The End of Our Civilization

 

I recently heard an interview with Eric Utne, founder of the magazine The Utne Reader, where he expressed a viewpoint I would call “civilization existentialism.” His position is a recognition that civilizations have lifespans just as any living thing. Every civilization will eventually face a challenge that it is unable to overcome that causes its end.

Utne discussed the idea because he felt our current civilization is in its twilight years. If we consider what caused other civilizations to end - overuse of resources and changes in the environment both natural and man caused – it's not too difficult to see how we are facing the same challenges.

What is frustrating about the situation is how this impending doom can be avoided if enough people are willing to make changes to their lifestyle. We can slow global warming/climate change if a majority of people converted to a mostly vegetarian, better yet, vegan, diet to curb the amount of greenhouse gases produced in animal agriculture. Ocean acidification and dead zones can also be reversed with similar changes in lifestyle currently caused by farm waste running off into our rivers and creeks and ultimately the ocean. We can limit the plastic debris in the ocean by using less plastic packaging and forgoing bottled water when the water coming from the tap isn't much different. We can burn fewer fossil fuels if more office workers were allowed to work at home, which the pandemic has shown is more possible than executives had been willing to admit previously, or if more people were willing and able to live near their work that commuting by vehicle was less necessary.

Yet, the pandemic has revealed that these changes will not happen at the scale they would need to for us to prevent a collapse. People's response to COVID-19, a clear and obvious killer with fairly simple safety measures to limit its spread, has shown that no amount of evidence is going to get enough people to change their ways, even temporarily. Here in the U.S., the unwillingness to adapt to circumstances has led to 240,000 deaths as of the time of writing and each day brings a new milestone for the number of new infections. A recent study using anonymous cell phone data suggested that the most common places the virus is spreading are the bars, restaurants, places of worship, and gyms that health experts have argued should be closed because of the high traffic leading to passing on the infection. People are simply unwilling to forgo these activities in order to keep themselves and community members save. Addressing the overuse of the Earth's resources will take more than temporary changes in behavior and those changes are more extensive. If people aren't willing to change during this pandemic, they aren't going to for climate change or other threats to our global civilization. So our civilization will come to an end, despite the fact that the causes are known and reversible. Too many people are either in denial of the extent of the threat or are unbothered by it.

The positive side of Utne's position was a lack of despair. Just as Camus argued against suicide in “The Myth of Sisyphus,” Utne suggests we can still live our lives with love and compassion. We can continue to act to try and prevent the collapse, even if we know it is doomed to fail just like Sisypus's rolling of the rock up the hill with no hope it would stay. There may not be hope, but there can still be joy and meaning.

Thoughts on working a polling location and the election – Nov. 3rd 2020

It's been a while since I've written anything here. I've been struggling with motivation, but I'm trying to work through that. I thought a good place to start would be to recount my experience working as a polling clerk in suburban Georgia. 

  1. Elections are run mostly by women 

     I hadn't thought about it much prior to this experience, but in hindsight I believe this is true. Our polling location had ten people working it. Of those ten, seven were women. Thinking back to my previous trips to the polls, most have been staffed by a majority of women. The training course I took prior to election day was ran by four people, three of them women. 75% of the attendees of that course were women. 

     There are a few cultural reasons that I think can explain this, such as the fact that only 56.8% of women 16 and older are part of the work force compared to 69.2% of men the same ages (numbers from Department of Labor for 2016) or that those who are employed are more likely to be part-time staff than their male counterparts potentially giving them the flexibility to become engaged in election activities. I assume this applies to campaign work as well given most of that work is done by volunteers. Yet, most of the candidates themselves are men. That is changing, and I hope our country continues to disrupt our gender divides. Though, this pandemic has worsened that divide as women have been far more likely to voluntarily leave work in order to care for children stuck at home rather than attending school or to have been employed in industries that have had the most layoffs (source). 

     Whatever the case may be, we men need to be doing our fair share of the work. Too often we benefit from the labor of women without participating in it. Whether these tasks are associated with household upkeep or managing social opportunities or the election process, we need to step up and do our share of that work. 

 2. The diversity of my county was very apparent

     I live in one of the most racially diverse counties in the state of Georgia. We had 425 people cast ballots on voting machines while 11 people filled out paper provisional ballots. There was a good number of people who came to vote but were in the wrong location and left for the correct one as well. 

     The diversity of this county was in full display among this group of people. Not merely in racial makeup, but gender and age as well. It was nice to see given narratives I've heard of how certain demographics take voting more seriously. I also appreciated seeing a few people vote for the first time, either by reaching the legal age or after having naturalized. 

     My understanding is that turnout across the country was up. I hope that trend continues. The heart of democracy is the people's voice. Voting is perhaps the easiest way of having your say in our government, so I hope people continue to engage in it and find others to do the same. 

3. Provisional ballots are awkward 

     I mentioned 11 people at my location cast provisional ballots. Most of these were people that were at the wrong location but preferred to still cast their ballot with us. According to this info sheet from the Georgia Secretary of State, these votes will count as long as the voter is found in the list of registered voters for the qualifying period associated with the election in question, regardless of which precinct the voter is associated with. The exception is if they cast a vote for a position that was not tied to their actual precinct or district and they were not eligible to vote in that race. I'm happy to see this means those ballots would still count for the nation and state wide positions and amendments, which is what most people were concerned with, but may have prevented their voice from being heard in more local races or the U.S. House race. 

     Aside from concerns on how these ballots are processed, I think more needs to be done in preparing poll officials on what a provisional ballot is and how best to interact with voters concerning them. I was tasked with working the provisional table and was prepared to deal with voters who were upset or concerned they were being asked to go through a process that was different and on paper from the rest of the voters who were using the digital ballots. But that didn't really happen as I don't think the voters understood what a provisional ballot was or that there was a chance their vote may not count. Perhaps I should have been more forthcoming with that information. I did provide a memo from the elections office that made it explicit, but this was given to them after they had completed the paper ballot as instructed in the election's office materials. 

     Given how many of the voters I dealt with were in the wrong place, I think some of them could have been persuaded to go to their official polling locations instead. There were some that still would have refused given the distance involved (their address not being updated after a move) or due to time concerns (the greatest number of people I dealt with all day was right at the end when it was a concern that they could not make it to their designated polling locations before 7 PM), but how many of the others may not have had their vote count, at least for some races, because they were provided the option to fill out a ballot at our location? 

     Some of that falls on me, and I'm not happy with myself for allowing that to occur, but I also think myself and those verifying voter registration could have been better prepared for the situation. Our poll manager the night prior made it a point to hope that we didn't have any provisional voters rather than provide us with a plan or instruction. If I work another election like this, I will suggest we actually discuss what needs to be said to these voters. Most of those I handled were simply told they should be somewhere else but could cast a provisional ballot here. There was no mention of the possibility of it not counting or further encouragement to go to their assigned location. That offering of a paper ballot as a simple alternative made it feel awkward for me to then make the case to the voter for them to go to their assigned location. I didn't want to feel like I was giving them conflicting information from what they had just been told. But that isn't an excuse, and I should have set aside my own interest in avoiding conflict and provided them the full information. 

     I hope that all of the ballots from voters that came to me were counted. I will do better to ensure that is the case should I become involved again. 

4. Georgia's liberal allowance of assistance at the voting booth is in a weird place

     Georgia allows any voter to be accompanied by someone for the purposes of assisting them with casting their vote. They do not need to provide a reason for why assistance is needed nor does the assistant need to have any credentials or other validation of their ability to provide that assistance. The voter simply lets the poll worker verifying registration know the second person will be assisting and that person confirms with signature they will be doing so. 

     This is the most practical and accommodating policy. It allows a family member or someone close to the voter to provide the help, which I presume would be more comfortable then to have a stranger with the appropriate certification. It also doesn't create the issue of forcing the legislature to determine what qualifies for allowing assistance and what doesn't, thus avoiding the potential for leaving something off that prevents someone from participating fully. 

     However, this liberal policy can be used as a loophole for either voting multiple times or forcing someone to vote with your preferences. I witnessed what looked like such a situation. An older gentlemen came in with an older woman and another man. He stated he would be casting his ballot as well as assisting his wife and friend with their ballots. When the trio got to the voting machine there was little to no discussion. The man appeared to make the selection for all three ballots without any input from his companions. 

     It's possible they had discussed previously how they intended to vote so there wasn't a need for it in the moment, but it made me realize someone could use the policy inauthentically to force their choices onto someone else's ballot. Specifically, I can see abusive men using it to ensure there wives' ballots are cast with their own preferences rather than allowing their wives to have their own say. 

     I'm not sure how to close the loophole without overburdening the counties, state, and the voters with regulatory requirements that could leave people without the help they need. It is illegal to intimidate or otherwise coerce a voter, but prosecution of this crime would require the victim to bring the crime's attention to the authorities. In the situation of an abusive husband this seems unlikely unless the woman is willing to seek assistance in getting out of the relationship generally. At that point, I don't think it is likely she will want to pursue charges of voter intimidation, though it could be an option. 

     Thinking about it this way puts a lot of the burden of voter intimidation on the victim. I wonder if there is a better way for us enforce the law without putting so much on victims. I'm having a hard time thinking of ways that don't create issues elsewhere. Could we create and publicize a code word or phrase that people could give when asking to verify the person is assisting them that could alert poll officials that something problematic is occurring? This could work similarly to how some bars use the code “Angela” or “angel shot” to allow a woman to alert the staff they need help. It may be more difficult to publish the code without the possible abuser being made aware of it, most bars post the information in the women's restroom, but seems a plausible means for identifying these situations. It still places a burden on the victim, though. 

     I'll continue to think about the issue and follow up if I come up with or run across something that might help solve the issue. 

5. The results and aftermath 

     At the time of this going up, states are in the process of completing their counts and certifying the results. The margins are such that any ballots yet to be counted will not have an affect on the outcome and Joe Biden has been declared the winner. I'm pleased with the result, though I had hoped more people would have recognized the dangers Donald Trump presents to our principles and voted against him. Still, the result is the one we needed, and he has lost the election. 

     Despite that, he and his sycophants are insisting there was fraud throughout the election in various states, but mostly those where the margin between he and Biden was slim. His legal team filed suits in attempt to stop the counting process while his lead was eaten away at by the large number of mail in ballots in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia. At the same time, they were actively encouraging the counting in Arizona to continue where each new release of information on counted votes favored Trump, though not enough to overcome Biden's lead there. They have insisted corruption in the offices handling the election, at both state and county levels, even in places like Georgia where such positions are nearly all held by members of their own party. Our governor, the former Secretary of State, has commented that all allegations of fraud must be taken seriously and uses the language of counting “legal votes” while disqualifying “illegal votes” without commenting on the need for evidence for such allegations and implying there were illegal votes cast, which has not been shown to be the case. The incumbent Republican Senators, who are heading to a runoff race against Democrat opponents, have started attacking the current Secretary of State who is also a Republican (here) and have called for his resignation. 

     All of this talk of fraud is baseless. There is no evidence for it. The suit in Pennsylvania alleged election watchers were not allowed access to the vote counting process. Once forced to defend the allegation in front of a judge under oath, they admitted they did in fact have such watchers in the appropriate location. If there were improper events occurring throughout voting and counting processes, that information would be coming from these watchers. I have yet to see any of the claims of impropriety come from these individuals or for them to present evidence in support of the allegations. 

     The reality is those in power and their spokespeople are claiming shenanigans out of wishful thinking. They don't like the results and are pulling at straws trying to find some way for them to not be true and therefore to avoid the consequences of this election. Since there is no reality to the claims, they will not be able to save them from the results. However, these claims are still dangerous in that numerous people who voted in favor of the President, or Perdue or Loeffler or insert candidate who lost, don't want the results to be real either. They'd rather believe something nefarious has occurred, and they are being denied the realization of their political will. 

     What these people are willing to do to ensure their will is carried out is uncertain. It is irresponsible to continue presenting them with the idea that the election has been stolen to stoke their anger and fear. Yet, that is what the President and major Republican figures and members or the administration are doing in their statements. Because of their conduct I still fear open rebellion in the streets from the President's supporters. I sincerely hope it does not come to that. We'll have to see if it is my hopes or my fears that actually come to be.

Why Ryan's AHCA Can't Save Health Care

The plan recently released by Republican leaders of Congress to replace Obamacare is a poor substitute. The new plan, American Health Care Act, attempts to walk a line of appeasing those who have found something desirable in the ACA, or Obamacare, while also pushing the system further into the milieu of free markets and personal responsibility. A move that will not succeed in doing what Obamacare was intended to do - stabilize the health care market and make it affordable for all.

Prior to the passage of the ACA, health institutions were facing major financial stability problems. At the heart of the problem is the fact that such institutions do not refuse treatment, particularly emergency care, to anyone on the basis of ability to pay. As a result, those least well off and unable to afford health insurance or even regular visits to a clinic aimed at preventative care, put off seeking any medical attention until they are unable to function normally and require emergency care. This form of care is generally the most expensive treatment compared to other visits with medical professionals. These hospitals would get what they could from their patients to cover the costs for this care, but those that attract large numbers of patients without the ability to pay incur large deficits. In order to cover these deficits, hospitals structured prices such that they were essentially operating as insurance providers themselves. Those with insurance or the ability to pay were charged at rates much higher than the cost of the treatments they were receiving. This additional revenue could be used to cover the expenses from emergency care.

However, people with the greatest ability to pay for the care they receive are also more likely to have health insurance, and insurance companies are not particularly inclined to pay more than they feel they should. As such many hospitals were still operating at deficits. The profitable customers were simply being outnumbered by the non-profitable ones.

Part of Obamacare's intent was to fix this crisis in hospital budgets, primarily by providing insurance to those who previously were unable to pay their hospital bills. This allows the hospitals to still get paid for the services they are providing, regardless of who they are providing them to. Secondarily, it should transfer the resources used from emergency care to more standard general and preventative care that cost both the patient and the caregivers far less. Though on this second mechanism, I would expect the effects to take some time to be seen as behaviors will not change over night. Together, these mechanisms should lower the overall cost of health care services and thus health insurance premiums.

These goals are only feasible by bringing more money into the pool, that is more healthy people who will use little of what they are paying in an average year need to contribute. Obamacare does this through the individual mandate. Everyone has to have health insurance or else pay a fee at the end of the year when they file their taxes The revenues generated from this fee are also applied to medical care and subsidies so even if you choose to go uninsured, you still contribute to the pool. The more healthy people contribute, the smaller the burden on those who need care. That is essentially the idea behind health insurance in the first place.

Ryan's AHCA fails to provide any real incentive to get more money into insurance pools. Instead of the individual mandate, the new plan allows for higher punitive rates for a year on those who choose to go without coverage and then sign up or those who allow a lapse in their coverage. Such a rule does not incentivize anyone who may struggle to afford premiums to do so. Instead, such people will return to the way things were prior to Obamacare; they will go uninsured and visit the emergency room when things are bad. Couple this with the change from subsidized insurance plans to tax credits based on age, Republicare is sure to cause a shift back to the way things were with the poor unable to afford adequate health care and hospitals paying the price for their emergency care.

If our health care institutions are to survive, we must come up with a way to support them and the services they provide. The AHCA will not do that. Even the ACA may not be able to accomplish this goal as it currently stands. Changes need to be made to our health support system, but they must be ones that ensure its viability rather than sign its death certificate.

The United States: A Christian Nation?

     Over the Christmas weekend, I had a conversation with my Dad about whether the United States was founded as a Christian Nation. He suggested the fact that those who signed the Declaration of Independence and helped build the government that followed were Christians provides evidence that it was meant to be a Christian Nation. My response was that had they intended for the country to be a Christian State, they would have made that clearer in writing. Since this is not made explicit in our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights), that was not their intention.

      This week I found some quotes from four of our founders inscribed on plaques outside a local bookstore.

      I was pretty surprised to find them, especially the one from Jefferson.* They really got me thinking about what it would mean for the US to be a Christian Nation and how that would affect someone like me who does not identify as a Christian. Would church attendance be mandatory? Would being a member of a congregation be a requirement for public office? To be able to vote? Would the ten commandments be national law? What about the other laws of Moses as written in Deuteronomy and Leviticus? Would all schools be run by the church, dedicating time each day to prayer and bible study? Would sex education and all forms of birth control be illegal? Would records of baptism and confirmation be required forms of identification the way driver's licenses and birth certificates are now? Would one need approval from church leaders to start a business or run for office?

      While some might rejoice at affirmative answers to any of these questions, I would be concerned by them. A yes to any of them places a limitation upon individual's freedom, a principle I see as quintessential to the character of America. It bothers me now that many, in the name of religious principles and ideologies, insist on curtailing people's freedoms. Nor do I think it right that those who wish to express their belief are asked to be silent. The beauty of this country was supposed to be that each could worship, or not, according to his or her own beliefs. That there would not be any coercion to adopt particular beliefs or customs. The government and its agents would be able to protect all individual's rights and freedoms equally, which are inherent to our nature and not the privilege of our class, stature, beliefs, or position in the eyes of God.

      So what should I make of these quotes that seem to suggest otherwise? Do they provided the evidence I have been missing that the US was in fact founded as a Christian Nation? Delving further into history suggests no. These quotes were selected for their usefulness in supporting the claim, but they are not the whole picture. Once revealed, I think it is rather clear these quotes either reflect the speaker's personal beliefs and not necessarily the position of the State or were minority opinions that cannot be accredited to the State either.

      The Adams quote connects religion to morality. From that connection I get a sense that Adams sees religion as being the source of morals for individuals. The concern he expresses here is that a population that is not religious is not moral, and an immoral people cannot have their rights protected equally in the manner the Constitution sets in place. But I think it very telling that Adams says the Constitution is for a “religious people.” He does not say Christian here. He leaves it open with his terminology. Religion as a source of morals is true for all religions and not merely Christianity. Adams recognizes that religions teach many of the same moral lessons – don't steal, don't murder, don't lie. These basic moral precepts are what the Constitution takes for granted. As long as the population holds these moral beliefs, regardless of their motivation and reasons for holding them or the deity they worship, the Constitution, and therefore the government, will function as intended.

      In opposition to my understanding of the quote, many read Adams's terminology to mean Christian, and it is not just with this quote. Many take our early political figures' comments on religion to mean Christianity. They argue the fact that since they were Christians, and that the majority of the population was also Christian, they were only referring to their own religion. I don't buy that argument. I believe the founders were smarter than that and more precise in their language. Had they wanted to restrict beliefs to forms of Christianity, they would have said such.

      Here the Patrick Henry quote is relevant, as his statement is making the very point I am arguing against, but he did so as a founding father and not as a modern revisionist. I caution against taking his position as a stand in for others of the era generally or about the United States as we know it. In the first case, Henry was part of a minority who voted against the ratification of the Constitution, demonstrating he had issues with the legal framework this country would end up with. What he believed about the country and how it should be does not necessarily agree with what was actually passed by representatives of the various states. He thought the Constitution lacked protections for citizens that would later be spelled out in the Bill of Rights, which includes the establishment and free exercise clause of the first amendment--the opposite of declaring the nation singularly Christian. Additionally, this quote is dated 1765, 11 years before the Declaration of Independence and 22 years before the Constitution was approved by those present at the Constitutional Convention where it was drafted. His comment can thus not accurately describe the country we have today as it predates the laws which define it.

      Instead of looking at a single figure such as Patrick Henry, regardless of how pivotal a role he played in encouraging the revolution and enumerating our rights, who claimed the US was Christian, we should look at the collection of documents our founding fathers wrote or passed in Congress in order to get a sense of their collective intentions.

      In a letter to a Jewish community in Newport, Rhode Island, then President Washington wrote that our country was based on the equality of natural rights for all people. Different groups are not merely tolerated by those from a more privileged class but enjoy the same rights as citizens. The government disallows the bigotry and persecution that many had experienced under Anglican English rule. Had he felt these rights were limited to Christians, he would not have made them so clear when writing to a non-Christian group. He makes it apparent they were just as much citizens as any other group in the country.

      In the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a work he was particularly proud of, Jefferson enumerates a number of ways in which governmental coercion to support or follow a specific religion or denomination is tyrannical and corruptive of both the individual and the organization. He also felt such acts were antithetical to the natural rights which the country was based on. He makes it clear that one should be free to use one's own mental faculties to judge the truth of spiritual claims and come to one's own understanding of the divine. What ever one chooses to believe should not preclude civic participation, whether this is voting or holding public office. As such the statute prevents compulsory support or attendance of any religious institution as well as religious persecution.

      At no point throughout the law does Jefferson invoke Christianity. He consistently speaks of religion. He does reference “Almighty God,” though I find that phrase to be as vague as 'religion.' In no way is he playing favorites here. Nor do I believe the establishment clause of the first amendment, which was influenced by this statute even if much briefer, does. Religious belief is a highly personal matter which the State recognizes as such. We are free to decide for ourselves what to believe and those beliefs do not disallow us from being a full citizen of this country able to hold property, vote, petition our representatives, or run to become one.

      During Adams's time as President, a series of treaties were signed with the powers of the Barbary Coast in hopes of preventing piracy and other disruptions of trade. One such was made with Tripoli and contained the following article:

Article XI

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims],-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Mohammed] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

      This line makes it explicitly clear that the United States is not a Christian nation. Had there been an objection to stating so in a treaty governing the nation's international relations, I think it likely for us to find objections to the treaty and in particular this article by those whose approval of it was necessary. Instead we find a full endorsement of the treaty by President Adams. In the Seante, the treaty was unanimously passed by the twenty-three Senators in session of a maximum thirty-two. I am not certain what the nine absent Senators thought of the clause or if any would have decented because of the clause. Regardless, over seventy percent of our Senators at the time thought it unnecessary to comment or reject the treaty and this article. That fact should secure its place as a principle our country holds. That it includes explicit references to Islam shows that the United States has not historically been one to find fault with it or its followers. Such a fear is a modern one that has a reasonable cause, though it has spread beyond a reasonable scope.

      As I see it, the modern claim that the US is a Christian Nation is one born out of fear. That fear is predicated on the shrinking size of the Christian population and what they believe their diminishing numbers means for the country's moral grounding. The primary cause of the decline is fewer young people are adopting the beliefs of their parents. Many associate this change or loss of faith as also a loss of morals. They associate religion, as I suggest Adams did, as essential to morality. They believe godlessness is at the heart of all wrong doing and thus the source of any and all ills facing the country. If fewer people are believers, then fewer people will be moral. Acts that they deem sinful will and have become common place. To the extent they believe God holds the attitude of the Old Testament, such immoral behavior will bring His wrath akin to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

      A lesser cause of the decline in the proportion of Christians in America is the increased presence of other religions, in particular Islam. The religion is still a rather small portion of the population such that most people, especially those in more rural areas, have not interacted with any Muslims. What they do know about Islam comes from national and international events, many of which are tied to violence. While Martin Luther King, Jr. is held in high esteem for his non-violent and Christian approach to achieving civil rights, his peer Malcom X is much more maligned for his seeming endorsement of violence and his Muslim faith. More recently, the terror attacks of September 11^th and the formation of the Islamic State have intractably connected violence and Islam. Such things reinforce people's notion that specifically Christianity is needed for morality and peace.

      I believe this fear is misplaced. Christianity does provide a good moral framework, but it is not the only way people are moral. Nor does its adoption ensure moral behavior. I would argue that Jesus taught everyone fails at times to live up to our moral standards. No matter how pious one is there will be times of moral faltering. Not all wrong doing can thus be blamed on a lack of faith. We cannot cure all of society's ills by merely introducing people to Jesus.

      People may be right to fear a lack of morality within our culture, but they need not link it to religion. I, like Adams, believe that a strong moral foundation is necessary for a country like ours to function. But unlike him I do not believe those morals need grounding in religion. We should all be able to recognize the rights each of us has inherently, that the founders pointed to over and over again in our early laws and charters, without a common deity, or any at all for that matter. It doesn't take belief in God to denounce the immorality of corruption, cronyism, extortion, exploitation, fraud, and theft that bring nations down from the inside. Those are the types of moral failings we should be concerned with and fight against when we vote or petition the government, which we all can do regardless of our spiritual beliefs.

*Concerning the Jefferson quote – I thought it sounded a little off in the context it was placed and was curious about what the original context was. On a whim I opened up a some pictures I took while visiting DC earlier in the year. To my surprise I found the same quote inscribed at Jefferson's Memorial. But this time it was longer and thus provided some of the context I was looking for.

     I think it is fairly clear from the fuller quote, the subject Jefferson is talking about is inequality. In a literal sense it is the inequality between a master and slave, but his push for education at the end suggests he sees the relationship between the common laborer and proprietor as similar if the two are not given equal opportunity to learn. His comments about the justness of God and His inevitable wrath on the unjust are not meant as foundational principles for the nation, but a belief that allowing a wrong to persist, when you know it is wrong, is also wrong and worthy of judgment and punishment. If a Nation is built upon such injustice, it will eventually fall. God is invoked as the source of the inherent equality between men and as well as the deliverer of karmic justice. One need not have a government based on Christianity to hold such values personally or institutionally. I think it is possible to recognize the fundamental equality between each of us without relying on the existence of a supreme being that is ultimately responsible for existence and justice.

Stuck in Place

I read this article a while back and it got me thinking a fair amount about this question - why don’t those who lose their jobs when factories or plants close move to where more jobs and opportunities are? There are some economic reasons brought up that might be managed through smart policy, like how to help those whose house goes underwater after property values fall in a now declining town can get out from under them so they can relocate, but there are other things like people’s “rootedness” that are much harder to address with policy.

It feels to me a problem closely associated with the sense of entitlement many complain about with respect to various government programs. People’s complaints about jobs and their own actions concerning work makes me think Americans see life from a passive perspective. Work hard, yes, but at whatever is placed before you. There isn’t much to figure out. Get a job at the plant Dad did or whatever major employer is in your town. If you have the right attitude you can get that job and keep it. Everything should fall into place from that. Get a house, get married, have kids. That’s the “American Dream.” But the American heroes are seen as such precisely because they didn’t do that. They went out and found their own way in spite of the uncertainty and risk. They carved their own place in the world. Such personalities are rare, I admit. Still I believe we should look to them as well as our immigrant ancestors, who worked hard for little so that we their descendents would have much, for inspiration on how to tackle adversity.

    The technological advances of the last two centuries have largely covered up the fact that living is hard. We are in constant need of things to maintain ourselves and prepare against potential disasters. The history of civilization is a tale of how our ingenuity has made it easier and easier to do these things. As such we are provided more time to spend on tasks that do not directly relate to meeting our needs, especially in such a revolutionary era when advances in technology are occurring at a blistering pace. However, we are spending a ton of time on things indirectly related to meeting our needs - our jobs. The availability of those jobs and their pay relative to the cost of goods changes constantly.

While we should all be working less and getting more because of technology, that is not happening. While I think it was true as we moved from the 19th to the 20th century, it appears less true as we transitioned from the 20th into the 21st. Many of the manufacturing and machining  jobs that paved way for the forty hour work week and allowed the average American to earn a comfortable wage for work that required little schooling or education are gone. But they aren’t gone in the way so many believe they are. These jobs didn’t all get moved out of the country. Many of them became obsolete because of newer technologies. The integrated circuit board has completely changed electronics. Those can’t be made with a bunch of people on an assembly line the way various car parts still are. That’s a huge change for an entire industry. And as these components have gotten more complicated such that we have machines building them, so have those machines building them. They’ve gone from  merely mechanical to electronic. Thus the repair jobs that required a little training and understanding of mechanical systems now require a deeper understanding of electronics in addition to mechanics. The number of skilled technicians to maintain and repair these machines may have increased, but that increase pales in comparison to the number of jobs lost to those machines.

That is why in the 90s there was cultural push for more people to get college degrees. It was clear then that the jobs of the future would be ones that necessitated knowledge not provided at the high school level. The problem was that push was rather vague. “Everyone needs a degree” may have created more engineers but it also created more writers, historians, music theorists, and scholars of women. This is not a bad thing so long as 1) resources are allocated equitably such that those who received non-technical non-production related degrees can still provide for themselves and 2) enough people do learn the technical skills the job market demanded. Given the issues many firms are having filling positions and the struggle others are having finding decent paying jobs in their field of expertise, I think it is is safe to say we have failed on both counts here.

So how do we fix it?

There is a radical solution that may be needed, but for now I’ll stick to a more basic solution. We must face the attitude which demands jobs return, that asks government to fix problems that we refuse to face ourselves, that grows out of a sense of complacency for what is.

It’s strange to me that such an attitude would be seemingly so pervasive here. The United States was founded by people who had difficulty living life the way they wanted to and chose to take the chance and opportunity the Americas presented for them. They went out and made for themselves what they wanted. We celebrate their overcoming of the hardships they found in their new home every year for Thanksgiving. But the Pilgrims and other early migrants to America were not the last group to experience difficulties in the hopes of creating a better life than was available in home countries. Again and again people poured out from places lacking in resources or opportunities to take their chances in the United States. The Irish and the Germans, the Poles and the Chinese, and more recently the Mexicans and other Central and South Americans. We call our great country the Land of Opportunity because that’s what it is and that’s part of what makes it so great. We tell ourselves that success is possible for anyone as long as you work hard and put forth your best effort. And people came, and continue to come, willing to do just that. Such a work ethic and the things it has produced has made the US the largest economy in the world and its most powerful nation. Pretty impressive for a country that has only been on the map for 240 years.

    But for those whose families have been here a few generations, that work ethic has degenerated. People have become comfortable with lifestyles that are more leisurely and rooted in places they have lived their entire lives. They like their neighbors and coworkers. The love their house, which may be the one they grew up in. They’ve worked hard, though probably less so than their parents, and hope their children will have it even easier than they did thanks to the resources they were able to provide. They want that trend to continue. They want things to stay the same.

    Things do not stay the same. The world is a dynamic place. Mines dry up. Products become obsolete. Companies, even rather large ones, go out of business. We must stay nimble and adapt to those changes rather than steadfast in our lifestyles. If we do the later rather than the former, we become obsolete ourselves. There is no place in this country for a lamplighter, and we would likely make fun of anyone demanding that job come back to prominence, yet the present demands for certain types of jobs are not far off from such a request. The products those jobs created are no longer wanted or simply don’t need the same workforce to produce. And just like the lamplighter who likely didn’t know much about electricity, factory workers don’t have the knowledge or background to find a new job working with the products that replaced their position. There aren’t many paths that allow them to maintain a middle class lifestyle or better that doesn’t include learning new skills. But these people entered their line of work precisely because it did not require much knowledge or training before hand yet still paid well. That paradigm is disappearing, but the mindset is not.

    I am not saying that wanting things to be better for one’s children is a bad thing. Nor is believing that a hard day’s work should be sufficient for providing not only the necessities of life but some comforts as well. I want these things for everyone. But what once allowed for these things to occur a generation ago, or even a decade ago, may not be able to do the same now or in the future.

There are too many things at play that can create changes in the economic conditions that allowed for the middle class lifestyle many are mourning the death of in their town. People are now demanding that government take steps to harness and control those economic forces so things don’t change. But doing so will in turn make things change. It’s difficult to see the effects of globalization in our daily lives. So many things pass through international markets before arriving in our own towns or that we produce in order to sell on those international markets. Closing borders may force us to build some things here, but it can also mean we can’t make as much of other things because we don’t have anyone to sell to. Trade should occur as a positive sum game, and generally is. Yet, so many are convinced it has been a losing proposition for the US because certain jobs have become less prevalent. The disappearance of those jobs is one of many effects of low trade barriers. The positives are not as easily seen as the negatives so people don’t know what they’ve gained from them. They could soon find out if our President-elect follows through on his protectionist, tough on trade talk. We may be looking at both fewer jobs and higher prices.

    Still, regardless of what changes are made to our trade policies, we must find the industrious spirit of our forefathers. We must work where there is work that needs done and should lean on employers to pay wages sufficient for the American Dream. If the market cannot support such demands by labor, then it may be necessary to take a more radical approach towards changing our economy. I am of the opinion that the more radical solution may be necessary after all, and will write more about it in the future, but I don’t think we can make a case for bigger changes unless we try and make what we have work. Right now our system isn’t working, but we the people aren’t working at it either. That’s not how it’s supposed to work.

I stand with you

The worst part of the election for me has to do with the amount of vitriol thrown in this cycle, much of it landing on friends, family, loved ones, and fellow citizens who have done nothing wrong but be themselves. And it was spewed by our President-elect. It is incredibly painful for me. I can only image what it must be like for them. Someone who clearly does not respect women, believes all Muslims are dangerous, believes Mexicans coming to our country are rapists and murderers, and who chose a VP who believes in conversion therapy was elected in spite of it all. As a country we believed these were justifiable positions or otherwise irrelevant characteristics to have in a President and running mate.

Knowing this, it seems impossible to me that the United States will ever be a country where everyone is treated equally. These same supporters have been the ones to deny the hundreds of deaths at the hands of police each year is a problem, but the deaths of cops by black men are. They are the same people who think sexual assault victims are lying when they report the crimes perpetrated against them and do so for the attention, especially if the accused is anyone of notoriety. They believe freedom of speech entitles them to share their derogatory comments to anyone about anyone without any blowback from either party.

And that worries me. We are pride ourselves on being the land of the free. But many are not free in the same sense others are. The growing voices of those who are still restrained by our institutions has scared those with that greater freedom as they think to make room at the table they will have to lose some of the privileges they’ve always had. They point to the replacement of well paying jobs with service industry jobs that pay mediocre wages is proof of what that path holds. They think the path to greater equality is less for all. We have been unable to convince them that the alternative to taking space away from those at the table in order to seat more is to build a bigger table. I’m not certain what it’s going to take to convince people of this and fear we are headed for a Hobbesian nightmare of take what you can for yourself for as long as you can hold onto it.

Speaking with some who supported Trump, I get a sense of disaffectedness with our government from them. That Washington was not doing anything to make their lives better and as long as we kept electing more of the same, which Clinton is certainly an example of, nothing was going to change. They felt a need to take a chance on someone who wasn’t like those already in Washington in order to actually get something different. Trump was that option for them. From my perspective they didn’t look closely enough at what those different things (the bigotry, authoritarianism, misogyny, and deceitfulness) would be. They chose to take a pill with a sugar center and either failed to recognize it was coated in cyanide or didn’t care. I cannot respect such short-sighted gambling, even though I do sympathize with the need for change in Washington.

I hope this public choice will not bring about my deepest fears associated with it. I hope we can come together and help each other through the difficulties we all face. I hope we can respect each other and recognize the truth in our cries of pain. But the mockery and apathy and victim blaming I have witnessed leaves me skeptical and uncertain that the America of my dreams will ever be.

Equal Access to Pools

     At the beginning of summer, I realized I didn't know where a community pool was near where I lived. Throughout my commutes to and from work I would think about this as I passed various neighborhoods with their own pool houses and the YMCA with an indoor pool. I kept wondering where the city's public pool was. The more I thought about it, the more I started wondering when neighborhoods started building their own pools and whether it was a suburban thing, as I don't remember seeing such private pools in the smaller town I grew up in. I thought about the divisive nature of these private pools, how they allowed those who could afford in such neighborhoods to insulate themselves from those different from them, and how those different people were more likely to be black or Hispanic.

     With the recent success of Simone Manuel at the Summer Games in Rio and the discussion of racial segregation at the pool, I've started thinking about this topic again. Finally doing some research into the subject I wasn't surprised by what I found. Prior to the 1950s private pools were very rare but were generally racially as well as gender segregated. Shortly after the mid-century point, communities started to allow men and women to swim together, but insisted on separate facilities for black people. In some places the racial division was done through the laws, which were eventually challenged, while other places allowed its residents to enforce unofficial segregationist policies while looking the other way during the violent encounters that ensued.

     As the civil rights movement gained momentum and courts overturned the laws keeping pools racially separated, more and more pools were built on private lands in ways that mirrored white flight out of the cities and into the suburbs. Some of them were back yard pools, but many were behind the gates of country clubs and neighborhood associations. This privatization of pools allowed their users to maintain a homogeneous group of users without running afoul of the law. In a few cases, the move from public to private occurred to the same pool. Cities that owned and operated the pools and who were in support of segregation would sell their pool to private organizations who would continue to restrict access based on race.

     This divestment of public interest in pools has had a lasting effect for poor and disadvantaged groups. The number of public pools per capita is smaller than it was 60 years ago, and those that do exist are often in whiter middle class parts of town making it more difficult for those less well off to access them. The diminished access helps explain the large number of black and Hispanic children who don't know how to swim – they simply do not have anywhere to learn.

     Simone Manuel winning gold medals for swimming is certainly a seminal moment in US history, but her success does not mark the end of racially motivated policies in America. We still have plenty of work to do if we believe it important that all children should have the ability to learn to swim and enjoy a hot summer day in the pool. Perhaps a move back to community or city pools can provide a place where people can come together and recognize the humanity and fundamental sameness in one another rather than fear each others' differences in ways that play out on city streets where cops disproportionately respond to black citizens with violence and targeted communities react with riots.

Sources:

Rachel Martin interviews Jeff Wiltse about his book “Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America”

Jeff Wiltse relates the content of his book to the police breaking up of a pool party in McKinney, TX.

A further discussion of the situation in McKinney, TX in historical context.