Monday’s Mtg (5/14/18): Status anxiety as a social and political force.

This is one of those topics that has no particular design or agenda lurking behind it. It was spurred by all of those studies and surveys that show that many Trump voters were motivated by anger at losing economic and/or social status in a 21st century economy an culture that (allegedly) devalues people like them. But, there are a number of different ways our discussion could go.

We could talk about the role that social status and social rank play in psychology and society. We could discuss the purported recent rise in generalized anxiety in the United States and try to relate it to social status concerns, especially those of Trump voters. We could even get into the role anxiety plays in say, adolescence, or examine anxiety disorders, like agoraphobia and PTSD.

Maybe some of you know something about these or other aspects of social status that are non-political. I don’t.  So after some reading (including the ones below) I will turn what I learn into a short introduction to open our meeting.

Also, I added some new meetings from our schedule to the Meet-up site. The dates for two meetings in June have been switched to accommodate someone who knows a lot about one of the topics and really wants to be there. The new order is:

  • June 18th – Brinksmanship as a foreign policy tool.
  • June 25th – Power and privacy in an age of Big Data corporations.

Trump’s meeting with North Korea’s leader is supposed to happen on June 12th, so that works out well. Revised hard copies will be available Monday.

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Basics –

Is status anxiety on the rise?

Trump voters –

  • Loss of social status was their main motivator. Or was it?
  • Yeah it was, albeit in a complex way that deserves some sympathy. Recommended.
  • Unfairness: It was his voters’ sense of the unfair way their security and status were taken from them that was the motivator.  Long but a great read.

NEXT WEEK: Do the genders really communicate differently?

Advertisements

Monday’s Mtg (5/7/18): What does American conservatism stand for now?

Is this the future of political conservatism in America: Right-wing? For the moment, President Trump has made the Republican Party and the movement conservatism that dominates it anti-immigrant, openly corrupt, contemptuous of governing norms and legal restraints, and oddly schizophrenic on foreign policy.

Our questions for this week are two.  How real is all of this; i.e., has Trumpism taken over the conservative movement in substance or mainly in style? And how lasting will it prove?  Is Trump transforming U.S. conservatism or has he just borrowed it for a while?  To do this we will need to look at both what conservatism in America has been and what the Trumpists are trying to make it become.

Traditionally of course, American conservatism has been described as a coalition of interest groups and voters with a range of substantive needs and philosophical and ideological beliefs. Among these were the Religious Right and other culture warriors, big business, supply side-loving ideological elites, libertarian voters, and a mix of small town working class and upscale Whites. Over the last two decades several other major players have joined the conservative movement, notably the right-wing infotainment complex of talk radio, Fox News, and internet; and billionaire dark money donors like the Koch Brothers.

YMMV, but I found these distinctions less and less useful for understanding the conservative movement even before Trump. There is almost a universal consensus that in the last 20 years American conservative has grown increasingly united and ideological.  I think it is largely because of the growing dominance of those last two groups above, but there are other possible reasons.

So, maybe on Monday we could begin by trying to look at today’s conservatism (and thus tomorrow’s too) from some perspectives that might be more illuminating than just interest groups and ideology. Specifically:

  1. Psychological type and world view.
  2. Status in society, cultural as well as economic.
    –>  FYI, we can save some of this for next Monday’s mtg on status anxiety.
  3. Philosophy and ideology.
  4. Policy preferences.

This may seem like a tall order. But, as with progressives the Venn diagram of these four groups overlap quite a bit and, IMO, does a lot to explain the direction conservatism seems to be moving in. Of course, we must be careful not to reduce conservatism (or any other political belief) to a mere byproduct of its adherents’ cognitive makeup. Yet, I hope that thinking about conservatism in this way (political beliefs flow from cultural beliefs and worldviews as much as from material interests) will help us to shed more light than shadow on this topic.

This will be a busy, vibrant meeting. Thank you in advance for your self-restraint and empathy for your humble moderator. Mr. Humble will start the meeting with a short introduction that explains some of these different ways of thinking about what American conservatism is and what it “stands for.”

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Yesterday’s conservatism –

Today’s conservatism –

Tomorrow’s conservatism –

NEXT WEEK: Status anxiety as a social and political force.

Monday’s Mtg (4/30/18): Should the United States promote democracy abroad?

A discussion on the benefits of the United States nurturing democracy in other countries may seem a bit quaint. Democracy promotion has lost much of its luster in the 25+ years since the fall of communism. As we have discussed, the last ten years has seen backsliding on democracy and the rule of law in a number of countries, including in the former USSR, eastern Europe, and Latin America.

And now, we have a president who is an avowed opponent of promoting democracy abroad and openly admires a number of authoritarian foreign leaders. With other wealthy democracies turning inwards and/or experiencing their own domestic crises of faith in liberal democracy, at the very least democracy promotion will lack global leadership for the rest of this decade.

So, what? Beyond being kind of noble, is the cause of spreading liberal democracy also practical and in the American interest? If so, how can it be made more effective, especially in bang-for-the-buck terms, since not much money is devoted to it?

We have discussed these issues before, most recently in 2016. Here are a few other optional background readings. See you Monday.

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Should we promote democracy Y/N?

Has Trump abandoned democracy promotion?

How to promote democracy

NEXT WEEK: U.S. conservatism: What does it stand for now?

Monday’s Mtg (4/22/18): Is the rule of law under serious assault in the United States?

How screwed are we? The Trump Administration’s open corruption and contempt for any person or institution, public or private, that challenges its power goes on apace. Republican Party leaders either stay silent or collaborate.Yet, does the Trump Administration really pose a serious threat to American democracy itself?  Is the rule of law here really so fragile that it can be toppled by one president and his enablers?

The answer will depend, obviously, on what is meant precisely by the “rule of law” and how strong the institutions and people that sustain it really are.  Oh, boy.

I will open our meeting on Monday with a brief soliloquy on what the term can mean and the role that different institution play in maintaining it. Then, we can debate how corrosive Trump’s actions and rhetoric have been, why he’s getting away with it (and is cheered for doing it!), and prospects for unwinding the damage, if any, in the future.

To preview what the topic is trying to get at, consider the words of one legal scholar:

…it is a mistake to focus on [Trump himself] rather than on the institutions that give rise to the rule of law. Leaders with authoritarian personality traits are common, but authoritarian governments exist only when surrounding institutions enable them to express their authoritarian impulses and do not throw up barriers to restrain them…As long as our legal and political institutions remain resilient, we need not worry about Trump becoming an authoritarian leader. And these institutions, ultimately, are made up of the beliefs, attitudes, commitments, and practices of the people who hold official positions.

Of course, in the long run the rule of law in a republic is sustained by a supportive public. Citizens must believe that the law and the political system that creates and enforces the law work for them.  See the last two discussion questions, below, for some reasons to worry about that, too.  If the tide of anger that Trump rode to the oval office never ebbs and is forever ignored by elites, it is hard to see a fully-democratic, non-authoritarian American future.

Lots of detailed links this week. Except for the recommended ones maybe consider them mainly as a reference source for the future.  Thank you in advance for being so civilized during this one.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

  1. Context:
    1. What is the “rule of law?” Why is it important + how relates to democracy? Which institutions and people are supposed to protect RoL – Congress, courts, political parties, news media, etc.? How important are norms?
    2. Did we have genuine rule of law before Trump? What/who was missing?
    3. How fragile is rule of law – lessons from U.S. history and abroad?
  2. Trump: How damaging have his actions + rhetoric really been to rule of law so far? How so? Evidence? Worst vs. overblown damage?
  3. Enablers – GOP: Why is the party of Lincoln supporting this?
    1. Practical/cynical: Electoral calculations, fear of GOP base, fear of Fox News conservative media, etc.
    2. They are authoritarians themselves.
  4. Enablers – Others:
    1. Democrats (centrists or left-wing)? Mainstream media? Social media? Passive voters? Angry voters – why?
    2. Events: 9/11, Great Recession, Electoral College, Russian bots?
  5. Future I: How bad will it get + how easily reversed?
    1. Trump era – Before 11/18, if Dems win in November, next 3 (!) years.
    2. After Trump: Will lawlessness and authoritarianism be a hallmark of the Party going forward? Will Dems follow?
  6. Future II: If economic/cultural anxiety persist or worsen (AI/robots, gig economy, rising inequality, rural decline) how can rule of law be…
    1. Sustained (or restored).
    2. Consistent with both liberty and social justice?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Trump and the rule of law –

Less alarmed POVs –

  • So far Trump’s efforts to undermine rule of law have been thwarted. We will survive this presidency, says Joe Scarborough.

NEXT WEEK: Do/should the USA support democracy worldwide?

Monday’s Mtg (4/16/18): Does a good life need to have a purpose?

Next Monday’s topic will be a welcome breather before we tackle some much darker stuff the next week and in early May. The latter will explore the most urgent and important issue in American public affairs in a generation, IMO: How serious is the Trump Administration’s assault on our country’s democratic institutions and rule of law, and will the Republican Party’s current acquiescence to and collaboration with authoritarianism survive his presidency? Told you we’d need a breather, and thanks to Gale for suggesting this interesting one.

She asks: Does a good life need to have a “purpose?” What does that even mean, for starters?  What kind of a purpose can a life be directed towards? Service and altruism? Fighting injustice? Finding love and nurturing close family relationships? Money and material acquisition? Social status and approval? Spreading Gospel’s good word and God’s plan?

How many of us have ever had a single purpose or goal that we used to drive our life choices? Where did we get the notion from? Is being highly purpose-driven a function of personality type or upbringing? Does it come from religious faith or personal philosophy? From our educations and/or personal experiences?

How many people do this sort of thing? We all know of famous people that were driven to have their life turn out a certain way and they succeeded, like Bill Gates, LeBron James, and so on. Are they the exceptions? How do most highly goal-directed people react to disappointment? When should they (and you) give up their dreams? There are many other good questions.

Do we have any answers? I think some of us in CivCon underestimate how good our discussions are in some of our more personal topics. So, I’m looking forward to Monday’s meeting. April 23 is our can democracy survive meeting, so let’s enjoy this one! Here’s a few light reading suggestions this week.

(GALE: Would you like to start us off by describing what you had in mind?)

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

NEXT WEEK: Is the rule of law under serious assault in the USA?

Monday’s Mtg (4/9/18): Are Atheists Intolerant?

That atheists are among the most despised and least trusted Americans is common knowledge. (Some statistics here) Most atheists and some secular people see this as simple bigotry. More generously, it could be viewed as a failure of imagination, an inability to grasp that secular values not revealed to us by a supreme being can be moral and decent too.

But, is it possible that atheists themselves contribute to the intolerant climate by being intolerant themselves? Do prominent “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others speak for all American atheists in their open contempt for religious faith? If not, what do most regular atheists and/or agnostics really think about religion and the (vast majority of) people in the world that practice it?

Perhaps the answer depends in part on what it means to be “intolerant.” How are atheists intolerance – through which words and actions?  And, what is its origin nd to whom or what is it directed?

Sounds like good wholesome fun. Here are some discussion questions that might stimulate your thinking and some (highly optional this week) readings. Our religion topics usually attract curious new members. So, let’s make sure to stay Civilized on Monday – as we almost always are.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

  1. “Atheists are intolerant” means…
    1. How? Contempt, mockery, acting superior, merely disagreeing with and refusing to bow to religion’s superiority?
    2. Towards what/whom? Of organized religion? The idea of faith itself? Of revealed truth? Miracles? An afterlife? Non-material causes? Fundamentalism and biblical inerrancy? Politicized religion?
  2. Are atheists really this way? Which ones?
  3. Why?  Do atheists have good reasons to be angry at religion? Are atheists persecuted, persecutors, or both?
  4. Discuss this comment: “The accusation of the strident atheist is similar to the “angry black man” trope in that it is designed to get people to shut up and disenfranchise people who are saying things that the accuser does not like.”
  5. Discuss this comment: “If religion is responsible for that which it seems to inspire [evil, violence], one must take the good [it also inspires] with the bad; if it’s just an excuse we lay on top of our actions, then moral indignation at religion’s harms are unfounded.”

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Non-religious and atheist Americans –

Are atheists intolerant?

NEXT WEEK: Does a good life need to have a purpose?

Monday’s Mtg: Will technology make war too easy?

A technological revolution is coming to…everything, obviously, including warfare. We aren’t talking just about smart bombs and armed drones anymore. The future might bring us automated battles fought by robots with artificial intelligence, swarms of micro-drones that can replicate themselves, self-guided bullets, non-lethal weapons (that can be used on political protestors, BTW), particle beam rifles, gene-spliced bioweapons, and other armaments beyond our imagination.

This stuff is so important that in the next two month we will have three topics related to it. First up on Monday is the basics. We will learn about some of the wilder military technologies that are being developed to the extent we can know about such secret stuff; how their availability and employment could change how we get into/avoid wars, fight them, and finish them; and some of the broad ramifications for national defense, international relations, and our safety.

On May 28 we will consider the future of nuclear deterrence in particular, as suggested by James, focusing on whether nuclear war is going to remain as unthinkable as it is today. Finally, on June 18th we bring it all together and also tackle President Trump’ specialty: Brinksmanship and threatening war as a routine tool of negotiating.

Here are the usual discussion questions and optional readings. The reading focus on future gee-wiz weaponry under development and possible implications for war and peace. As you read, think about our basic topic question: Is war about to become too easy to wage? In my opening remarks I will list some of the technologies and some hopefully useful ways to think about some of these dilemmas.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

  1. History: How has the world dealt with military technological revolutions in the past? E.g., nuclear weapons, chemical/biological, and earlier? Lessons learned?
  2. Future war: Which technologies are at issue and how could they make wars easier to start and harder to deter and end? Easier/harder for whom – USA/allies, adversary nations, terrorists and criminals)? What will “war” mean in 20-30 years?
  3. Implications: Tradeoffs (esp. reducing costs of war vs. lowering its threshold). Implications for deterrence and diplomacy? Ethics/morality.
  4. Uncertainty: What is the danger of us thinking future wars will be easier and being proven wrong, or vice versa?
  5. Options: What’s best – Develop capability, arms races, arms control, alliances, prepare the public to live with uncertainty?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

  • Key point: Technological advances never made war unthinkable in the past.

New technologies –

War becoming too easy?

No, war will never be easy –

NEXT WEEK: Do atheists tend to be intolerant?

Monday’s Mtg (3/26/18): Do we need another Eisenhower?

People have been pining for “another Eisenhower” off and on for decades. As with most historical analogies, the desire for another Eisenhower probably says more about the political views of those pining away for him than it does about our current problems and the type of political leadership that could address them.

Wanting an Ike-like president can mean one or more of several different things, I suppose. It can mean a desire to revive an extinct species: Moderate Republicans, along with a leader that can make the GOP accept the Great Society and its extensions the way Eisenhower accepted the New Deal. Or, maybe it reflects a yearning for a return of the bipartisan consensus politics of the 1950s and a politics of decency and civility. Or, maybe some folks just like the idea of a successful military leader who can knock a few heads together in Washington. a.

Obviously, Eisenhower’s presidency and 1950s politics and culture were not as rosy as some folk think they were. The 1950s were before civil rights revolution was completed and before equal rights for women and LGBT folks were even on the table. The Cold War was at its most dangerous heights. Moreover, unless you have a “great man” view of history, it is not very enlightening to compare one president’s managerial and personal style and to another’s.

However, I think it could be useful to examine two things. First, we can explore how the social and political structures of the Eisenhower era shaped political decisions and constrained the choices that could be made.

Yes, President Trump seems to make decisions more based on the last thing he saw on TV and desires for vengeance against enemies (real and imagined) than on the normal factors that shape presidential behavior. Still, no presidency is about one person even if this one thinks it is. Comparing today’s political and social climate to the one that Eisenhower and other political leaders of the era faced might be instructive for today – and tomorrow, assuming someday American politics returns from the ledge it has crawled out on.

Second, we could discuss the whole idea of consensus-based politics. Is bipartisanship and cooperation even possible anymore, or desirable? Our nation’s politics are so polarized, its problems are so daunting, and its international position so rapidly-weakening that perhaps a return to the kind of cautious incrementalism that consensus politics usually requires may not make much sense anymore. In my opening summary on Monday I will explain this POV a bit more and introduce some possible historical parallels that might make the Eisenhower presidency relevant to our current crisis.

We probably should get into foreign policy a fair amount, too. Yesterday, Trump picked uber-hawk John Bolton to be his national security advisor. An Islamophobic fringe figure who has repeatedly called for war with Iran and North Korea will control the flow of foreign policy information to our knowledge-challenged president. I cannot imagine a better time to talk about Eisenhower, a fervent Cold Warrior president that was also known to exercise “strategic restraint” and left office warning about the over-militarization of foreign policy.

This week’s optional readings include backgrounders on Eisenhower’s presidency and some comparisons of Ike to Trump and Obama. WWID: What would Ike do? Let’s figure it out Monday.

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

His presidency –

Some specifics –

Comparisons –

 

NEXT WEEK: Will technology make war too easy?

Monday’s Mtg (3/19/18): Will Americans really allow mass deportations?

We last considered the politics of our immigration debate in 2015. At that time, comprehensive immigration reform still seemed possible, even though the anti-immigrant wing of the Republican Party had blown up such legislation twice in the last 10 years.

Obama was still president, too. So, the meeting focused on the main bipartisan bargain that had long been in play. Both sides wanted to reform America’s cumbersome legal immigration system and partially reorient it towards admitting higher-skilled labor. For undocumented/illegal immigrants, long story short, Democrats and Republican elites wanted to trade regulation in the UI labor market (green cards for almost UIs currently here coupled with a path to citizenship for some of them) for increased border security and better employer sanctions.

Ahem. Fourteen months into the most anti-immigrant presidency in a hundred years everything has changed. President Trump has attempted to ban immigration from certain Muslim countries and build a border wall. He has unleashed ICE on all undocumented immigrants indiscriminately. He threatens and denounces sanctuary cities and vows to hold DREAMERS hostage to a reduction in legal immigration. He demonizes immigrants as criminals and animals. (Excuse me, some immigrants). Some of these actions have been stopped or stalled by the courts, but others are being implemented and more is surely to come.

It seems like a good time to revisit what the public has a stomach for.

On Monday I will open our meeting with a quick overview of (1) Trump’s actions and proposed actions, (2) how the GOP’s immigration stance is changing under Trump’s control, and (3) whose public opinion could end up mattering the most here (e.g., GOP base vs. its big business wing vs. Democratic voters and independents, etc..) We can then discuss where the country might be heading and why, using the following discussion questions and/or your own.

The background articles go into more detail on all of these matters. Focus on the recommended ones.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

  1. What are the main pillars of the Trump Administration’s immigration policy: Laws, executive actions, threats, rhetoric? Where does any litigation stand?
  2. Where is all of this coming from? Trump and his inner circle? The GOP base? Is the entire GOP and its media machine on-board?
  3. Democrat: Are they united against all of this?   All of it equally?
  4. Public opinion on legal and illegal immigration. Conserv/GOP vs. liberal/Dem differences? Preference vs. intensity of preference. à Whose opinion matters the most: In between elections vs. during campaigns.
  5. Will the Democrats be able to either stop some of this agenda or win in 2018 and reverse it?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Trump policies –

Public opinion –

The GOP’s big shift –

Another POV –

  • Too much immigration might be a bad thing.
  • Democrats have moved too far left on immigration.

NEXT WEEK: Do we need another Eisenhower?

Monday’s Mtg: #MeToo – What does sexual harassment mean now?

This is an overdue topic. As everybody knows, in 2017-18 dozens of high-profile American men were accused of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. We all know the big names: Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Kevin Spacey, comedians Aziz Ansari and Louie C.K., journalist Mark Halperin, and even former President George H.W. Bush. A new social movement arose out of it all – the #MeToo phenomenon – as thousands of women were moved to share their personal stories. We’ve seen the Oscar speeches and saw/read endless opinion pieces on #MeToo. And, if surveys are any guide, some of us probably have direct personal experience with sexual harassment or assault.

But, what if anything has really changed? Are we at a cultural inflection point on sexual harassment and misconduct, or have we just cleaned house in some industries that get a lot of media attention (entertainment, politics news media)? A backlash against #MeToo has sprung up. Do these critics have a point, or are they just revanchist? What turns a moment into a movement? What turns a movement into permanent social change?

Public opinion, for one thing. On cultural change, it’s the whole ball game in the long-run. So, I thought Civilized Conversation could talk about what sexual harassment means now in the workplace and in our personal lives. Our group will never win any awards for its diversity. But, the differences we do have on gender, age, and experience will make for an interesting discussion.

Here are some optional background readings. Thanks to Scott for finding the ones on public opinion and to Gale for suggesting we use the Aziz Ansari incident as case study.

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

What and how much –

Case study: Aziz Ansari incident –

What Americans think about –

Critiques of / future of #MeToo –

NEXT WEEK: Deportation nation: Will Americans really let millions be ejected?