Geek Heresy

I recently read a book called Geek Heresy, whose central thesis is that often we in the development field get too caught up in trying to invent and implement technical solutions to problems that are at root social, cultural, political, or economic.  In other words, we try to fix problems that technology can't solve by throwing better technology at them.  Beyond not being effective, technology inherently amplifies whatever prevailing dynamic exists in a situation.  So if there's lots of inequality, more technology will lead to more inequality.  If you've got an effective school or hospital system, more technology will make it more effective.  If a government is oppressive, more technology will broaden its oppressive reach.

The author, Kentaro Toyama, expands his thesis to encompass not just technology per se, but any kind of "packaged intervention" that attempts to inject one standardized technical response to problems in diverse contexts where the nuances of each individual context are in fact more important contributors to the problem than are any single technical barrier. 

I liked the book a lot.  It put into succinct words something that I've long felt but wasn't able to describe myself.  My unease with a focus on standardized indicators to measure development progress, with the concept of "scaling up" a given innovation, all of this unease is pretty well captured by Toyama.  A really useful idea he puts forth explains the recurring conundrum of a given technical approach working very well at a pilot level, but then floundering when it's scaled up to thousands or millions of people.  According to Toyama, the frequent success of a pilot phase has more to do with the fact that the staff and the participants in a pilot intervention tend to be very skilled and very motivated.  It's easy to make anything work under these conditions.  However, the jump to making the intervention work with less motivated, run-of-the-mill bureaucrats or employees is a lot more difficult.  They aren't the best of the best, they aren't inspired by participating in a novel pilot, and they can't cherry-pick beneficiaries that will give good results.  When it's just normal, flawed people doing their job with normal, flawed beneficiaries, it's a lot harder to make anything stick, no matter how good of an idea it was to begin with.

Another useful nugget Toyama offers are his Tech Commandments.  These are an ironic setting-forth of the laws and even the epistemological or ontological tenets that underlie the type of tech-worshipping development work that Toyama is criticizing.  Here they are, with explanations either from me or directly from Toyama's text:

• Measurement over meaning--it's most important to be able to measure something, even if what you're measuring isn't ultimately important or what is ultimately important is not measurable
• Quantity over quality--if you can't quantify something, it doesn't matter
• Ultimate goals over root causes--"focus narrowly on the end goal to ensure success", and don't let complicated reality and complex, intertwined causes get in your way
• Destinationism over path dependency--"Ignore history and context, and take a single hop to the destination"
• External circumstances matter most; internal change of people and systems is impossible or too difficult to pursue
• Innovation over tried-and-true--this is a pet peeve of mine, where we go for anything new because it's more interesting than boring old methods that have worked well for decades
• Intelligence over wisdom--"Maximize cleverness and creativity, not mundane effort.  Use intelligence and talent to justify arrogance, selfishness, immaturity, and rankism".  I have referred to this in my take on Steve Jobs, and in the recent article about our new entrenched class-based meritocracy.
• Value neutrality over value engagement--don't think about values or ethics, just be "neutral" (code for favoring the status quo arrangements of power and worth)
• Individualism over collectivism--Go for competition in everything, and be suspicious of cooperation.  "Any inhibition of individual expression, including compromise to support the common good, is the same as oppression".
• Freedom over responsibility--"Encourage more choices; discourage discernment in choosing.  Any temperance of liberty, including encouragement of responsbility, is tantamount to tyranny"

All of these really resonated with me.  In my career in economic development, and simply as a participant and spectator in US politics and world events, I have seen at play much of the hubris, lack of nuance, and unwillingness to understand or even acknowledge complexity, that Toyama lays out here in his Tech Commandments.

So I liked the book.  That said, I don't know if it offered me many new insights.  I already agreed with most of Toyama's arguments, even before reading the book and hearing them from him.  More importantly, Toyama doesn't offer many concrete recommendations in terms of getting away from the sort of tech-centered, packaged innovation approach he so deftly criticizes.  He calls for more humility in development workers, more willingness to engage as peers and equals with the beneficiaries or clients of development interventions, and a more iterative, context-aware approach.  In other words, Toyama simply says we should be practicing good development as it's currently defined by a large swath of academia and practitioners--development that's sustainable, locally-driven, and adaptive.  Thus Toyama's criticisms are a lot more insightful and novel than his positive recommendations. 

Toyama summarizes his recommended approach (which he calls Intrinsic Growth) in terms of Heart, Mind, and Will, or put differently, Good Intention, Discernment, and Self-Control, both for implementers and for beneficiaries.  I understand these to mean that you should have good values to promote the greater good, you should approach your work in an intelligent and insightful way, and you should stick with it to see it through.  These are so obvious as to seem trite, though admittedly we in development often don't live up to these values, especially the last one of sticking with something beyond your three- or five-year funding and evaluation cycles.  But I don't know how useful Toyama's analysis is in this part, which takes up the latter half of his book.  In fact, at times Toyama's trinity of Heart, Mind, and Will, while on the surface sage advice, can border on a cruel, conservative justification for why poor or violent or dysfunctional communities are the way they are.  They just aren't moral, or smart, or determined enough.  Nevermind an objective lack of money or other resources, entrenched inequality, or oppressive and exclusionary political arrangements.  Just get yourself some Heart, Mind, and Will and you'll all be cool.  And if not, it was all your fault anyway.  I know Toyama doesn't mean to argue this, but the logical implications of his arguments can at times be read this way.

At any rate, I would recommend Toyama's book for anyone involved in international or local development processes.  For those of us already convinced of his arguments, the book offers a succinct, very cogent and lucid set of arguments in favor of a more human-focused, less tech-centered approach to development.  And for those of us who are currently more tech-centered than we probably should be, Toyama might help us to temper some of our base instincts so that we can do more effective development work.

Chicago stands up to bullying

I am very proud of Mayor Rahm Emmanuel (who rightly gets a lot of flak for other actions of his) on his brave and defiant stand in favor of Chicago's immigrants.  Ditto for the City Council, which has voted to protect all Chicagoans from draconian federal raids, regardless of people's immigration status.  This clear defense of human rights and human decency, even if it leads to economic or political retaliation, is precisely what's needed right now as Trump's regime begins to test the limits of people's tolerance for authoritarian measures.  All of us need to stand up to show we will not be bullied, nor allow others to be.

Here is another article on the same issue, that gets into more detail as to how much federal funding to Chicago could really be at stake here, and what legal actions might follow from both sides.

I like Lindsey Graham's style

I have long respected Lindsey Graham for sounding sensible and civil when many other politicians do not.  I really like this silly tweet he put out yesterday criticizing Trump's (or Spicer's) idea to levy a heavy import tax on Mexican goods.  I am not saying I agree with Graham's general defense of free trade, but I like that he can make a very valid, well-argued point in a way that is lighthearted and not so acrimonious as is most of our political discourse these days.  Part of the Resistance will surely have to be such self-deprecating messaging, which can sometimes break through to people when other, more earnest discourse can't.

A vision for constructive engagement in the US

This is a sort of manifesto from community organizer Aaron Goggans.  The tone may rub some the wrong way at times as too touch-feely or too rambling.  But I think he does a great job of articulating a wide-reaching vision of the injustices suffered across the Americas, tying middle-class whites in the US suburbs to indigenous Peruvian peasants and Brazilian blacks in the favelas.  And he gives a preview of the types of resistance, action, and constructive engagement we should all be doing to fight these injustices and make a better life for everyone.

Chicago at the front lines of the immigration battle

Here's an interesting article from the Tribune about how Trump's election has galvanized citizen groups in Chicago to redouble their efforts to protect undocumented immigrants.  It also mentions a lot of worthy organizations, for anyone who's interested in volunteering for the good fight.

A literate president

Here is a conversation between an NYT book review writer and (now ex-)President Obama.  It is so shocking to see such an erudite, intelligent, thinking man as President, and compare him to the new President.  I can't imagine Trump getting through an entire book, much less having a coherent, calm conversation about any subject.  I certainly don't think he gets nuance, writing style, universal themes, challenges to his own world view.  Obama, on the other hand, speaks as a book lover and a writer, and picks up on and delights in all the subtleties, the slow contemplation, offered by books of all kinds.

The Obama Foundation and a Constitutional Exchange Program

My wife recently pointed me to the Obama Foundation, an exciting new group which will function around the upcoming Obama Presidential Library.  The latter will not open until 2020 or so, but in the meantime it appears that the Foundation is chomping at the bit to get started with civic initiatives.  I think a lot of people are like me in that they've been inspired by the recent protoFascist turn in US politics to become more actively involved in creating a more just, merciful, and prosperous society, but they don't know where to start or what to do.  It looks like the Obama Foundation is trying to harness this momentum to create innovative programs.  I am eager to see what they come up with, and perhaps to participate in it.

For now they have a portal where people can share their ideas.  Below is what I wrote.  It's been forming in my mind gradually over the past few months, and more actively so in the past few days.  I know these online portals receive a lot of traffic, and my idea may never even be read by anyone there, but I think that it's innovative and promising enough that I want to share it with the general public.  So here it is:

I think what's most needed in today's US citizens is a sense of sympathy, of collective identity and identification with one's neighbors, of grace and a desire to help others in their difficult times, rather than disqualifying people from our circle of caring based on their race or language or religion, or more perniciously based on their perceived character flaws or the other shortcomings that we all possess (though often only see in others, not ourselves).  Membership in the human race and in the fold of the American family should be enough for someone to merit our goodwill.

An important corollary to this sympathy in the US context is a better awareness of some of the fundamental precepts, not just of our Constitution and our particular system of government, but of some universal Enlightenment-era concepts like human rights.

My proposal to begin to address both of these points is to create a Constitutional Exchange Program.  The "Constitutional" part refers to study groups that would meet regularly, initially a group of young people in a given locality, to review and discuss different aspects of the US Constitution, the state Constitution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights, always referring these principles to current events and the group's local context.

The "Exchange Program" would come later, as different members of one group would stay for a week or more at a time with members of a faraway group, and thus get to share both the day-to-day experiences of another social group, as well as share and challenge the reflections of that group around the aforementioned documents.  This would function much like a typical study abroad exchange program, except that instead of going to Germany to live and learn with a German family for a year, we would be connecting families from across the social spectrum within the US, probably for shorter stints but with more regularity of contact. 

We could start within a state, such that a black middle class kid from Chatham in Chicago could get to know a poor white family in Danville, or the child of Mexican immigrants in Cicero or Aurora could stay with a Pakistan-born college professor's family in Bloomington, or a young person from the ghetto of East St. Louis could host a dairy farmer from northwestern Illinois.  Eventually this could expand across state lines, such that a Central Wisconsin working-class kid could visit and later host a teen from the posh section of Glenview, IL, or recent black transplants to Iowa could meet Syrian refugees in Detroit.  Militiamen and Muslims, native-born and immigrants, people of all colors would share and confront their viewpoints, and hopefully be transformed to better understand and even be convinced by the ideas of their compatriots.

Chicago tourism

Apparently Chicago surpassed its all-time record for tourism revenue in 2016.  This is great news for the city.  From afar, most of what I hear and read about my hometown is bad news.  High taxes, high crime, racism, police brutality, population decline.  So I am happy that the city is being appreciated by visitors, and I hope that some of these people will stay on to become residents, to add to the city's ever-evolving mix of people.  The article points out the paradox that this boom in tourism has come despite a 20-year high in total murders.  On the one hand, I don't want the city's crime problem to negatively affect tourism, since the latter is one of the few bright spots that could potentially improve Chicago's economy in the short term and thus lower the murder rate over time.  But on the other hand, I don't want the city to keep pushing a few sectors and prospering in these, while huge swaths of our residents are terrified of stepping out their front door in the neighborhoods that the city isn't investing in.  This would cement the trend I've seen for the 30-odd years of my life, whereby the well-off in Chicago enjoy all the great things the city has to offer, while most of the city's inhabitants are excluded from the cycle of prosperity.  If this continues, Chicago will continue to lose population and to become more violent and unequal, despite any bright spots in a few areas of the city and a few sectors of the economy.

The end is nigh

Following up on the rather morose tone of my last blog post, I am linking to the National Intelligence Council's Global Trends report.  They put this out every four years, in part to help incoming presidents of the US brush up on what's happening in the world (fat chance that Trump can get through more than 2 pages of anything, much less 235 pages from the intelligence agencies he so reviles).  You know that sinking feeling you've had in your gut over the past few months?  You're not alone, and you're not far off the mark.  The report talks of rising internal and international tensions, economic stagnation, sociopathic actors empowered by technology, authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, and general anti-democratic sentiments.  It's all pretty grim, or as the report says, there will be "deep shifts in the global landscape that portend a dark and difficult near future".

I am in a funny place in my life right now.  On the one hand, I am fulfilled professionally, enjoy living where I do, I have a great time with my wife and kids.  I live in a pretty perfect bubble.  But in the meanwhile, I am often very worried and even depressed thinking about the state of the world, particularly the United States, where I don't live anymore and thus can't do much to help in its current travails.  This report only adds to my uneasy sensation.

That said, the final phrase of the executive summary (which is as far as I got or intend to get) gives a note of hope:

The most resilient societies will likely be those that unleash and embrace the full potential of all individuals—whether women and minorities or those battered by recent economic and technological trends. They will be moving with, rather than against, historical currents, making use of the ever-expanding scope of human skill to shape the future. In all societies, even in the bleakest circumstances, there will be those who choose to improve the welfare, happiness, and security of others—employing transformative technologies to do so at scale. While the opposite will be true as well—destructive forces will be empowered as never before—the central puzzle before governments and societies is how to blend individual, collective, and national endowments in a way that yields sustainable security, prosperity, and hope. 

Sobering thoughts from Dr. King

Here is a rather sobering video from the Reverend Doctor.  It seems that toward the end of his life he was becoming increasingly aware that the fight to end poverty and unjust war was a million times more difficult than the fight to change a few formal discriminatory laws in the Jim Crow South.  Ironically, it seems that where Malcolm X became a bit more reformist, tolerant, and even optimistic in his last year (which in turn earned him a death sentence from his old, intolerant colleagues), Martin Luther King Junior seems to have veered Leftward, becoming more radical and necessarily less optimistic.  This too earned him death, from those who wanted the status quo preserved.  Malcolm and Martin began to converge from their different ends of the spectrum.

I don't see Dr. King too hopeful in this video, and I believe that if he were alive today, he would sadly acknowledge how prescient his pessimism was.  We are on the tails of a pretty depressing year, heading into the dawn of a new age of racism and systemic oppression under a new president.  The guns of war still entice too many, and the war on poverty is replaced by a spiteful war on the poor.

Meritocracy and grace

Here is a good article that gets at something I've long felt but couldn't put my finger on or succinctly describe as such:  the moral bankruptcy of the modern economy based on narratives of meritocracy and ultra-competitiveness.  In short, the current US economy is not in fact very meritocratic, since the wealthy and the well-educated  get good jobs that keep them above the fray of the most fierce competition, while the poor are stuck in crappy jobs that offer little hope of advancement, regardless of their hard work, and they are kept from the educational opportunities that would endow them with the "merit" to access better jobs.  But the meritocratic ideal serves to exalt the well-off as more worthy, more meriting of success, and scorn the losers of society as lacking in character, ability, and drive.  In short, the ideal of meritocracy does more to entrench a stark separation of the classes than to really provide equal opportunity for all.  Beyond this, meritocracy is often taken to mean that some people are more deserving than others of basic human dignity.  What of those who don't have as much "merit" according to the standards of a given society (those who are less smart, less educated, less ambitious, less white, less beautiful, less Brahman, whatever)?  Should they not enjoy the same rights, comforts, and benefits of a given society?

I like the author's proposal that we should all inject more grace into our lives.  This means that we should look to improve life for all, not simply those we deem to be more deserving according to some arbitrary standard.  I think that we in the US particularly are very quick to "excuse nothing" (to quote from the article), to look for reasons to blame the victim of a given situation, or to disqualify someone from our sympathies because of some perceived deficiency that makes them "deserve" their misfortune. 

But at the same time, I think many of us live situations in which we recognize that a meritocracy is not a valid system.  That family member or child of yours who for whatever reason can't take care of himself without cash support from everyone in the tribe?  You don't simply let them rot, because despite their flaws, you love them and feel responsibility for them.  The crazy guy on your block that people give food to and let stay in their garage on cold nights?  You feel a collective duty to take care of him.  People's mere humanity entitles them to a certain share of dignity.  Their humanity is its own merit. 

Societies that work well manage to expand this sense of shared responsibility for one another to include everyone in the society.  In the US I feel this expansion of consciousness often runs up against our own racial prejudices.  The sympathy many are now feeling for the white underclass, afflicted as it is by outsourcing, deindustrialization, drug abuse, and violence, is a good thing, but where was it when blacks and Latinos were going through the same things starting in the 1960s?  Too many of us that are now talking of treating rural opioid or methamphetamine addiction as a public health problem were eager to treat inner-city crack or heroine addiction as a failing of individual character, to be met brutally with incarceration and humiliation. 

I'll close with another quote from the article: 

"the people who could learn from grace are the prosperous and college-educated, who often find it hard to empathize with those—both white and nonwhite—who live outside their sunny, well-ordered worlds. When people are not so intent on blaming others for their sins—cultural and economic—they can deal more kindly with one another".

Feuds among the just

This is an interesting article I saw about the World Wildlife Fund, a major international NGO that works to preserve natural areas and biodiversity.  It appears that another important NGO, Survival International, which is dedicated to working with indigenous communities around the world to protect their human rights, has placed a demand against the World Wildlife Fund for its support of anti-poaching squads that are harassing and threatening the Baka people that live in the rainforests of southeastern Cameroon.  From my reading, Survival has a sound case, which doesn't mean that World Wildlife Fund is totally invalid and its work to be dismissed, but simply that they need to clean up their act and right any wrongs in this particular case involving the Baka, and more generally anywhere in the world where their work to preserve nature runs counter to the right of indigenous people to manage their land as they see fit.

I wanted to share this with my readers because it looks to be one of myriad situations that show the great ambiguity in development work, and perhaps in any human endeavor.  Here are two groups that I consider good guys, two groups doing very valid, valuable work, but they are at odds because the noble cause of one group isn't being properly nuanced or tempered by the realities on the ground.  Most people in the world probably aren't even aware of either WWF or Survival Int., and may not entirely understand the subtle difference between protecting natural areas and protecting the rights of people in natural areas.  But these differences do exist and they do give rise to conflicts, and it is important to be aware of them.

This reminds me of another little-known historical conflict, namely that between women's suffragists in the US and advocates for human rights in the black community.  It appears that some very noble people who were fighting to win the vote for women, held quite unsavory and despicable attitudes about race, and even took advantage of the fear of and oppression towards blacks in the US in order to advance their cause.  Here is an article about the struggle between Ida B Wells, a key advocate for black rights, and the [white] women's suffrage movement in the US.

Screaming the truth in opposite land

This is a simple, quasi-manifesto from Charles Blow.  In it he insists on the importance of continuing to speak the truth, to not soften or accomodate our relationship with things we think are fundamentally wrong about Mr. Trump's ascendancy and impending presidency.  The present situation is not normal, and we should not allow ourselves to become comfortable with it.  This is an important, inspiring counterpoint to the personal and collective compromises people make in a state of emotional, misleading propaganda.

My own little addition to Mr. Blow's insights is that recently I've been dismayed by the tendency in US society, both in the very public political and media sphere, but also on a personal level in our daily interactions, to discount or even disdain decency, honesty, insistence on what's right, and the pursuit of the common good.  Those who speak out in favor of human rights, who fight against discrimination of all kinds, who say it's wrong to cheat the system for personal gain, or who argue against faulty logic or destructive passions, can be easily dismissed as being unrealistic, idealistic, "politically correct", or even elitist.  It is a sad state of affairs when those who advocate oppressing, swindling, and excluding the vast mass of humanity (both inside and outside the US) based on their incomes, or their skin color, or the religion they practice, are considered to be "of the people", while those who speak out against oppression and exclusion are considered to be elitist.  A rich kleptocrat whose fortunes are based on dishonesty, bad dealing, and a huge inheritance is framed to be the populist, and the grassroots organizations staffed by ill-paid, decent, working people who struggle to pay bills are framed as being out of touch with the very populations from whom they have sprung and whose interests they represent. 

This inversion of roles represents the ultimate triumph of destructive ultra-Right Wing tendencies, by their successfully labeling progressive causes and people with all the bad qualities in fact held by those who oppose those noble causes.  If the Right-Wing dictatorships of 1980s Latin America had been smarter, they wouldn't have persisted in their use of brute force to control society, but instead would have followed today's playbook of very publicly labeling those who fought on behalf of the poor masses as somehow being pretentious and scornful of the people.

Crowdsourcing deaths involving police

This is an article about the noble and very necessary work of documenting deaths involving police.  The fact that the police death reporting website is being spearheaded by an apparently very even-handed, taciturn white dude from Reno, NV, is great, because it makes it more difficult for people to claim that the work is somehow invalid, anti-white, anti-police, or any other nonsense.  As the website owner, Burghart, very reasonably claims, this work is what any democracy should be doing--tracking better how police are working, who is at risk of getting killed or killing others, etc.  In the end, such work will enable police departments to be more effective, and our communities to be safer.

Reality check

Here is a good article from the Huffington Post discussing Germans' reactions to state propaganda during the Third Reich.  While I tend to shy away from anything that compares any current event or figure to anything from the Third Reich, this one is actually relevant and well-done.  Essentially it warns us that the strongest effect of propaganda is not in convincing us of facts, but in swaying our emotions and gradually moving our conceptions of what is acceptable or normal.  In today's context, this means that, while many of us may not factually believe the assertions of the ascendant Right Wing about the existential threat posed by Islam to the US, or the inherent danger or intellectual inferiority of ethnic minorities, the constant refrain of these themes may succeed in seeding an unconscious suspicion or dislike of those unlike us, or a willingness to entertain patently absurd arguments about foreign policy.  For me the lesson is that, when I feel an irrational discomfort or unconsidered rejection of a person or an idea, I should make a conscious effort to go against my gut feeling and to challenge myself.  This is something I generally try to do anyway, and I feel that over the years it has enabled me to get a lot closer to the complexity and nuance of reality, because I no longer unquestioningly accept the argument or testimony of someone who gives me "good vibes", nor am I so quick to discredit or ignore the ideas of someone whose outward appearance or way of speech has been demonized by society.

The Trump cabinet

I am certainly not the first to express my dismay at Trump's selections to head the different agencies of the Federal government.  Here is a rather lucid reflection from Bill Maher on various aspects of the Trump presidency that foreshadows a few things I'd like to talk about in this post.

Maher describes Trump's appointments as being from opposite land, and I agree, but I would like to dwell a bit longer and explore more deeply the cynicism informing these selections.  Trump has shown no desire to compromise, to even symbolically signal that he's going to be trying to run the US for everyone, not just his cronies and political ideologues.  I wouldn't have expected otherwise, given his drive to destroy and humiliate anything that doesn't totally align with his ever-changing convictions.  But Trump's appointments go beyond political extremism, or pettiness, or nastiness; not content to appoint conservative experts in a given field to the agency that covers that field, Trump has repeatedly chosen people (mainly old rich white men) who are explicitly opposed to the very existence of the agency they're being tapped to run.  There is no pretense that they will even attempt to carry forth their agencies' missions responsibly; their clear aim is to destroy those agencies and what they stand for.

This will not be a creative destruction, nor one that somehow improves life for the mass of the population.  These are not committed mavericks, people who will shake up a sclerotic system to make it work better.  No, they are robber barons who have all but declared their intent to seek private advancement for themselves and their associates.  An oil executive for the State Department.  Goldman Sachs executives to run the economy.  Anyone who for some bizarre reason might have expected Trump to favor the little guy should be appalled that the "experienced businessmen" tapped to watch over the economy are Ponzi schemers from the finance sector, people who led the economy to ruin by funneling money upward instead of creating new wealth, and then kept sucking once there was no more private money for their pyramid and the US government had to bail them out.

This gets to the cynicism not only of Trump himself but of those who elected him.  We heard a lot from "reasonable, not racist" Trump supporters before and after the election about how their vote was a "fuck you" to an irredeemably corrupt system.  My thinking back then was that such adolescent reasoning was all good and cute, but that once my wife is getting accosted on the street by men emboldened by the Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief, or once my kids are getting harassed and attacked at school because they are Latino, that shit ain't so cute no more.  After some time, I now have a more profound critique of the "fuck you" voter because, as any thinking person would have expected, Trump's election will clearly not shake up or correct a corrupt system, but make it even more brazenly and unapologetically corrupt, dragging us all down economically, politically, and culturally in the process.  So those who thought their vote for Trump was some sort of protest against injustice or iniquity need to know that they have essentially enabled a wholesale pillage of our common resources for the gain of a few ultrarich people.

Let's dig even further for a moment, because it's not just cynicism operating here, it's a weird mix between nihilism, moral relativism, and a total remove from reality.  Nihilism is just an extension of cynicism, as epitomized by the "fuck you" voter who would cause limitless harm to the entire world if it made him feel his little tantrum were validated.  Moral relativism because there are a number of things that Trump has proposed that, each alone, would merit totally condemning his entire platform (I'm thinking torture and assassination of women and children abroad, inciting hate crimes against numerous groups of US citizens, admiration for foreign dictators over seasoned US politicians, etc.).  The mental and moral acrobatics people have had to do to justify their not disqualifying Trump over any one of these issues firmly secure the Right's place as the new home of moral relativism.

For me though the most striking thing at play in Trump's election, and in the modern US Right Wing in general, is a total remove from reality.  In a lot of developing countries I've become familiar with, there are profound social problems and profound political divisions, but there are certain things that few would argue against, not simply because it is politically inconvenient to do so, but rather because it would never occur to anyone to deny the existence of certain hard facts.  Almost everyone in these contexts can agree on the importance of reducing hunger and poverty, curbing violence, improving education, etc.  These are real problems that no one would think to deny.  The Right and Left in a given context will of course differ in their proposals as to how to address such problems, but they both realize that, unless their society does address them, it will be doomed to failure.

But in analyzing the discourse of the Right and the Left in the US, I feel like only one side is grappling with real problems, while the other is tilting at windmills, at invented abstractions that rile people up but ultimately don't matter in the real world.  The Left in the US tries to address mass shootings and inner-city violence, drug addiction of all types, gross inequalities in education, and the massive divide between the rich and the poor.  The Right, on the other hand, concerns itself with things like "The War on Christmas" or the ever-looming specter of political correctness.  I'm not just making this up or exaggerating.  If you listen to Right-Wing radio, or read Right-Wing magazines or especially websites, you will mostly see a bunch of commentary on cultural abstractions.  There are too many gay characters now on your favorite TV shows.  Your kid's school has a Hannukah song in addition to a Christmas one.  You have to press "one" for English.  They cast a black guy as a Norse god.

When I hear this shit, I ask myself, "Is this really the biggest problem these people face on a day-to-day basis?  Is this really causing major objective harm to these people?"  I can get on board with working to improve education in the US or preventing murders.  But avoiding the momentary emotional distress caused by the acknowledgment that not everyone speaks or looks exactly like I do?  What a waste of time.

The problem is though that my country has now collectively opted not to address real common problems.  We will not be tackling obesity, heart disease, domestic and street violence, poverty, hunger, environmental sustainability.  No, the electorate has pronounced itself firmly committed to rolling back the War on Christmas, to protecting the flag from burning, to keeping "politically correct" scientific truths out of our schools.  And in the meantime, as voters are distracted with this nonsense, the Right Wing power structure will commit itself to real issues like rolling back voter protections; further eroding workers' rights; strengthening the police state to persecute people of color; privatizing public goods like healthcare, education, and wilderness areas; and stifling free speech.  We may be the first nation that has entertained ourself so much with the circus that we allow our very bread to be taken away.

Words of wisdom from Dave Chappelle to start the New Year

After an unscheduled, unannounced hiatus of a few weeks, I'm starting back up posting on my blog again.  I wanted to start the year with this clip from Dave Chappelle's monologue on Saturday Night Live.  When I first saw this a few weeks ago, it lifted me up after a long slump, and somehow made me feel hopeful.  Chappelle always manages to be both acerbically critical but also sincere and inspiring with his comedy.  And I hope I can follow his exhortation, to demand always that all voices in the US be heard, especially the marginalized people that Trump seems to stand against.