The Trump Test

If there's anything more amazing, startling, and amusing than the Trump candidacy it's the reactions of all the usual suspects. It was said of a politician of an earlier era (I forget which one) that everyone hated him except the people – and it seems that Trump is in the same category. What's ironic is that, in our time, everyone pretends to be a populist but only Trump and Sanders are the real thing – populism, by definition, being a movement against the establishment – whatever that happens to be. So we, as I've commented previously, are seeing bimodal (bipolar?) populism – a pull from both the right and the left, as personified by The Donald and The Bern. And the establishment is fit to be tied – and I include in that both liberal and conservative, the near-left and the near-right (assuming there is no functioning middle, which is a pretty safe bet these days). The MSM pour hot coals on his coiffed head on a daily basis, as does Fox News and any and all neocons (which includes all other Republican candidates) – the worst invective coming from people who, one would think, would resonate, or at least understand, what Trump is all about, and at least empathize a bit. George Will, for example, whom I respect for his usual wisdom and sterling prose, is absolutely over the top in his hostility... my local paper, neocon-dominated although they do make space for libertarians now and then, is aghast at The Donald, right down to, and including, the house editorial cartoonist. The “argumentum ad Hitlerum” has been brought out in full force – and, let's admit, der Adolf was a populist of sorts, much to the dismay of the establishment of his time.

I'll tell you who isn't afraid of Trump – the libertarians and the paleocons (including Pat Buchanan). They “get it” -- not that they necessarily agree with Trump on all, or even most, issues, but they understand his appeal and don't attempt to blame it on sheer demagoguery (or racism, xenophobia, not being nice, etc.). They realize that a large portion of Americans, of every shape and size, feel threatened, oppressed, ignored, ridiculed, left out, and exploited – and they sympathize. And who is consistently speaking to them in language they understand? Nobody but the Trumpster. They might wish it otherwise – that, for example, the mainstream Republicans would “man up” for once and stop all the pathetic me-too-ism that has been their meme for so many years and election cycles. Any time a libertarian stands up in the midst of a Republican gathering he is booed, hissed, and firmly ushered out the door – as witness Ron Paul & son. Any time our delusional, fanatical, bloodthirsty foreign policy is questioned or criticized, whoever dares to speak up is immediately plastered with the usual labels, starting with “isolationist”, “abandoning our allies” (by which they mean Israel, and none other) – the term “peacenik” having gone out of fashion, apparently.

A current American Conservative (paleocon, note) article gives Trump, along with Kasich, a C in foreign policy – which is their best rating other than a B for Bernie... but I imagine they would give Bernie a triple-F for domestic policy, so we can consider Trump a winner overall. Here is the article:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/?mc_cid=b9ed6b64b9&mc_eid=9b64b44470

But – let's face it – the American voter is motivated primarily by domestic policy issues, which is your doctor's word for “pocketbook”. We don't think a whole lot about foreign policy until someone we know is sent to some craphole overseas and comes back in a body bag or with missing limbs, and then cognitive dissonance forces us to allow that, well, it must have been worthwhile, considering the price that was paid. Military spending, most of which can be marked down to empire building rather than true defense of the homeland, doesn't seem to enter anyone's mind as a real expense, in competition with domestic spending – as if our infrastructure doesn't suffer when we spend more rebuilding countries that we've destroyed than we spend on our own highways, sewer and water systems, power grid, etc. It's as if those funds are not fungible – or are, but only under the most extreme circumstances. The fact is, any and all military spending imposes opportunity costs on any and all domestic spending. But apparently we'd rather live in squalor and have a mighty military than enjoy the wealth we have created here at home.

And granted, Trump is very gung-ho when it comes to our military activities overseas, but at the same time seems more hesitant than most candidates when it comes to taking on new burdens in that arena. As the article notes, he “can't seem to make up his mind. He supported regime change in Libya in 2011, but wants to withdraw completely from Syria. He would review the Iran deal and has made comments that could indicate he supports a smaller defense budget, but offers no concrete stance.” But he doesn't have blood in his eye (or anywhere else, ahem) about Russia, and is not itching to go into Syria with the same doomed-to-failure approach we took in Afghanistan and Iraq. He actually comes off as something of a pragmatist (vs. dogmatist or Cold War revivalist) when it comes to foreign policy – and this is sure to enrage all the mainstream “conservatives”.

So, basically, the Trump Test comes down to this. If whoever, or whatever, it is displays nothing but hysteria and seeing Hitler under every bed, you can confidently ignore them, because what it means is that (1) they are sold out to the idea of empire; and (2) they don't really understand, or care, about the plight, grievances, and attitudes of a good portion of Americans (who, admittedly, don't live less than an hour's drive from either coast, so their opinions can't possibly be of any value, and those people don't count in any case); and (3) they have no sense of humor (or, aren't cynical enough, which is probably the same thing when it comes to politics).

Trump is, in short, a symptom – but hey, isn't all of politics symptomatic in some way? Isn't it all about not liking the way things are and wanting them to change? The only question is, for any given candidate, does one agree with their assessment, and with their notions as to what has to change, and how? It's a political issue – grist for dialogue, discussion, and debate... and not for running around with one's hair on fire. We should know by now that any candidate will seem like gift from on high to some, and a lunatic to others.  Clearly, the people who react most hysterically are the ones with the most to lose -- and yet, one wonders, in many cases, precisely what they are so terrified of losing?  What is George Will afraid of?  What is my local paper afraid of?  Are they really so sold out to the establishment that any threat to it is seen as an existential threat to themselves?  In which case, shouldn't we, perhaps, be a bit more skeptical when we read what they have to say?  

The Real Silent Majority

It's pretty much a truism that, in any society, the loudest voices are of those who want change – the dissatisfied... the disenfranchised... the victims (whether actual or self-styled). A subset of this group would be the theorists – the “idea people” who set the terms of the debate and use language in the service of their agenda (whether for good or ill). They are the agents of influence, and of change – but they would be helpless without their loyal followers – the “true believers” (or “useful idiots” in some cases). In the current election season (would that it were only a “season” rather than perpetual) we have – as I've commented on previously – a rare, if not unique, situation of raised voices on both the left and the right – populist movements of people who feel cheated, ignored, and left out. On one side we have the Tea Party (still alive and well, as far as I know – not that it was ever a formal organization), and on the other the “Occupy” crowd (ditto). The Tea Party is represented to a greater or lesser degree by the more “conservative” Republicans; Trump's relationship with them is ill-defined, if it exists at all. And the Occupy contingent is represented fairly well by Bernie Sanders.

This is, as I said, a rare thing in American politics – to have dueling populist movements. Most of the time, there is one party – one world view – in charge, and the “loyal opposition” on the other side. Populist movements, when they spring up, often create a third party, which rarely lasts for more than one election cycle. Someone has commented that Trump's campaign represents a third-party movement within the Republican Party; it seems that the same could be said of the Sanders campaign within the Democrats. And then you have the real third parties, like the Libertarians and Greens, which only complicates the picture even more. But in any case, it seems that no one is satisfied these days, and they are all protesting and fighting against the depredations of some ill-defined establishment -- “big government” for the right, and “not big enough”, or “big enough, but with the wrong priorities” for the left. But both sides are trapped in their own contradictions, since the right wants smaller government except for “defense”, which you can apparently never have too much of... and the left wants government to somehow mend its ways and start serving “the people” -- even though big government is, by and large, a creation of the left, and it was created precisely in order to, guess what, serve “the people”. Obviously, something funny happened on the way to Utopia. The “democratic socialist” (referencing Bernie Sanders' position) movement, which started during the Progressive Era and went into overdrive with the New Deal, has now morphed into oligarchy, domination by the Money Power and the military-industrial complex, and perpetual war – and this with nary a shot being fired, to say nothing of any sort of revolution. If Sanders and the leftists want to rewind the tape and start over, they'll have to go back at least as far as pre-World War I, in other words 100 years. Socialism without a love affair with war and empire might be possible – look at Scandinavia – but for the “major powers” it seems to be an impossibility. Even the former colonial powers, who should have learned their lesson, jump at any chance they get to return to the fray and make a cameo appearance on the world stage, as witness England and France's pathetic tag-along enthusiasm for our follies in the Islamic world.

And yet, having said all this, there is nonetheless a large, faceless, non-noisy portion of the citizenry, and they are, in fact, the biggest single piece – a plurality at least, and most likely a majority. And they are satisfied – complacent... smug, even. They don't object to paying taxes (the ones who do, I mean)... they don't have any problem with big government, even in its current manifestation... they are perfectly happy with every law and regulation that the rest of us find intrusive and onerous... they think that anyone who doesn't like the way things are is some kind of radical, nut, or “hater”... and one never hears from them, because they are profoundly satisfied. They are the true establishment of our time, at the grass-roots level. They are the true conservatives, as opposed to the “conservatives” who want radical change, or who talk like they do.

Who are these people? Why, Hillary Clinton supporters, of course! They are the ones who have completely sold out to the system – or were born into it, so didn't have to. They are like a huge baby that is perpetually locked onto the teat of government, and spends its life in a dream-like stupor. The only thing that can ever get their attention is any sort of threat to their “rights” -- which means their entitlements, which means their right to the fruits of someone else's labor. They are the current-day manifestation of the communist concept “to each according to his need” -- except that their “needs” are titanically greater than anything Marx or Lenin ever dreamt of, or would have tolerated.

And I don't want to give the impression that I'm talking only, or even mainly, about “the deserving poor”. There aren't nearly enough of those to fill this box, and to scapegoat them would show a lack of compassion. No, these would be people of all social classes, right up to and including billionaire “crony capitalists”, who could not imagine getting along without government help of some sort. There might have been a time in our history when welfare was for the poor, but those days are long gone. The poor get a trickle, but the so-called “capitalists” get a windfall. And again, is this a natural and inevitable evolution of our society, or did something go terribly wrong at some point, and might it be possible to go back and take the “road less traveled” again? (This is certainly the fond wish on the part of Bernie Sanders and his supporters.)

So here we have an election arena – a marketplace of ideas, if you will – that is using up all the air time (and all the air) and which seems to involve everyone to some degree or other. It's as if everyone in Rome is at the Colosseum and no one is out there doing ordinary, everyday tasks. But that's not the case! There is a silent majority, and they're silent because they're satisfied... and they are firmly in Hillary Clinton's camp because she represents what they all want – the “nanny state”. She is Big Nurse – just do what she says and we'll get along fine. Otherwise... you don't want to know.

The problem for the noisemakers – populists left and right, and their candidates – is that they don't fully realize that this demographic exists – or if they do they're in serious denial. They assume that revolutionary fervor will carry the day, that it is a force multiplier of sorts and can turn a numerical minority into a majority in terms of energy and impact – and they can point to plenty of historic examples, like pretty much any bonafide revolution. But I don't think we're living in times like those. For revolution to work, you need a lot of desperate people – a majority, even; we might have come close to that state during the Depression, but it's been far from the case ever since. (And no, “quiet desperation” won't do, because that's too akin to despair and is therefore enervating.) 

Religion was supposed to be the opiate of the people, but that was just a myth perpetuated by those who wanted government to be the opiate of the people – which it has, in fact, become. And even those who occasionally stagger out of the government opium den into the fresh air can only think clearly up to a point. They still accept the premise that “something has to be done” and the only entity that can do it is government. If they thought more clearly they would realize that government is the problem, and it can't be expected to fix itself. But then they would also realize that they are in the minority, and... what's to be done? Pass the opium pipe, I guess.

The Bottomless Pit is Open for Business

The powers that be have finally admitted – with great reluctance, of course – that our expedition in Afghanistan is not having the expected (or at least advertised) result, and that we must – must! We have no choice! -- remain there as an occupying force for the foreseeable future, i.e. forever, for all intents and purposes. No Cold War, this – which, despite all the bluster and threats, at least had some symmetry... some balance. Yes, it was one political/social/economic system versus another, but it was also one empire versus another, with many of the same strategies and tactics used on both sides. The result was a sort of mutual understanding; each side was the image of the other, in a dark mirror.

The Cold War was not unlike a chess game – and even though the Russians are far better chess players than we are, they were the ones who retired from the field, not from lack of resources or sheer fatigue, but because they eventually tired of their own propaganda and illusions. Their empire got old, the hard-liners died off, and the temptations of the world economic community were too great to resist. So that empire faded in a remarkably peaceful way; no one surrendered, they just underwent a major shift in priorities – a sea change, if you will, from collectivist dogmatism to relative pragmatism. (And there are worse things than having leaders who are pragmatists rather than theorists.) And it's not that there were, and are, no regrets – there's plenty of Stalinist nostalgia floating around Russia these days, at the same time that the Romanovs have been granted icon status by the revitalized Orthodox church. (We have our own Cold War nostalgia, which is alive and well. Any number of government and military types long for the conflict they grew up with, with its clear demarcations, as opposed to the tangled mess we now face in the Middle East. This is one reason why they mistakenly fight the War on Islam as if it were conventional warfare.) The real story of Russia in the 20^th Century may not be how the Soviet Union came to be – that's a fairly clear picture. The real story is how it managed to evolve, or devolve, with a minimum of violence and strife, without a civil war, without starvation and mass displacement of people... in short, a model for how an empire can come to an end in a reasonable way, which is a much rarer phenomenon than how empires are established and grow.

Afghanistan, however, is another matter, as the Russians found out first and as we are now finding out. The “graveyard of empires” certainly contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union (with no little help from us, and now we find that our friends then are our enemies now), and the question is how much it has contributed, is contributing, and will contribute to our own demise – as an empire at least, if not as a nation.

That's all on the conventional wisdom/historical model side. But there is another level of analysis at work, and it has been from the outset... and I've discussed it many times. In short, the War on Islam (my term, but I believe it to be more accurate than the alternatives) replaced the Cold War just in the nick of time to keep the military-industrial complex from suffering any economic hardship, and just in time for an oppressive domestic policy that had been in the works for decades to become firmly established and justified – for the rule of war is that no matter how physically removed the battles are from home and hearth, the citizenry must, sooner or later, pay the price. Security is touted as the main justification for “why we fight”, but when security necessitates an ever-increasing loss of freedom, one wonders whether that wasn't the idea all along. Diminished freedom seems to be the cost of “security”, and yet we aren't even all that secure, so it winds up being a net loss for the citizenry (and a huge gain for those in power).

Another facet of all of this is the adoption of perpetual war as an economic, political, and diplomatic reality – and the more politicians (including the president) claim that this is not the case, the more clearly it seems to be the case. And this is another reason why the War on Islam, AKA the “War on Terror”, is so ideal – because we are dealing with an amorphous enemy that doesn't play by the “rules”... there are no “exit criteria”, i.e. there is no way of knowing if we've ever “won”... and we are continuously sowing dragon's teeth, i.e. all of our efforts to weaken the opposition – however defined – only result in more opposition. We have an endless parade of monsters and bogeymen to deal with – first the Taliban, then Al-Qaeda, and now ISIS, along with countless lesser organizations, bands, brigades, insurgents, factions, rebels, counter-rebels, counter-counter-rebels, and splinter groups, not to mention actual countries like Syria and Iran. Pair that with our on-again, off-again “allies” in the Middle East and Europe, and it starts to look more and more like our fight – that we are the ones riding out on a white charger while everyone else stays warm and cozy at home, with attitudes ranging from skepticism to outright mockery and derision. “Oh yeah, there goes Uncle Sam again, blowing titanic amounts of blood and treasure in order to, somehow, save the Middle East from itself.”

Afghanistan in particular is frustrating simply because the “radicals” seem to be the only ones who give a damn – who care how things turn out. The populace in general is hunkered down, desperate, and helpless, and either unwilling or unable to aid in the effort. Perfectly good armies seem to evaporate the minute we set foot on their soil, to be replaced by hordes of wild-eyed fanatics; it happened in Iraq, it happened in Libya, and it will, eventually, happen in Syria. Like it or not, for all of the strife that characterizes that part of the world, the one thing that will make them all unite in common cause is our presence – for us to invade and occupy. Then suddenly Job One is to get rid of us... or, failing that, to make our lives as invaders and occupiers thoroughly miserable. And from the humanitarian point of view, how does the civilian death toll compare, pre-U.S. invasion with post-U.S. invasion? I daresay it's much worse after we get involved; again, this is demonstrably the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seems to be the case in Libya as well. Even the lowest form of colonialist ambition – take the oil and run – turns out to be a fallacy; we can turn oil exporters into oil importers in the twinkling of an eye. So where is the profit? Where is the benefit? Cui bono? Clearly, it's in the interests of the military-industrial complex to keep up this dreary routine for as long as possible, and on the domestic side, as I said, it's in the interests of power-hungry politicians to promote totalitarianism in the interests of “national security”. “Department of Homeland Security” -- “Transportation Security Agency” -- “National Security Agency” -- anyone see a trend here?

So back to the issue at hand. Headline: “Afghan exit strategy fades” (as if there ever was one). Sub-headline: “Terrorists' resilience could keep thousands of soldiers in country for decades, commanders say.” The first questions that should be asked, but never are, are as follows: Where did these “terrorists” come from? And what makes them so “resilient”? (And really, folks, where do they get all of that weaponry, much of it made here, or in Russia, or even in Israel?) And what makes us think that we can ever defeat them, even given “decades”? And – the most radical idea of all – why not just leave? Are they really going to follow us back to the homeland and create all sorts of death and destruction? Well, they already are, to some extent. But what if that's because we persist in occupying their country, or their part of the world? What if Ron Paul was right when he said that “they're over here because we're over there”? (That remark, made during a presidential debate, nearly caused Rudy Giuliani to have a fatal stroke, if you'll recall.)

Of course, this is all represented as a “shift in mindset” on the part of the military, and especially on the part of Obama, who really, truly wanted us to get out of that godforsaken place – honest, he really did. Right. My theory is that he has standing orders: Whatever you do, and whatever you say, we are not getting out of Afghanistan, not now, not ever. (Again, who benefits?) The only thing that has changed is not some “mindset” or “outlook” but their willingness to publicly admit that the situation is hopeless – a variety of hopelessness that, mysteriously, requires us to stick around rather than getting the hell out.

But! But! – you might say – hasn't the military been planning, for years now, to leave Afghanistan once they could say “mission accomplished”? Well, no. They've been making that claim for years, sure... but anyone could see that the day when we could say “mission accomplished” would never come – not only because of the reality of the situation, but by design. For example, one of the countless bogus criteria presented is “building an effective Afghan army and police force”. Um... has it ever had these? I seriously doubt it. National character comes into play here. Afghanistan is simply not one of those places that is cut out to have an effective army and police force. It is ideally suited to having warring tribes, which it has had down through recorded history – and if we pulled out it would go back to ancient ways, and probably be too caught up in feuds and vendettas to cause any damage outside its (artificial, by the way) borders. Hence, another foolproof “criterion” which is not a criterion at all. But why quibble? Why not spend “billions of dollars a year” and have “thousands of advisers on the ground” (the diplomatic term for combat troops)?

The best quote from the article is as follows: “'What we've learned is that you can't really leave', said a senior Pentagon official...” How true! But how did they “learn” that? Who told them?

Well, it's sort of like what happens when your team is knocked out of Super Bowl contention – you can finally sit back, relax, not worry, and enjoy the show rather than engage in endless nail-biting. All the American public has to do now is accept that we'll be in a state of war forever... or at least until the Republic collapses from its follies. Perhaps we will get a break, and the end won't really be the end, as exemplified by the Soviet Union. There might be a light at the end of the tunnel – but as long as the people who are now in charge remain in charge, that light will not come any closer.

One final quote, again from a Pentagon official: “This is not a region you want to abandon.” That's funny, I sure do – and I'll bet a lot of other Americans do as well. But who listens to us?

Whose Apocalypse Is It Anyway?

An interesting bit of symmetry has come into focus regarding the conflict in the Middle East. I have written before about the power of true belief – call it radicalism, fanaticism, whatever. You can find it on this blog – the post dated Dec. 27, 2014, “Fools, Holy and Otherwise”. The point was that there is something about a cause – and the less “realistic” the better – that attracts people, especially young people, who are looking for something worth fighting for. And when true believers go up against the Establishment – which is characterized by materialism, cynicism, and “realpolitik”, and dominated by old, bald white guys (let's admit it), they tend, other things being equal, to win, simply because their fervor serves as a force multiplier – i.e. their pure energy can overcome those who are primarily seeking political, military, or material gain -- or to at least hold on to their power base.

We can see this down through history – smaller forces defeating (at least for a time, and sometimes permanently) larger forces, and it's always based on an idea... an inspiration. And I'm not claiming that the cause is always just; that's not the point. It's more about the power of ideas, right or wrong... and the relative impotence of tired, worn-out regimes. Many examples come to mind, such as the Jewish rebellion against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire (you can cross-reference this with “Irony” if you like)... the Moslem conquests of the early days... the Crusades... the American Revolution... the Civil War... the Bolsheviks... the Nazis... the Viet Cong... and now ISIS. In all cases, the cause was deemed worthy, and worth fighting for, even unto death, to say nothing of destruction of the old order. “Counting the cost” was not on the agenda, in other words. Even the death of innocents was, in most cases, considered to be part of the price that must be paid (can you say “collateral damage”?). One can even claim that revolution per se – regardless of the time and place – is characterized, at least at the outset, by this mind set. It is, in other words, a part of history, and conflicts that don't possess this trait (World War I comes to mind) eventually come to be seen as unfortunate, unnecessary, and truly wasteful.

People of our time commenting on history will often say something like, “Thank goodness we aren't fighting religious wars any longer.” But I say that religious wars are the only ones worth fighting! Or, substitute “wars of ideas” and you pretty much have it covered. And is there any doubt that what we are fighting right now in the Middle East is a religious war? And don't bother to say that ISIS doesn't represent “real” Islam; their beliefs are as real to them as the beliefs of any other revolutionists or crusaders were to them.

A recent AP news story described ISIS as having “apocalyptic appeal”. The concept of apocalypse is all about the ultimate destiny of the world, and of mankind. It's about a process – but that process has a goal, which is setting the world right, either in anticipation of the final judgment (the religious version) or of achieving heaven on earth – a Utopia to last a thousand years (recall, if you will, the Nazis' vision of the “Thousand Year Reich”). For a goal like that, is any sacrifice too great? It never seems to be. And this, among many other factors, is why we find ourselves baffled when it comes to fighting ISIS – and why remnants of the Roman Empire were so helpless in the face of Islam... and why the British were so stunned by the American Revolution... and so on.

And yet we have, on “our” side, something of the sort as well – a real, home-grown hotbed of fanaticism that is as dedicated to its cause as the Islamists are to theirs. They're called Christian Zionists – and they overlap to a significant extent with the Neocons, and, I daresay, with the Tea Party... and also serve to energize the campaigns of nearly all of the Republican presidential candidates. Their theme, as we are, hopefully, all aware of by now, is that Israel is the key to “salvation history” and must be supported, and protected, at all costs – even unto the destruction of our own economy and our political isolation on the world stage.

This phenomenon has been extensively documented in a number of books, and I suggest, for starters, one entitled “Allies for Armageddon: The Rise of Christian Zionism” by Victoria Clark. From a summary of the book (on Amazon):

Guided by a literal reading of the prophetic sections of the Bible, Christian Zionists are convinced that the world is hurtling toward a final Battle of Armageddon. They believe that war in the Middle East is God’s will for the region. In this timely book, Victoria Clark first explores the 400-year history of this powerful political ideology, laying to rest the idea that Christian Zionism is a passing craze or the province of a lunatic fringe. Then Clark surveys the contemporary Christian Zionist scene in Israel and in the United States, where the influence of the religious fundamentalists has never been greater.

Clark engages with Christian Zionism directly, interviewing leaders, attending events, and traveling with Christian Zionists in the Holy Land. She also investigates the Christian Zionist presence in Israel. She finds that the view through the Christian Zionist lens is dangerously simple: (the) War on Terror is a mythic battle between good and evil, and Syria and Iran represent the powers of darkness. Such views are far from rare—an estimated fifteen to twenty million Americans share them. Almost one in three Americans believes Israel was given to the Jews by God as a prelude to the Battle of Armageddon and Jesus’ Second Coming. Clark concludes with an assessment of Christian Zionists’ impact on American foreign policy in the Middle East and on America’s relationships with European allies since the attacks of 9/11.

Now – the question we should be asking is this: If all of this is true (and I don't doubt that it is), are we to accept it as a perfectly natural historical development – inevitable, if you will, given that we as a nation identify our own founding as based on ideas of, if not explicitly religious, then at the very least a Utopian sort? Or to put it another way, did our founding as a secular society highly informed by Protestant or “Enlightenment” ideas inevitably lead us to this pass? The book provides convincing evidence that this is the case. The irony, of course, is that even though this nation was founded on, basically, humanistic and materialistic principles, theology caught up with it – starting with the second through the fourth of the “Great Awakenings”. (The First Great Awakening predated the Revolution, but certainly laid the conceptual groundwork for those to follow.)

And so, if this is all perfectly natural, and inevitable, does that make it OK? Are we to, ultimately, throw ourselves on Israel's funeral pyre, assuming that all of this comes to naught? Or perhaps it won't; perhaps there will, ultimately, be a victory that all can revel in and that will make all of our sacrifices seem worthwhile. We seem to be standing on a cusp of history – a time of great testing – where a conflict of ideas will determine the future for many generations – nay, centuries or even millennia – to come. If we are satisfied with this, and willing to pay any price, then by all means let us “let loose the dogs of war”. We already have an enemy that is not only willing, but strangely able, as evidenced by recent events. It may, in fact, be too late to back down – as it has been so many times before. All I'm suggesting is that we become, and remain, conscious of all that is entailed here; it is truly a “big f------ deal”, in the immortal words of Joe Biden. If we think of it as being anything less, and are not prepared for all of the possible consequences, then we are sadly mistaken. We have achieved that state of “fearful symmetry” -- the difference being that the other side is fully aware of it, whereas we persist in pretending otherwise.

Won’t They Ever Learn? (NO)

So… in the wake of the Paris attacks, and the newfound respect for the notion of actually controlling immigration -- i.e. who gets to cross our borders and settle down -- we have at least two Republican candidates for the presidency proposing some, let’s say, startling ideas.

From the Sunday paper (an AP article) -- “… Ben Carson said… that he wants to expand the government’s surveillance operations aimed at potential terrorist threats….”  “’… I would be in favor of monitoring a mosque or any church or any organization or any school or any press corps where there was a lot of radicalization and things that were anti-American…’”  And, tellingly, “He did not expound on just how an administration would determine what constitutes ‘radicalization’ or ‘anti-American’”.  “Carson added that funding for FBI surveillance activities should be increased.” 

In the meantime, Donald Trump said “’I want surveillance of certain mosques‘” and “has also voiced support for closing certain mosques as a way to contain the terrorist threat…” 

OK.  Nothing new about harassing the many for the sins of a few; we have only to consider German-Americans during World War I and Japanese-Americans during World War II.  But that’s not my point.  When it comes to government surveillance, monitoring activities of religious groups and journalists, and focusing on “radicals” and “anti-American” activities. it’s already happening.  Have these guys already forgotten the IRS harassment of conservative non-profit organizations?  Or the NSA monitoring of communications among individuals and organizations considered threats to national security?  How many times, of late, have liberals in politics and journalism equated conservatives with terrorists -- even in the context of the “climate change” issue?  And let’s not forget various snippets of guidance coming from the Justice Department and the FBI warning local police departments about the terrorist potential from “right-wing” and “anti-government” organizations, and even from home schoolers! 

No, the kind of thing Trump and Carson say they want is already here, firmly in place and being implemented 24-7.  Of course, the targets of this around-the-clock intelligence operation are not the same people Trump and Carson have in mind, but it hardly matters.  The government has been given the tools -- largely by Congress, which means by both major parties.  Whenever the government begs for funding in order to fight against “the bad guys”, they get it -- because everyone assumes that the ones the government identifies as bad guys are the same ones they do.  Oh yeah, give the government anything it wants, and the hell with the Bill of Rights, because this is an emergency!  It’s an “existential threat”, and all the other scare words and phrases that are used to energize the process.  Problem is, even if today’s “bad guys” are the ones you had in mind, tomorrow’s bad guys might be your constituents -- or you.  And then what? 

How many Catholic politicians voted for ObamaCare, only to find that part of the long-term agenda is to insist that Catholic hospitals perform abortions, or be put out of business?  Oh, right, there is “wording” in the law that supposedly keeps that from happening, but we all know how laws can morph over time -- and add an executive order here and there and you have, once again, something those who voted for it in the first place wouldn’t recognize.  (I'll mention in passing the use of RICO against anti-abortion protesters.)   

It’s the same old scam over and over, and the Republicans fall for it every time.  Set up a straw man, present it as “the” enemy, get everyone to rally ’round the flag and vote the government basically unlimited powers -- but just in this one area, mind!  And only on a temporary basis!  And, surely common sense will prevail, etc.  Well… when it comes to “temporary”, all you have to do is count the number of New Deal agencies that are still alive and well, and causing untold waste, fraud, and abuse.  Any tool that the supposed conservatives provide to the liberals/statists/totalitarians in order to deal with an alleged enemy, or threat, will eventually be turned back on them.  Want to limit freedom of speech in order to deal with communists?  Now it’s aimed at “talk radio”.  Want to keep communist and radical leftist political parties out of the election process?  Now it's the Tea Party and the libertarians.  Is the press too socialistic?  Too communist-inspired?  It’s the “right-wing” press and media that we’re supposed to be concerned about these days… because everyone knows there is no daylight between them and the KKK, and those guys are nothing but “home-grown terrorists”.  And as far as things being “anti-American”, well… doesn’t it depend on whose definition of “anti-American” we’re using?  According to Obama, it’s anti-American to want to restrict the entry of refugees from any country, in any number, and for any reason.   

And so on.  Again, give them the tools and they’ll use them against you.  I want to call up Trump and Carson and say:  The way to fight big government is not by making government bigger, you dummies!  You have to dismantle it all -- piece by piece, brick by brick… even the parts you “like” once in a while, when they agree with you and act in your interests.  You can’t complain about SWAT teams arresting home schoolers and organic farmers but then turn around and give them anything they want when it comes to drug dealers and immigrants.  You can’t complain about government efforts to suppress free speech but then advocate denying it to Moslems, even “radical” ones.  If you want mosques monitored lest they teach “radicalism”, and then closed if they do, then don’t complain when the government starts pressuring Christian churches to stop teaching against things like gay marriage, or just about anything else that is the political flavor of the month -- i.e. to stop “preaching hate”.  The day may come when Christian churches are threatened with closure (rather then just losing their tax-exempt status) for holding positions that oppose those of the Regime. 

It’s easy to applaud when the Regime beats up on the other guy… but then when you wind up in the cross-hairs, what principles are you going to appeal to, since you’ve long since given up on principles, and on thinking in those terms. 

And as far as this election goes, well… the Republicans are doomed; I’ll say it again.  But at least recent events have convinced them to sign off on increased government powers, regardless of the Constitution… and that was, of course, the idea all along.  This way, the debate is no longer between big government and not-as-big government, but only about big government Type A and big government Type B -- but in the long run there is really only one type, and it’s Type T for Tyranny.     

Empires Without Borders

As a kind of sidebar to the previous post, I have to point out that the dissolution of our borders does not signify the end of our empire -- of our long reach (military, economic, political) around the globe.  Just the opposite, in fact.  What it represents is a certain stage in the rise and fall of empires.  They begin with a secure and stable home base -- a city, region, country, whatever… and a surplus of resources, which makes “expeditions” possible.  Poor countries don’t go empire-building, in other words.  You have to have more than you need of something -- manpower, weaponry, natural resources, technology… but also less than you think you need of something else -- land, other natural resources, power and glory, and so on.  And, your neighbors have to be in, for whatever reason, a somewhat weakened position.  So the pressure mounts, and before you know it Germany is invading Poland, or England is colonizing India, or the U.S. is striding onto the world stage in World War I.  But regardless of the many varieties of empire-building (which includes old-fashioned “colonialism”, now dreadfully out of fashion), you can be assured that, at the early or expansionist state, there will be a stable home base -- a base of operations and a stable political situation with an enthusiastic, or at least mollified, citizenry, that doesn’t object to the horrendous waste of resources that military campaigns typically represent.  If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, it is the first refuge of politicians who seek their own power and glory at the expense of the country and its citizenry.

But this is just an early stage of the process, albeit a stage that can last for a considerable time.  But eventually there is a turning of the tide -- empire building and the maintaining of empires seem to get more expensive over time, probably because resistance grows among subject peoples, but also because corruption grows within the empire, sapping resources at an ever greater rate.  At the same time, the price to be paid on the domestic side grows as well, until we find out we’re spending more on “foreign policy”, AKA the military, than we are on domestic needs.  Once this tipping point is reached, the process accelerates until you wind up with, basically, an empire with a hollow center -- that is, an apparently powerful span of influence and control “on which the Sun never sets” but a homeland in political disarray, economic distress, and social and moral chaos.  This is the point at which we find ourselves at this time, and as the demands of empire continue to increase -- as they inevitably do -- the hollowing-out effect will become more severe and more obvious -- and more of a political issue.  (Please note that, so far, there has been no serious questioning of the magnitude of our military expenditures -- probably because both major parties are completely committed to empire, as are the media.) 

Another symptom of this particular stage of things is that, as I discussed previously, borders start to dissolve and we become ever more helpless in the face of invasions (however characterized) -- often, but not necessarily, originating in the same places we colonized and thought we had control of.  So you have this paradoxical situation where we continue to exert ourselves world-wide -- with our most advanced technology going into war-making… er, I mean “defense”… and yet, on the domestic front, all we see, hear, and read about is a rising tide of social chaos, economic distress, welfare-ism, entitlements, anarchy in urban areas, moral dissolution, and a general feeling of unease and existential angst among the citizenry. 

And yet, this may not be so much a paradox as an inevitability -- a natural stage of development, which in the broadest sense represents a decision, or innumerable decisions over many years, to prefer war and empire over domestic prosperity and well-being.  The fact that we are, and have always been, an ideational society (as opposed to one firmly rooted in race, ethnicity, faith, and a sense of place) only serves to aggravate the situation; there is, basically, nothing stopping us from carrying our Utopian quest to the four corners of the globe (yes, that’s technically nonsense), because what’s good for us is good for everyone else on earth, or at least ought to be, if only they would see things our way, and if they don’t, well, we have cruise missiles and drones and so on -- the great pacifiers.

But again, why should an empire increase but the place of its origin suffer?  Why should we be invading other countries while, at the very same time, ours is being invaded (albeit by different means)?  I think it’s because once our ideas -- our idealism -- becomes outward-directed, there is no turning back.  Whenever the subject is brought up, whoever brought it up is accused of “isolationism” and thus kicked out of the marketplace of ideas.  It becomes “empire or bust”, just as so many covered wagons in pioneer days were inscribed “California or bust”.  To quote JFK, we “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship” in the interest of empire (although he didn’t put it quite that way).  Well, that marvelous bit of rhetoric gave us Vietnam, and all the follies since then have followed the same pattern.  The common element is that as empire increases, domestic standard of living decreases -- or at least fails to live up to its potential, defined as “what would things be like if we weren’t always fighting a war somewhere?”  And don’t talk to me about some trickle-down economic effects of war -- war may be the health of the state, but it’s the death of the economy in the long run, as we are seeing in our time.  Only the elite who are masterminding the whole business come out ahead. 

For what is a border, after all?  It’s a statement, basically -- a way of saying “we live here, we built this, we have our traditions, we’re doing things our way, and if you want to join us kindly get in line, we’ll accept as many newcomers as we can short of over-burdening our economy, disrupting our society, and watering down our traditions and legal system.”  Yes, it represents an “us” vs. “them”, and this is considered very poor form these days.  Because, after all, we believe in “fairness”, don’t we?  And “social justice”?  And there’s that poem on the Statue of Liberty, etc.  So we have to suspend judgment as to how many newcomers we can take, and absorb -- “all are welcome”, not because we are such principled and compassionate people, but that we have forgotten our principles and forgotten that charity begins as home. 

It’s a hard saying, I know, that open borders represent political and social decadence rather than humanity and compassion, but I believe it to be the case.  Yes, we have always accepted immigrants, but standards were in place, the bar was set high, and the gate was narrow.  If we take anyone in for any reason -- or for no reason at all except that they showed up -- we are saying, basically, that we’re no different, we’re no better, and we have nothing worth defending.  (But at the same time, we have unlimited resources, which seems a bit contradictory.)  And this is just groovy for the people who want to get in, few of whom, I’m guessing, give a tinker’s damn about our history, traditions, laws, or culture.  They’re just looking for sustenance and shelter -- perfectly natural human needs -- or, perhaps, for what is called “opportunity”, even though we’ve pretty much fallen into despair on that count of late.  Or, yes, they may be infiltrators seeking to bring the whole system down -- but who can tell?  Is there a DNA test for “terror”?  So we are being undermined by people who only want a chance, but also by people with malicious intent.  We have the huddled masses and the destroyers.  And the question becomes, with all of this going on how much longer can we sustain the American Empire?  Is it really possible that, one of these days, “America” will consist entirely of military bases overseas with nothing but an economic and social desert at home?  Because if you project current trends outward that’s what you get.  I don’t think it’s ever gotten to that point historically -- something has to intervene first.  The question is, what will that something be? 
       

We Won’t Always Have Paris

The attacks in Paris seem to represent a high water mark (to date) of the combined invasion of and attack on Europe originating in the Islamic world.  The first, and most politically fraught, question, is this:  Are the supposedly needy refugees/immigrants who are being welcomed with more or less open arms into Europe the same people who are committing the terrorist attacks?  The liberals would answer, with indignation, “No!  Of course not!” -- the point being that the refugees are trying to escape from the same people who are terrorizing their home countries and Europe.  But then we read stories about terrorists who enter Europe under the guise of refugees -- and of the possibility that a similar thing could happen here if we admit refugees from Syria.  So there’s the dilemma.  When humanism and compassion come up against self-defense, we have usually chosen self-defense first -- but those days seem to be over. 

And I’m not just talking about the massive social, economic, and political impact of hordes of (mostly undocumented) migrants.  Aside from the terrorism issue, this represents a truly historic phenomenon, comparable to many other great migrations and invasions down through the millennia.  And not the least amazing thing about it is that resistance has been nil -- comparable to our own situation with regard to immigrants coming across our southern border. 

And why has resistance been nil?  Don’t tell me it’s only about humanistic or compassionate motives; if that were true would we, and certain European powers, be bombing the same people on their home turf?  (Oh, wait, that’s called “collateral damage”, right?)  Would we be playing a major role in creating the refugee problem in the first place, by helping to prolong conflicts in places like Syria?  Would we have freed up radical Islamists in Iraq to persecute Christians and drive them out of the country?  So no, forget about humanism and compassion as prime motivators.

Economically -- well, there are arguments, mostly made in the privacy of executive suites, for allowing unlimited numbers of refugees from south of the border -- AKA cheap labor -- to come here.  The counterargument has to do with the welfare state and entitlements -- but of course those expenses are paid by the taxpayers, who have, basically, no say at all in the matter.  Of course, there has always been a suspicion of “foreign elements” on our soil -- going at least as far back as the influx of Irish refugees from the potato famine, and that was before the Civil War.  “Yes, they’re Catholic, but doggone it, we need cheap labor to build the railroads, so let ’em in, they’ll all be ’absorbed’ eventually.”   

That’s the argument on the “capitalist” side.  On the liberal side, the argument (again, discussed mostly behind closed doors) is that immigrants = voters, and liberal/Democratic voters at that, so it’s OK.  Thus, you have a united political will for once -- both establishment conservatives and liberals approve of unlimited immigration, although the capitalists won’t admit it in public.  (The liberal argument, as in Europe, is based on humanism and compassion -- qualities they seldom display in any other context.)

And as for people who fear that they’re going to lose their age-old culture -- or at least have it watered down beyond recognition -- they are given smug and patronizing assurances by those in charge.  There is nothing to worry about!  And besides, you’re just being racist.  Or intolerant, or bigoted, or reactionary, or “fascist” (still a big-ticket label in Old Europe).  Right.  Except -- there are already vast tracts of European cities and suburbs that have been given over to total occupation and domination by Moslems, who are perfectly happy pursuing their own lifestyle and living by their own rules, no matter how much those clash with the law of the land.  They have, in fact, acted as colonizers, except that they entered the scene at the bottom rather than at the top.   

And as to whether that could also happen here, well… how about so many of our “inner cities”, which have been implicitly declared no man’s lands by law enforcement (especially in reaction to the recent controversies over police-citizen relations)?  The bottom line is that it’s difficult to enforce the law in the midst of an anarchistic culture, or one that has a heritage of laws of its own.  Much easier to retreat to the suburbs where they can bug people about letting their grass grow too long.   

So the bottom line for us (in the U.S.) is, if you want the cheap labor and the voters, you have to take the criminal activity and the burden on the welfare system.  Period.  And apparently, this sounds like a perfectly fine bargain to our ruling class.  In Europe’s case, it might be about cheap labor; I doubt if it’s about votes because Europe is already the socialist paradise we aspire to be someday. 

But the question remains -- how is it that we’re defenseless?  And how is it that Europe is even more defenseless?  (I have yet to hear of trains full of undocumented immigrants leaving Juarez and crossing over to El Paso on an hourly basis.)  I feel that -- like for many other issues -- there is something deeper going on here… something instinctive, primordial… something the people affected have no idea of. 

What is it that distinguishes the current crop of immigrants/refugees from the, let’s say, “natives”?  It’s the same thing that has distinguished all invading hordes across the ages -- energy, determination, and sheer numbers.  Have you ever stopped to wonder why the flood of humanity across our southern border is a comparatively recent problem?  The border has been there, in its present configuration, since 1854.  And yes, there have always been people sneaking across.  (Remember when they were called “wetbacks”?  That‘s right up there with tacos and sombreros and Speedy Gonzales.)  And is this flood only about economics -- about the comparative standard of living of Latin America vs. the U.S.?  But that’s probably not as radically different as it used to be.  Perhaps it’s better communication -- TV, the Internet, movies -- that has inspired people to leave everything behind and seek a better life in El Norte. 

I’m sure all of these factors play a role, but I submit that a lot of it has to do with pure population pressure, and especially with the fact that -- to over-simplify a bit, certainly -- they reproduce and we don’t.  Or, we don’t reproduce at anything like the rate at which they do.  So it boils down to something almost as simple as elementary physics -- the differential energy -- therefore pressure -- levels of gases, or water pressure.  There are just too many people trying to get in, and too few trying to keep them out.  And it’s not just a matter of technology, or even “political will” (gravely lacking in this case).  It really is a kind of irresistible force.  (And our border is far from being an immovable object.)  We’ve seen it time and again in history -- invaders usually stick around.  They settle down, become more peaceful… but nothing is ever the same. 

We share, with the Europeans, a kind of pathology -- call it a cultural suicide wish.  We want to be “welcoming”, and “compassionate”, and so on -- but behind it is an unstated premise that our respective cultures have had their day… the experiment is over (the “American experiment” in our case and a kind of cozy form of socialism in Europe’s case)… and it’s time to explore new options -- to welcome fresh blood, vigor, and new cultural offerings.  And when you add to that the spectacle that we are helpless… stupefied… paralyzed… in the face of this new wave of humanity, one really not seen in either our history of that of Europe for many generations… you get the current situation. 

And as for the argument that our Western culture is robust, and enduring, and immune to takeover by mass numbers of the unwashed -- well, all I can say is that in that respect the war is already over, and the other side has won.  By which I mean, our own cultural revolution and that of Europe -- both originating in the 1960s (when else?) -- have done their work.  The long march through the institutions has been largely accomplished, with only a few lingering holdouts (think:  “talk radio” and the Tea Party for us, and the neo-nationalistic “right-wing” political parties in Europe).  Our resistance has been weakened to the point where just about anything could have taken over -- but the Islamic influx was probably not exactly what the revolutionaries had in mind.  For them, the plan was to infiltrate and weaken “traditional” society with its history, customs, religious faith, and mores, so that the home-grown radical element could take over -- and this has, in fact, happened to a great extent if you look at our politics, domestic policies, and of course that Great Satan, political correctness.  But guess what, the elements that took over our culture and that of Europe turn out to have an Achilles heel, namely that although they have great resistance to counter-revolution from within, they have little or none to invasion from without.  They softened up the battlefield only to find that there was a powerful invading army coming in right behind them, taking advantage of much of the same rhetoric and many of the same arguments that the revolutionaries used to such great effect. 

So the argument that we somehow have built-in resistance because we’ve been here longer, and we have a history, and there are more of us than there are of them (so far) -- I call this “voodoo demographics”.  It’s the notion that there is something magical in the way things are -- the status quo -- that, all by itself, will suffice… that now that the revolution is, basically, over with, we can just sit back, relax, and be frozen in place, and not have to worry about any external threats.  (In this, the revolutionaries of the 1960s have become the real conservatives of the 2010s -- things will stay the same from here on out because Utopia has finally been gained, and it is so right, and just, that nothing can prevail against it, either from within or anywhere else.)

The Islamists, of course, have a different idea -- and they are nothing if not students of history.  They were turned back from Europe, by a hair, in the 16th and 17th Centuries, and the Ottoman Empire was dealt a death blow by World War I, and ever since then the Moslem world has been on life support owing to oil and very little else.  But hey, radicalism thrives on adversity, right?  Happy people don’t start revolutions -- and they don’t uproot themselves and take off for unknown lands by the millions unless they have a pretty good idea that, in the long run, they can better their lot -- or, alternatively, restore the Caliphate which will now include the lands they were wrongfully deprived of centuries earlier.  The shame of colonialism must be avenged! -- and, by the way, the French are as guilty as anyone else when it comes to throwing their weight around the Third World. 

The U.S., of course, is a new project for the Islamists, and there is, after all, that ocean in between… but they are over here anyway.  And don’t they call us “Franks”, which harks back to the Crusades?  Aren’t we seen as an extension of Europe, and, to add to the insult, the foremost supporters of Israel -- the ultimate thorn in their side? 

So here we sit, like the latter-day Romans… gazing over the wall at the barbarian armies, but too busy eating, drinking, and being merry to take any of it seriously.  Yes, we have our history, our traditions, and our battered faith (where it survives at all), but they have a kind of energy and determination we don’t understand -- and, perhaps, haven’t understood since the time of the Crusades, when we had the upper hand (at least for a while) and they were the helpless ones.  It’s already true that Europe, as has been pointed out, is basically a museum, with very little similarity between past glories and current decadence.  I have seen the remnants of Islamic glory in Spain; how long before all that is left of Christian glory in Europe is remnants?  And on our side of the “pond”, how long before the American Experiment succumbs to similar pressures from the lowly whose only strength is that of determination and sheer numbers?  We were overcome by a different breed of radicals, but even their days now seem to be coming to an end.  In this, we can take a certain ironic comfort.       

I Second the Emoticon

It has become a truism, a stereotype, and widely regretted – the picture of a crowd of 20- and early 30-somethings each staring at their own personal screen, of whatever size, and apparently oblivious to the world around them. They are engaged, certainly – but with a world mediated by electrons, or perhaps consisting entirely of electrons, as opposed to the here and now. And stories abound of traffic and public transportation accidents – some fatal – attributed to “texting” or some other untimely use of electronic gadgetry.

And this does, in fact, seem to be the status quo, as any stroll down a city street, or stop at a diner, or outside a public school or college, will verify. There is no denying that this is how society – at least of the youthful variety – presents itself in our time. But the question is, what does it mean? The conventional wisdom on the matter is that it represents increased isolation – egotism – me-ism... and, in a sense, is a kind of societal autism – vast hordes of people wrapped up in their own private world and blissfully ignorant of all else.

And yet, is it really about private worlds? If so, why is the technology referred to as “social media?” It seems that the folks in question are, in a sense, more connected than ever – with the entire world, in fact. Their reach exceeds their grasp, certainly... but can they really be accused of personal isolationism? We all laugh (silently, by and large) at the fat guy in his mom's basement, surrounded by mountains of pizza crusts, who spends all of his waking hours on the Internet. Well, he is physically isolated; that much is certain. And in terms of direct social contacts – the pizza delivery guy hardly counts (even assuming that he's the one who answers the doorbell, and not his mom). And yet in a sense he is reaching out to the world (even to fantasy worlds); he is engaged, he is interacting... and, perhaps most importantly in this age of anonymous violence, he is causing no harm.

Try this on for size. What would this guy have been doing 20 or 30 years ago? (And don't tell me this type didn't exist back then; they always have and they always will.) Would he have been down at the local Elks Club, enjoying brewskis with his lodge brothers? Playing poker? Coaching a Little League team? Making sandwiches at a homeless shelter? My answer is: No. He would have been just as physically isolated back then as he is now, but without even the Internet as an outlet. He would have been more passive – watching TV for hours each day – or, possibly, engaged in some solitary hobby (or for the truly brave and daring, ham radio). Would he have been happier then, or is he happier now? Who can judge? Happiness is, after all, a subjective thing, and it's, unfortunately, highly contingent on how we compare our situation with that of others. One advantage – if you will – of social isolation is that it creates a lack of any basis for comparisons of this type. And when someone retreats into their own world (or a world created by others that they have claimed a small part of) they may wind up being, and feeling, quite reinforced for that decision. They may become, as some psychiatrists have speculated, quite happy – ecstatic, even – in that world; the world the rest of us live in, and from which we derive our values, including self-valuation, scarcely exists for them.

Now, this may be an extreme case (but not by much). All I'm saying is that “social media”, while paradoxical in many ways, may not be having the isolating effect they are accused of having, by the more – shall we say – naturally extroverted media types. Extroverts -- “party animals” -- just don't get it. They will use the Internet, and social media, as tools, but as far as turning into addicts, no way – they far prefer the flesh-and-blood companionship of other human beings. And this is, in fact, the personality type that has been dominant throughout history, for millennia – ever since “history” began, and probably before. It is only in the last generation, quite literally, that we have experienced the “revenge of the nerds”, where the geeks seem to have taken over the world, or at least large portions of it – Bill Gates being the prime example and the “god above all gods” in that portion of the world where humans interact with electrons (said portion growing larger with each passing day).

And yet, there have always been species of humanity other than the dominant type, and society has generally had a way of accommodating them and using them to its advantage. Wise management indicates that people's strengths should be reinforced more than their weaknesses are punished. And you will not make loners into social butterflies by depriving them of electronic gadgetry and social media. What we are seeing, in my opinion, is actually a kind of blossoming effect, where people who had little or no way of connecting with others without experiencing extreme discomfort can now do so. (Or, as someone once said, an imaginary playmate is better than no playmate at all.) What this means is that our “shy” or “asocial” types (by traditional standards) can now venture out into broad daylight – with fear and trembling for certain, but they carry with them an indispensable tool – a crutch, perhaps, but nonetheless it constitutes a kind of umbilical cord... lifeline... “bubble”. They can venture into dark corners and be less afraid, because they have their own personal help line.

But why is this? -- because it's not obvious. Why would carrying some electronic gadget into the wild and threatening real world make one feel safer? It's not as though one can call 911 and report feelings of low self worth. What it is – it seems to me – is a kind of longing for company, and companionship, and belonging, and even affiliation (as in “I'm a member of _____”), but that longing has always been thwarted by the down side – having to deal with social ambiguities and the messiness of personal relationships and interaction. Power games, status games, people saying things they don't believe – these are all very confusing and disorienting to certain types of our fellow human beings (call them “Autism Spectrum” types or whatever, but they are who they are). (I've often felt that “hell on earth” for these folks has to be the “cocktail party”, where it's all about social dominance, status, small talk, game playing, and who can talk the loudest... and nothing even remotely genuine.)

So what is accomplished by opting for “social media” over real society? You get to sort out the good from the bad – the pluses from the minuses. You get to connect with like minds, or even soul mates, with minimal risk. (It's so much easier to exit an Internet page than to exit a party!) You get some of the satisfactions – though certainly not all – of social contact and interaction, while minimizing the damages (to yourself, and possibly to others as well).

So it seems to me that the “bottom line” of social media has to be considered on the plus side, because it does expand opportunities for vast numbers of our fellow citizens. Now, having said that, it's also true that for the, let's say, “marginal” types, who are perfectly capable of interacting in traditional ways, social media can become an easy out – a kind of handy escape route with which to avoid responsibility and to achieve emotional isolation. An emoticon is a sterile, shorthand substitute for an elaborate array of facial expressions, body language, and verbal expression – so yes, it can be for people in a hurry, but is can also be for lazy people and yes, it can be habit forming. It's a miniaturized form of emotional isolation – the ability to express a feeling, or a pseudo-feeling, or a feeling that you think other people think you ought to have but you don't. And – most importantly of all, perhaps – it protects you from feedback – from contradiction... from getting a message that your feelings might be foolish or “wrong”.

And the emoticon is just one of countless tools, appendages, and garnishes that enhance the appeal of the social media. There is also the appeal of total anonymity – available in some applications, not in others. So in a sense, these social media have created, or carved out, a new life style and a new demographic – a silent minority, if you will, who have finally found a voice. And yes, they may shape behavior in some respects – rewarding actions that are compatible with the social media world and punishing others, so that the participants become, in a sense, creatures (if not creations) of the social media. (But aren't we all creatures of technology, communications, and information to some extent? No sense picking out one group and accusing them of being any more passive than the rest of us.)

But as far as causing a major upheaval in the distribution of personality types – no. I don't believe this phenomenon can turn sociable people into isolated wallflowers, hunched over a tiny screen at a corner table in Starbucks. What it may do is expand their options – introduce more (previously unknown) levels of interaction into their lives – and how can this be bad? And it may even be a shield, of sorts, against some unpleasant realization – like, how ultimately dull and uninteresting your date is, and what on earth are you going to do for the rest of the evening? The answer is, you whip out your respective gadgets and all is well. (And we've all seen this on any number of occasions; no sense denying it.)

Any discussion of this type – where a technological revolution of some sort is met with ambivalence – has to at least include the question, would you go back? Would you be willing to wave a magic wand and make it all go away, then have to deal with the consequences? It would take a hard-core Luddite to answer this in the affirmative when it came to social media – and I, for one, am not about to do it.

Ayn Rand, Call on Line One

Who hasn't indulged in fantasies that begin with the words, “If I were president...” -- or dictator, tyrant, whatever? Who hasn't made a list of things they would do on Day One of their presidency? Well, I don't know about you, but my first order of business would be to dissolve, disband, cancel, and basically demolish the worst piles of bureaucratic do-do in Washington, and at the top of the list – and, let's face it, there is plenty of competition for the top spot – but really, can there be any doubt? The top of the list would have to be none other than HUD – the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is a child of LBJ's “Great Society” -- and, by the way, where is that Great Society nowadays? Have you seen it lately? I certainly haven't. I think it died somewhere in Detroit – or maybe Chicago, Baltimore, or even Washington itself. It was, of course, a liberal pipe dream – the notion that if you throw enough money in the general direction of a problem, that problem will go away... and the problem in question in this case was “urban blight”, “inner cities”, “decay”, and so on – all of which had powerful racial implications. The reflexive action in the glory days of “urban renewal” was that all you had to do was tear down the “ghetto”, build “projects” or subsidized housing where it stood, and... well, this was not part of the original vision, but it's the way things turned out – move all the surplus population out to suburban “developments”.   (Urban renewal always results in surplus people, simply because planned developments, even of the high-rise type, wind up holding a lot fewer people per acre than the old, ramshackle ghetto tenements.  So the surplus have to be warehoused in outlying areas.)  And to see how that all turned out, I offer four simple words: Prince George's County, Maryland.

See, the conceit at that time was that “ghetto” -- AKA “black neighborhoods” -- automatically equaled “misery”. What the liberal think-tankers and urban planners failed to see was that these neighborhoods, as scruffy and edgy as they were, were nonetheless home to coherent communities – to cultures – not of the lily-white kind, but of a kind that, in many ways, met the needs of those who lived there. Tear them down, and build sterile apartment (both low- and high-rise) developments in their place, and you not only fragment the communities and the culture, but you create something much worse in their place – you, in effect, warehouse blacks in new ghettos, which turn out to be much more violent, dysfunctional, and drug-ridden than the old ones because they totally lack psychological, cultural, and physical roots. You create what, in effect, are prisons without walls (except for psychological ones).

And there is nothing theoretical about this – it happened, time and time again, in cities across the country, and rare were the ones that managed to successfully resist the Godzilla-like rampage of the urban renewalists. The bottom line, when thinking about outfits like HUD, is: If you seek its monument, look around – in cities like Baltimore, Washington, D.C., St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, and so on. But as always in politics, the rhetoric overcame the reality, and once people realized that their birthright had been confiscated and replaced with a mess of pottage, it was too late.

This is all by way of background. Objectively, HUD is the most ill-conceived, most totally failed, wasteful, and fraud-prone of all government agencies. It has failed not only the country and the taxpayers, but the very people it was supposedly designed to serve. It has been instrumental – perhaps essential – in creating a permanent socio-economic underclass mired in poverty, drugs, and violence. It needs to be laid waste, and its mass of bureaucrats driven from the seats of power – by which I mean, throw them out of D.C. and close and lock the gates behind them. And no “bumping” -- i.e. moving into slots in other agencies based on seniority. Out! Period.

But! On rare occasions, a glimmer of wisdom emanates from even the darkest corners of the collective state. A recent “discovery” -- not that the information wasn't already there for all to see – concerns people living in subsidized housing whose income exceeds the level required to qualify for said housing. In other words, they earn too much to qualify for this particular variety of handout. And of course the initial response from HUD was to say that, well, you can't just throw people out of public housing because their household income rises above a certain point, because “evicting them could destabilize their progress toward self-sufficiency.” In other words, they might be earning decent money now, but who knows how predictable or stable that is? They might wind up back at poverty level any minute, for any number of reasons. We have to be sure that this higher income level is for real, and not just a momentary phenomenon – like, someone won a lottery or something.

Well, isn't this true of a lot of people? I mean... a person may be middle-class today, but then lose their job, or make a bad investment, or lose a lawsuit, and then they find themselves in the strange new world of poverty, and instantly qualify for subsidized housing. In which case, why not provide subsidized housing to everyone, just to insure that no one falls through the safety net? You see where this is going.

Well, as it happens, HUD reversed itself on this issue, and is now “urging public housing authorities across the country to kick out tenants who make too much money to qualify for government subsidies” -- which, I guess, means that said authorities have to get hold of everyone's tax return... or at least the returns of the ones who drive a Jaguar to work every day. (And by the way, who earns close to $500,000 a year and yet is satisfied to remain living in subsidized housing? Who are these people?)

But the point about “de-stabilizing their progress toward self-sufficiency” -- well, that's pure bureaucratic-speak. A non-liberal (a species that does not exist within the confines of HUD) would call it “punishing achievement”, and it's an interesting point. If one accepts that it's the government's job to establish, and guarantee, a certain minimal standard of living – including housing – then the question shifts to one of who should qualify. And we all know (or should) that household income is far from static – it can go up or down, quite drastically at times, depending on the various fortunes of those who contribute to it. And aside from the stability question, do we really want to punish people for doing better? This question comes up all the time in the more general discussion of welfare, of course – the notion that we not only “punish” people by forcing them to seek employment, but also punish them if they should happen to land a decently-paying job – to the point where many in the dependent class (who are not as stupid as their liberal overlords would like to think) have figured out that they're better off not working. (As usual, liberal social policy is predicated on the premise that the recipients of government – i.e., taxpayer – charity are stupid. And while this may occasionally be the case, it's much more likely that they display a steep learning curve when it comes to gaming the system. If there are any “chumps” in our society, it's not ghetto dwellers, but wage earners who persist in voting for politicians who intend to squeeze as much cash out of them as possible and turn it over to someone else.)

Let me tell you a little story that has some bearing on the matter. During my time with the feds, there was a program by which a minority- or woman-owned business would receive preferential treatment when it came to contracting. It was not so much a matter of lowering standards as of eliminating, or reducing, some of the bureaucratic red tape that characterizes the government contracting process – identify a bidder as minority- or woman-owned, and you wound up on a fast track. “Other things being equal”, they would land a contract more readily than other bidders – and, of course, there were plenty of ways to game the system, but that's not the point I want to make.

In one particular case, we starting using a woman-owned business for certain types of support functions; they were a new outfit, and no one knew at the time whether they would work out. (They were, in fact, one of those proverbial “kitchen table” outfits started and staffed, at least partly, by housewives.) Well, as it turned out, they were very good at what they did – so good, in fact, that we kept renewing and expanding their contract year after year, until... and this is where the self-defeating nature of the bureaucracy comes in. Because of the terms of the contract, they became too successful – too big, too stable, too much cash flow. It was no longer enough to be woman-owned; they had passed the milestone at which that no longer mattered. So from then on they had to compete on an equal footing with everyone else – which would still have been OK, because they were very good. But, lo and behold, along came a new cohort of minority- and woman-owned businesses, all hungry, all anxious to establish a spot at the government trough, and guess what, the formerly-disadvantaged outfit started to lose bids to the new, still-needy ones – and some of those were, quite frankly, wildly incompetent and staffed by idiots. (It was at this point that we realized how really lucky we had been with the first outfit.) So, basically, we had to start accepting sub-standard work in the name of compassion – and this, I would say, typifies government operations at all levels. (And one might say, well, but isn't every government program a jobs program, after all? And where does quality of work fit into that? The answer is, it doesn't. But on any given day it's more pleasant to be working with competent people than with clueless ones.  And it's more satisfying to turn out, or at least oversee, a good product than a mess.  But this would be -- I hasten to add -- an atypical attitude among the bureaucracy.)  

So you see, preferences... set-asides... quotas... etc.... giveth and they taketh away. And quality of work is no object. As I've said before, every government program is a jobs program – no exceptions! But within that iron rule, some people wind up more qualified for jobs than others, and it has very little to do with experience, competence, or anything else other than being in the right place at the right time (and the right gender, race, ethnic group, and size – and, soon, sexual preference).

So to get back to HUD – I actually understand their point about not punishing achievement, even though they'll never call it that. Someone down there on 7^th Street SW has a brain that functions to the extent of questioning why people should be rewarded for non-activity but punished for self-improvement. And yet, overall, the government juggernaut, which is designed to provide jobs, will be scantly swayed by this rare insight.

Don't Bend With the Wind, ** Be ** the Wind!

While making my annual visit to my college alma mater (which shall remain nameless, to protect innocent and guilty alike), and wandering around the bucolic and eerily quiet (in anticipation of the barbarian hordes about to descend the following week) campus, I had to reflect on a subset – if you will – of the “do history make men or do men make history?” question which I've dealt with extensively in previous posts. This particular subset is of the collective type, and it refers to a specific college in the American Midwest – an area known to be a rich substrate for populism (good) or the “tea party” (bad – according to the mainstream media). (I've also dealt recently with the varieties of populism, so won't repeat myself on that issue.) This school in particular prides itself on being, not just a “trend setter” -- because that sounds, and is, a bit on the superficial and ephemeral side – but in the socio-political vanguard – not just at present, but historically, going back to before the Civil War. (How many small towns have a half dozen Underground Railroad historical sites?) Yes, the narrative – I might say the conceit – is that this particular place has been first and foremost in virtually every significant historical event, movement, process, or phenomenon for over 180 years – with the stipulation that, of course, “significant” is synonymous with “progressive”, “liberal”, “socialist”, “collectivist”, “totalitarian” -- well OK, those last two are implied but not often made specific. It is a place of “gentle persuasion” -- up to a point, beyond which it can descend into a gloves-off hotbed of protest, rallies, and sign-carrying – most of which is open to question, since they are “preaching to the choir” as long as their efforts remain campus-bound.

So yes, this small school in a small town in the Midwest turns out to be the axis mundi – the birthplace... the crucible... the fountainhead... of all that is good, pure, true, and enlightened – by comparison to which all other places must be found wanting. And this virtue is not one of mere assent, oh no! It is the virtue of creativity... of origination... of being indispensable in history. If it were not for this place – or so the myth goes – so much of what we call “progress” would never have occurred, and we would still be mired in the darkness of medievalism, superstition, and countless other political and thought crimes.

Well, that's quite a claim, I must say – and, I hasten to add, it's never made explicit in quite this way, but is strongly implied, to an overwhelming extent, in all “mission statements”, “visions”, and particularly in historical narratives – not to mention the selective memories of both students and faculty. It is, in short, inescapable, whether one is a student there or just passing through (and I have done both). So the question inevitably arises – well, is it true or not? Can something this small exert that much power and influence? And if so, why doesn't it get more credit in the media, and among mainstream historians and political scientists? They have no problem giving Harvard credit for pretty much everything that has ever happened, but this place seldom merits more than a footnote. Is that fair? Or does it reflect reality?

And I'm not even going to try and answer that question. I'd prefer to concentrate on a more grass-roots perspective, as a former student and current observer. What an institution – of any sort – claims, and what its members actually do from day to day, may not always seem to match. My observation as a student was that the other students were being blown about by various political whirlwinds, which made it seem (to them, at least) as if they were “activists” -- i.e. “doing something” -- whereas they were, basically, quite passive and reactive. Not only passive, but, in many cases, infantile. By which I mean rigid, impulsive, dogmatic, and prone to tantrums. Surely this can't have been a hotbed of creativity! When the average emotional age is pre-kindergarten, you're not going to get much more than a herd of intelligent, but brainless, baa-ing sheep – and that's exactly what I saw on a daily basis back then.

But then, where did their political convictions – held with incandescent fervor – come from? Their parents? Doesn't seem likely, especially given the “generation gap” of that era. High school teachers? Maybe, if they had attended one of those “red diaper baby” schools in the New York City area. From books? Mmmmmaybe. (But this assumes they were already well-read when they entered, and I saw scant evidence of that.) Whatever the reason, these characters hit campus on Day One of freshman year already loaded for bear – primed for political activism – thoroughly indoctrinated in the wisdom of Marx, Engels, and Chairman Mao (and probably Stalin too, but it would have been a bit awkward to admit it). They were already fully-formed community organizers, activists, propagandists... really a marvel to behold. But were they creative? Did they have any original ideas? No. They were, basically, political cannon fodder -- “useful idiots” as the saying goes. But did this deter them? Not a bit. They imagined themselves up there on the ramparts, waving a red flag, staring the fascists in the face. (And we have to remember that, not even 20 years after the end of World War II, in which capitalist America had defeated fascist Germany and Italy, fascism and capitalism had conceptually merged in these pea-brains, and become, for all intents and purposes, the same thing.)

I should add, as a sidebar, that although “political correctness” had not yet been so named, it was already standard operating procedure there back in the mid-60s, with any speech that didn't line up properly with Marxist theory being promptly shouted down. This much, at least, has changed very little.

What has changed is the subject matter, or orientation, of the infantile tantrums. And it comes as the latest point in a very long trajectory. In the early days (far before my time), the causes were just even if there has been some self-serving historical revisionism since. Eventually, abolition, racial equality and women's equality morphed into broader progressive causes, which, again, at least had some philosophical and moral validity, not to mention political momentum. In my day (said in a creaky voice punctuated by weak coughing) it was all about the war in Vietnam, the draft, and profiteering – nothing creative or unique about that, but the validity question was never in doubt.

(I would say, regarding the previous discussion, that the causes were better then the people promoting them. It's not that the war in Vietnam wasn't illegal, unjust, and immoral – because it was all of these. It's that the people objecting to it were offering Maoism as a realistic and viable alternative. They still saw the Soviet Union as the shining city on a hill.)

So... what is the issue of the day that has everyone tied in knots and in a state of high hysteria around campus? Why, it's none other than “micro-aggression”, and “triggers”. I've referred, in a previous post, to the fact that our campuses these days are full of pathetic creatures oozing around like eggs with no shells, just waiting to be stepped on or offended in some way. And the rule – conceptually similar to witch hunts – is there is no word, phrase, or action, no matter how apparently harmless or well-intended, that is off limits when it comes to some sad, sick soul reacting to it as if they'd been splashed with burning pitch. Things have gotten to the point where, to quote a recent article by Walter Williams of George Mason University, “30 students and the campus therapy dog [paid, undoubtedly, in “fair trade” wages] retired to a 'safe room' with soft music, crayons and coloring books to escape any uncomfortable facts raised by (a speaker sponsored by the Young Republicans – yes, they do exist there, and I imagine they could all fit into a Smart Car).”

I'm sorry, but students were made of sterner stuff in my day. Yes, they may have been delusional and easily swayed by demagogues, but at least they weren't afraid of their own shadows. Political correctness was in vogue, but the response to “offensive speech” was typically to shout back with something equally offensive, not to curl up in ball on the floor, piteously whimpering.

And what is the response of the powers-that-be on campus to all this? Well, it should be to scrape these people off the floor and send them back home to mama. But no – that would never do. We have to not only “understand” and “accept”, but accommodate – up to and including the providing of special rooms to which the victims can repair in order to recover and heal from the trauma of hearing or seeing something they don't like (including, by the way, things that are part of the curriculum of classes they signed up for). (I hope that, at least, this group doesn't include any political science majors. If so, their career in politics is already over.)

It's tempting to say that this latest (and possibly terminal) madness is the reductio ad absurdum of a long history of liberalism... a final stage of decay. It's true enough that we are seeing the triumph of pure feeling – and not just the emotional will of the majority (nothing new about that) but the pathology of a small minority, which now reigns supreme. And again, it's relevant to ask where this all came from. Were they like that in high school? (Maybe they're suffering from PTSD based on bullying.) Or if not, how soon after they arrived on campus were they infected with this virus – and by whom or what? I suspect (witch hunts again) that it has a lot to do with mass hysteria – the way an idea, or meme, or a way of reacting, spreads through a group for no apparent reason. This is, after all, the basis for many events, both large and small, throughout history, so it can't be discounted. A college campus in a small town is a bit isolated, like the Salem of old... and yet we find this same issue everywhere, including plenty of much larger schools in large cities.

So, again, I say – it's all well and good to be in the vanguard if the cause is just, but that also implies some level of judgment and discernment – and independence of thought. What we're seeing here is certainly a sign of the times, but it has nothing to do with objectivity and everything to do with passivity and fear. It may not be a logical milestone in the decline of liberalism as much as a milestone in the decline of strength of character and common sense. And I would add that what we are seeing is not so much trend setting as a symptom of a larger, society-wide pathology. One has to ask – is this the same society that defeated the Third Reich, and that stared down the Soviet Union? Could anything like this happen today? We're having enough trouble with Iran.

Again, it's the old, weary cycle of history, in which what seem to be trivial weaknesses rise up and become dominant. Even if we allow that America has greatly sinned on the world stage, it is troubling to see things deteriorating in this way. But has any empire handled its decline and fall with dignity? We actually – and ironically – have Russia as an example, and they came out of the Soviet era about as well as anyone could have expected – and better in many ways. Will we have the historical perspective to do likewise, or will we be fighting down to the last man, like the Japanese soldiers who hid out on Pacific islands for decades after V-J Day? Time – as they say – will tell.