have so hopelessly befouled. There is no bearded or other male figure behind the curtain. The Sierra Club conducts pilgrimiges, has its saints, sacred places and its version of the end-times, preaches to its believers, and expounds at every opportunity an ideology of love of and care for nature. It has its fetishes for untrammeled, unspoiled locations, its secret misanthropy, its revelations of human insignificance. And even jihad, if you count GreenPeace in the same sect.

A recent article by Gary Kamiya in the Sierra Club organ makes its religious nature particularly clear:

... Which takes us back to the wilderness within. No matter how refined we may think ourselves, at some level we are all still wild creatures, made up of the same materials as the mountains, the deserts, the oceans, the distant stars. "Wilderness" carries a connotation of chaos and anarchy, but that's misleading. Our inner wilderness is no more disorderly than the world itself is. A wild mind is a balanced mind. The wild world may be deeper and more heterogeneous than the city world, but the difference is only a matter of degree. The sense of wilderness is our birthright, and we can experience it anywhere. "The wilderness as a temple is only a beginning," Snyder writes. "One should not dwell in the specialness of the extraordinary experience . . . to enter a perpetual state of heightened insight." The real goal, he says, is to see all the land around us, whether in the country or in the city, as "part of the same territory—never totally ruined, never completely unnatural." 

Of course there is still absolutely nothing like a face-to-face encounter with deep wilderness. Once at Buck Lake, I was awakened by the screaming call of a pack of coyotes racing unseen through the 3 A.M. darkness, the shrill sound moving fast along the mighty granite ridge across from my campsite, then fading into the distance. That sound still rings in my memory, a quicksilver affirmation of the strangeness and holiness of the world.

The language and sentiments are clearly religious. But there is no theology, no theos at all. It suits the "spiritual-but-not-religious" mindset, whose sprituality is affective and natural, not burdened by over-thought (yet underbaked) theology and relic supernaturalism. Science isn't a problem here, but another way to appreciate the glory of what we love on so many levels- our world and biosphere.

Is all this good? People are naturally religious, creating and needing frames of meaning beyond mere subsistence and reproduction. The Republican Party and current administration shows what can happen when such a frame becomes completely moribund, paying lip service to Catholic and generally Christian dogmas while throwing any semblence of actual moral principle to the wind and practicing shameless greed. It is a revolting spectacle on every level. True religion fosters empathy and puts us in touch with our core values and commonality, not just among males, or with fellow countrymen, or even with humans, but with all beings.

• Silent holocaust.
• More lies.
• Are human desires endless, and therefore work endless? Only if money is distributed equitably.
• Does all our productivity get channelled to the top, or to those doing the work?
• How to design drugs with knowledge and computers.

Vegas

A brief post.

Since no ideological, political, or religious motive has yet emerged for the massacre in Vegas, I would tend to interpret it as a terminal case of gun nuttery. We have long heard how violent video games and movies were supposed to be damaging our brains. Well, I think gun fetishization is an even stronger deranging influence. One can read it in the gun blogs, where a discourse of fear and power, of tactical preparedness and no retreat turn into a machismo echo chamber. And actually owning guns seems to have similar effects, turning owners minds to the power they wield, somehow generating the need for more and more, and more elaborate fantasies of what to do with them. Apparently 3% of gun owners own half the guns in the US. It is a disease, is culpable, and should be in the DSM.

• How to be a good parent.
• The 2009 infrastructure spending program turned instead into a fiscal lifeline for the states.

Father Dearest

Toxicities, perversions and archetypes around the father role. Based on Raised Right by Jeffrey Dudas, and Toxic Parents, by Susan Forward.

The father archetype looms large over our personal and collective lives. Fathers are inescapable, for better or worse, in their shaping of our identity, meaning, and purpose. Most cultures, including all those of Indo-European descent, are patriarchial. Father figures are central to our political lives and mythology. God is a father.

Our current political divide is steeped in the father archetype. Democrats are the mommy party, Republicans the daddy party. Never has that been clearer than with the current occupant of the White House, who seems to think that his orange patriarchial aura should suffice to get the entire country to fall in line behind every tweeted emission. But it is nothing to make light of- the psychology of these polar tendencies is fundamental to humanity and probably many other beings. Perpetual contrasts exist between competition and cooperation, risk and security, discipline and forgiveness, war and love, yang and yin.

A recent book about icons of the right argues that father mythology pervades the personal and political conceptions of the right. Fathers only have authority in the family if the state moderates its nanny-ish tendencies. CEOs only have proper authority if the state does not meddle in their companies. And the country is properly run only when a father figure lays down the law on standards of morality and behavior, however much that conflicts with the first two aims. Many prominent figures on the right have frought, to say the least, relations with their own fathers. Newt Gingrich comes to mind, but the author Jeffrey Dudas profiles William Buckley (absent, though overbearing, father), Ronald Reagan (drunk, weak father), and Clarence Thomas (deserted father, replaced by totalitarian grandfather). Each found a personal and political mythology in constructing a new image of the father figure, mostly drawn on the founding fathers.

It is the usual authoritarian / patriarchal story- what ails the world (read- the self, or the early self) is lack of discipline, and masculine modeling, which is supplied by the authoritarian leader who will restore order, law, and the scope for other elements of the patriarchy down the line (corporate, police-state, and family) to do likewise, will heal the society. This resolves the chaos resulting from lack of boundaries and discipline, and lack of social hierarchy. All this is claimed in the name of freedom- the true freedom of the orderly citizen, not that of the malcontent and rabble-rouser. Reagan provided an especially clear vision of this condition of the state, set in contrast to the hippie protesters on whom he cut his teeth as governor of California. And he justified it in terms of the American dream of freedom and equal opportunity for all- all virtuous and deserving citizens, that is.

All is well with this nuclear family, enjoying its driverless car in 1957.  Each person's role is well-defined and secure.

The problem is that, while the patriarchial virtues certainly have merit, they are hardly the only virtues. Worse, they tend to paper over a great deal of presumption about the fairness of the current starting conditions, and the ability of its stated virtues to afford the promised success, not to mention the sterling virtues and talents of those currently at the top of the heap. That is why Horatio Alger stories are such a staple of the right. If Clarence Thomas can make it, or Steve Jobs, or Jack Kemp, or .. fill in the blank... then anyone can, with enough gumption.

That is, however, a sucker's game, as likely to raise up the masses as is the local Indian Casino. Not only should success or even a decent life not depend on such extraordinary efforts and talents, but it clearly does not for the well-to-do, who bequeath countless social, material, and political advantages on their offspring, resulting in the remarkable lack of social and wealth mobility that we see in the US today. The starting blocks are starkly different for different people, and it is absurd to preach individual morality tales when material and other forms of inequality are so tragically and obviously responsible for the lack of freedom and prosperity for most citizens. Where are the reparations for slavery, for example? Also missing is any model or justification for communal, public goods. Life becomes a competition of atomized individuals, with family structure and discipline separating the wheat from the chaff, but without a rationale for wider social cooperation and institutions, such as public schools or anti-corruption mechanisms in government, or business regulation, that render the level playing field which the patriarchial myth assumes and depends on, but refuses to address.

Which is not to say that personal virtues, just saying no, stick-to-it-ive-ness, discipline, and the like, are not good things. The wise and benevolent father figure is also a very good thing. Yet, as Susan Forward points out, toxic, abusive, and even incestuous, parents are all too common. One in ten families, by her estimation, experience incest. It is shocking and horrifying, yet preaching from on high is not going to help, particularly as the perpetrators are often the very ones, through the magically empowering nature of the archetype, doing the hypocritical preaching.

Indeed, it is the damaged children who seem to end up on the right, latching on to the one certainty they have learned, that their own efforts avail them something in the rough-and-tumble of life. Desperate for good parenting, they seek father figures and a father mythology that will heal. And one is naturally ready to hand, in the patriarchy, the founding fathers, orginalism. Virtually every religion furnishes the same tale- a father who is both loving and strict, giving commandments and boundaries with one hand, while providing hope of temporal and supernatural power with the other. Most people don't take it too seriously, but if the need is intense enough, if the child within is damaged enough, this patriarchal solution seems to become a template for everything- how to live one's own life, and how the nation should be run as well.

As Dudas writes:

"Not exclusive to modern American conservatism, this longing for stability, for an end to what Willam Connolly calls the 'homesickness' of the human condition, is a hallmark of modern living. Modern times, Connolly argues, are defined by the widespread loss of belief in transcendent purpose (in 'myth') and, accordingly, by an eruption of nihilism. But this nihilism, and the felt loss of meaning that accompanies it, (of Kristeva's 'melancholia'), is so upsetting that it has been the subject of an astonishing range of ameliorative attempts. Hence the feverish devotion to those human projects that attempt to establish the sorts of 'antimyths' that Fitzpatrick locates at the heart of modernity: projects of science, reason, and the state, for example, with which human life might be organized and infused with the noncontingent foundations that existed before (to paraphrase Nietzsche) humans killed off God.
...
But as with all other modern attempts to forestall nihilism, it turns out that the melancholic's desire is 'impossible'. ... The desire for the stable object is impossible and magical because the object (Father) is oversaturated with meaning; it is itself a floating signifier that is purposed and repurposed according to the endless demands of desire rather than to the rigors of logic or intellectual coherence."

Our current president is a damaged child, from a totalitarian father, who reproduces the same parenting style with his own children, and now towards the rest of us as well. Add in desperate narcissim, and the result appears to be pathological lying and manipulativeness, as well as complete blindness to the perspectives of those not on his favorite cable news channels. We have all become victims of bad parenting, and need to redouble our efforts to break the cycle.

• Back when the government ran finance, not Wall Street.
• Too many old savers leads to persistent low interest rates and inflation.
• The market is quite high.
• North Korea has very effective deterrence.
• The rich are still getting richer.
• Getting a PhD is not so great for your job prospects.
• Annals of feudalism, cont... workers are about to be stripped of legal recourse for abuse.
• Economic graph of the week. Robbing the poor to give to the rich, under the proposed tax "plan".

Who pays what under the new plan?

Profiles in Greed

Ulysses S Grant, Carl Icahn, and the character of capitalism.

Listening to a long podcast series about the Civil War, I was struck once again by the unusual character of our 18th president. Every one who knew him agreed that he had no sense for business. Yet he led the US army to a series of strategic victories, and wrote one of the great military autobiographies, and clearly did not lack intelligence. What makes the difference?

To contrast, a recent profile of Carl Icahn, paragon of US business and hero of Donald Trump, paints a character of quite a different color. Highly intelligent, yes, but with the added characteristics of intense greed and minimal scruples- apparently a modern-day Ebenezer Scrooge.

Grant was a forthright person, in love and war. Indeed, the archtypal story of his childhood was about a negotiation for a horse where he told the seller straight out what he was willing to offer, which thus became what he paid. Grant was very good with horses, possibly a mark of a character with less guile than normal. People, with their less scrupulous machinations, were more difficult, which clearly led to many of the disasters of his presidency. Does warfare require guile? On some, very strategic level, yes. But generally, clarity, consistency, attention to detail, and courage are more significant virtues. I don't think his Civil War campaigns were marked by strategic cleverness or deceit, but more by sound military reasoning, siezing strong points, deploying overwhelming numbers, fighting doggedly, and pursuing advantages opportunistically.

Ulysses Grant, colorized

Many of these virtues are relevant to business, but evidently one needs something more to succeed. The profile of Icahn describes in detail how he tried to use his influence with the president and his position as a semi-official economic adviser for personal gain- to rescind a rule requiring oil refiners, one of which Icahn owns, to blend ethanol or else buy offsets on a special market. His refiner could not blend ethanol, so was subject to a quite volatile market in RIN offsets. While unsuccessful, the effort was flagrantly unethical and illustrated Ichan's intense greed, his great skill in manipulating others, and his consistent practice of skirting the law whenever possible and advantageous. What a contrast to Grant! And something of a contrast to our current president as well, who isn't smart enough to be in the same league, and looks up to Icahn as a hero who sits on a far larger pile of money.

There was a brief period in the mid-20th century when business leaders were thought of as civic leaders as well. After the period of the robber barrons and Gilded Age, when the business community had been chastened by the great depression and the spectre of communism, (not to mention bitter union fights), and when the whole country had been brought together by the world wars. There was an ethic of fair dealing and paternalism towards workers, and of viewing the corporation as a public, civic entity, not just there to make money, but to play a supporting role in the American way of life. Perhaps I am looking back with rose colored glasses. At any rate, that period, however amicable, is long over. The captains of our current corporate landscape, especially those in finance, are poor models of any kind of ethics; scofflaws who are fined repeatedly, even in our attenuated enforcement landscape, providing models of greed, entitlement, and callousness.

How anyone could imagine that today's celebrity business leaders would make proper and positive civic leaders, particularly someone as twisted as our current president, is unimaginable (Michael Bloomberg excepted, perhaps). So now we are in an insult contest with North Korea, (among others), at an abysmal level of rhetoric which expresses perfectly the level of intellect and ethics our leader is bringing to the table, but which should surprise no one watching his business career or those of his colleages in the contemporary business world.

• I should be very unhappy right about now.
• Enemies bond groups.
• Francis Crick.
• State's rights, but only for crappy policy.
• Puerto Rico brings to mind.. guns and ammo, of course.