Some Remarks & an Endorsement for President

Preliminary remarks

Preliminary Remarks by Mr. A Hamilton

Before I commence my endorsement, I’m calling upon Mr. A. Hamilton, of current Broadway fame, the face on the ten-dollar bill, and political genius, to provide an invocation with an eloquence that I can only aspire to.

. . . . The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

 This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

 . . . . I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

 And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

 In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. . . . Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt [the Constitution, or, in this case, this person to serve as President.] I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

 “Publius” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1.

Mr. Hamilton was writing in favor of what became the United States Constitution. However, I believe that his words can—and should—guide me in giving an account of why I favor a particular candidate to serve as President of the United States beginning January 2017. With Hamilton’s invocation in mind, I shall proceed.

"Fiduciary?"

A Thought Experiment                                                   

Before beginning a consideration of any individual, and to further set the tone for my undertaking, I want to propose a thought experiment that will help guide me, that will provide a talisman for my thoughts. The fantasy is this:

I am a shareholder in a very large corporation. There are about 219 million shareholders each holding an equal vote about hiring a new CEO for the corporation. I am no different than any other shareholder, at least in theory. I have only one vote. I have no insider information, no special financial stake, no personal connection with the candidates wanting to hold office as CEO. In fact, because I have no direct stake, no inherent personal bias, I’ve been awarded a proxy by all of the other shareholders to make this selection! My only duty is that of a fiduciary. I have a legal duty to act in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. If I am negligent in discharging my fiduciary duty, I will be held accountable—someone will sue me “for every penny you’ve got!”. I don’t have all that many pennies, but still, it’s all I’ve got! But more importantly, I feel a strong moral obligation act in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. This includes me, my family, my friends, my fellow Americans, and the rest of world. Every one of us and future generations will feel the effects of my decision. I can’t guaranty that things will work out all for the best. I could misjudge. But my duty is to make a diligent inquiry and use my best judgment based on fact and reason that I can now muster. On what criteria should I base my selection?

As you have no doubt discerned, the “corporation” that I’m speaking about is the Federal Government of the United States of America, and the “CEO” is the office of president. My fellow “shareholders” are the citizens of the United States, with the rest of world (or most of it) holding an interest in its well-being. It remains a beacon of hope and a model of billions around the world.

By the criteria set forth above (in addition to a great number of other reasons), I exclude Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Since Trump remains a viable nominee, I will limit comments to him. He wants to serve as CEO without any prior experience in government; in other words, he’s working on his undergrad degree (campaigning), and yet he believes that he should become the head of the company. He has no strategic plan, he has no compelling history of financial success (his money would have done better over the years in an indexed fund), but he is a salesman. This, I can’t dispute. However, a successful political leader must have return customers; i.e., supporters with whom he will have to deal successfully on a continuing basis. But Trump is a huckster, a P.T. Barnum, who sells snake oil and then plans to . . . what? Trump can only offer more snake oil as he appears to act on impulse and improvisation, as do most demagogues. No, to select Trump or Carson would be a prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty.

My Criteria

So by what criteria should I judge the candidates for this most powerful office while meeting the requirements of my fiduciary duty and my self-respect (if not outright pride) in reaching my decision? The criteria broadly put are the following (with a discussion of particulars to follow):

1.    Proposed policies and attitudes on matters foreign, domestic—and given the reality and demands created by climate change and environmental degradation—global.

2.    Character as composed of sound judgment, experience, and ethos (ethics broadly speaking).

3.    Political Realism, Incrementalism, & Conservatism; or, Dealing with the American People

Now to the Particulars: Policies and Attitudes

In the spirit of Mr. Hamilton, let me be frank. None of the Republican candidates offer policies or attitudes (on the whole) that I can endorse. Indeed, I have a hard time making sense of what most of them say most of the time (and it’s not just a matter of the tangled syntax and logical nonsequiturs that lead me to this conclusion). I say this having been a Republican at one point in my life, and as someone who appreciates concerns about the size and scope of government, the level of the tax burden, the reasonableness of regulations, the usefulness of markets and decentralized decision-making, and the need for a strong national defense. But the Republican brand has become unhinged from reality such that this party can no longer speak to these core issues. With the obvious choice now between former Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Sanders, let me note the issues that should most concern us:

1.    Campaign Finance Reform and Ending Legalized Corruption. Our system is broken—corrupted—by the influence of big money in politics. We—led by our Supreme Court—have legalized corruption by equating money with speech. In a sense, of course, money talks, but such talk is not political speech, it's blunt bribery for the most part. The bigger the donation, the greater the expectation. Senator Sanders deserves strong commendation for speaking out on this topic (and before him, Lawrence Lessig). And Sanders has less “connections” that Secretary Clinton upon which to draw currently for money. But Secretary Clinton has said the right things. I don’t blame her for playing the system the way that it’s set up now, but I think that she’ll push for the appropriate change as well (just as I think Sanders would about reasonable gun limitations).

2.    Addressing Climate Change. The Republicans (except perhaps Kasich) are still in denial and have forfeited all credibility in the light of the accepted science. The question isn't (and hasn’t been for some time) whether we’re experiencing climate change, but how will we address that within a global context. Limited by a no-nothing, do-nothing Congress, Obama has taken some initial steps, but we need so much more.

3.    Economic Inequality. Going back far before the Obama years, the American Dream has become too remote for far too many. Many Americans are getting left behind. This is a long-term, multi-faceted problem that will not be cured overnight. We will need to work on some levels to keep opportunity available to all. We need to concentrate on good jobs, education, and fair trade. We have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially in judging issues like trade agreements, but we don’t want to continue the slide toward greater inequality, which will only foster greater social disharmony and political demagoguery.

4.    Reasonable Limitations on Guns. Our greatest threats are from within, not from terrorists without. (Remember Oklahoma City?). Not that there aren’t terrorists motivated by radical ideologies (often Muslim-based), but the greatest number of deaths come from Americans shooting other Americans. It’s crazy, insane. We need to stop our gun idolatry. Presidential leadership is necessary, and President Obama deserves great credit for trying. We should all be weeping at our folly and the deaths of innocents.

5.    Foreign Relations. We can’t blast our way into a world more to our liking. We are the strongest nation in the world, and not just because of our unquestionable military dominance, nor even because of our economic dominance. We have to use our cultural dominance, our ability to realize a global order that can last. This means mixing day-to-day judgment with a long-term strategy for assuring American security in a changing world. Force is always an option and may be needed, but as a matter of both morality and intense practicality (and are they so different?), force should remain a last resort.

6.    Immigration. We need secure borders, and we need to recognize that millions of person who’ve long lived and worked in America must receive a fair deal. We have a problem: we’re still a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. Let’s use that fact for our benefit, and not as a basis for xenophobia.

7.    Race Relations. Race relations have improved immensely in my lifetime, and they need to improve immensely. Democrats as a whole recognize this. There are no quick and easy answers, but our next president needs to be sensitive to these problems and continue to work towards a plural, diverse nation that recognizes the dignity of all of its citizens.

8.    Court Appointments. We need judges who know that the Constitution isn’t a sacred fossil, but a road map that we need to reference and expand as times change. We need men and women who will avoid partisanship and will honor the rule of law. We don’t need a more “conservative” (pro-business) court.

9.    A Sound Economic Policy. We need economic policies and policy-makers who recognize that we’re in a poorly charted area. But we know that some things will not work, such as austerity. We need a plan to upgrade America’s sagging infrastructure, and we need to focus on creating and maintaining good, quality jobs. This means allowing enterprise to flourish within a system that protects workers and the environment. It happened in the post-WWII era, and we should attempt to replicate that success and balance.

The Republican candidates fail these tests as a whole. They ignore the corruption of big money; they ignore climate change; they offer the same medicine for inequality that they’ve prescribed for the last 40 years, only to see inequality increase. They honor the high-priest of the gun-god, the NRA and refuse to act to end the on-going sacrifice to this malicious god. They mostly offer military intervention and tough-guy talk for a foreign policy. They insult immigrants and ignore the reality of those already here who are contributing to our nation. They largely ignore the problems of race (Marco Rubio, though, made some nod toward the problem, for which he should—perhaps unwillingly—receive some credit. But then, after criticism from the right, he ran away from real, equitable immigration reform.) The Republicans want to appoint “originalists” to the federal courts when such an attitude—the late Justice Scalia notwithstanding—has no legs and only serves to reinforce existing power structures. And Republican economics worships at the altar of free markets and laisse faire while current realities call for changes in our system to take it away from crony capitalism, rent-seeking, and fortune-hunting and toward practices that are more equitable and sustainable. And that isn’t the gold standard, austerity, or tax-cuts for the wealthy.

Between the Democrats, there’s not lots of difference in policies, although Sanders on health care changes and taxation goes off far beyond where Secretary Clinton (and most of the American public) would venture. But the real distinction doesn’t come from policy differences, so let’s turn to character.

Character: Experience, Judgment, & Ethos

Judgment comes from knowledge gained through experience and study. As to experience, I can’t think of anyone better qualified to become president than Secretary Clinton. She’s been First Lady, a U.S. Senator (from New York, no less), and she’s served as Secretary of State. When we look back at Presidents Clinton (Bill), Bush (W.), and Obama, we see what a challenge the presidency was to each of them initially. With most new presidents, the costs of the learning curve are high as measured by the quality of our governance. (We also saw this with Secretary Clinton as well in her healthcare project during Bill’s term.) I contrast this will Sanders service as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, and his many years in the House and later in the Senate. He was an independent until 2015, although he caucused with the Democrats. Sanders has been around a lot longer than Barack Obama, for instance, but nevertheless the quality of his resume pales in comparison with that of Clinton.

The quality of person’s judgment is hard to forecast, especially in a new position. In this, Sanders is mostly a blank slate, as his experience at the federal level has remained in the legislative branch. This has allowed him to act and campaign as a true believer, someone unsullied by having to make tough, compromising choices (which are inevitable, wishes to the contrary notwithstanding). As for Clinton, she’s not always had the best judgment: her handling of the Clinton health care plan, the Iraq War vote, and the use of a private email server. But in each of these instances, she didn’t cross any lines that I find immoral or unethical. Like all politicians, she sometimes walks the line, but I haven’t found her crossing over it. I hope that she’s learned from her mistakes and that the intense and mostly irrational scrutiny that she’s undergone hasn’t ruined her sense of forthrightness and risk-taking, but I suspect it’s all had a toll. The business of Benghazi and the email server, both of which I’ve looked into, I find on the whole trifling and not at all disqualifying.

And all of this leads to ethos. Clinton has the ethos of a battle-hardened veteran of some very nasty political fighting. She has a distinctly pragmatic attitude. She expects and is willing to work for incremental change. She’s an evolutionist, not a revolutionist. Sanders, on the other hand, draws his energy and his voters from the purity of his motives and views. He is a believer, a socialist from way back (no big deal in my book, although certainly retro). This means that he carries a deep and abiding commitment to equity and fairness, admirable qualities indeed. But having labored for so long in the vineyard of the pure vision, how will he deal with the reality of political wheeling and dealing, not to mention attacks, that he would face as president? Clinton has taken all manner of punches and remains standing. Against Sanders, the Republicans have not yet begun to fight. And is Clinton “ambitious”? Yes. But then so is every man who’s running, and every man [sic] who’s been elected president. Of course, too much ambition and too much purity can prove frightening (i.e., Ted Cruz). Character does matter. Look at the flawed characters of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon on the extremes. And when you think about it, flaws in every president become apparent with the unremitting glare of the public limelight and the number of decisions to be made and interests to resolve. You need leaders who can make mistakes and still get back in the saddle, who can trim the sails and make adjustments as circumstances dictate.

By the way, in one sense I agree with many of the young women who discount the importance of gender in making a decision about whom to select as president. Secretary Clinton qualifies on her merits, as it should be, and as did Obama. The issue should no longer be whether we chose a woman to serve as president, but rather why it took so long to do so.

Political Realism, Incrementalism, & Conservatism; or, Dealing with the American People

Garry Wills

I fancy myself a political realist, an incrementalist, and a conservative (in the Garry Wills sense of the term). I don’t believe any political leader will prove flawless. I hold that if we have a leader who doesn’t do “stupid stuff,” we’re ahead of the game. Politics is a matter of compromise; legislating is the equivalent of making sausage: it’s not pretty, a lot of junk goes in, but in the end, it’s edible. Change in too great a measure will likely result in a backlash or to spiral out of control. Sometimes you swing for the fences, but you must know when to swing, when to hold, and how far you can hit. It’s easy to strike out.

Max Weber

Reinhold Niebuhr

I understand the appeal of Sanders (and even Trump—although I find them in no measure equivalent in fitness for office). They appeal to primal fears (Trump) and hopes (Sanders), but in the end, if elected, those hopes and fears will prove ephemeral and constraining. Following Garry Wills, I avoid purity in politics. We need saints and prophets, but we need politicians, too. Officials who compromise and make deals, who bring home a half-a-loaf because it’s better than none. They don’t often inspire us, but they serve us. Politics is the art of the possible. It requires the ethics of responsibility (Max Weber). Democracy is a form of protection for the majority, not a guaranty of good results (Reinhold Niebuhr; Churchill). Government is the business end of politics, attempting to turning ideas (good or bad; communal or selfish) into reality. It requires smart, dedicated leadership and judgment.

It’s for all of these reasons that I support Hillary Clinton for president. 

Does she look happy? Of course, after my endorsement!

Favorite Books Read in 2015

Now that the real new year has arrived, the Year of the Monkey, here in Vietnam and back in China, it’s time to review the best books I read in 2015 (using the Western calendar for my cut-off date).  So here are some favorites in a variety of categories.

Favorite Re-read Fiction: TheName of the Rose by Umberto Eco (English translation 1983). I’ve read this book several times before, but I thought—and then confirmed—that it would be an excellent introduction to Italy, where we were planning an extensive summer visit. This book is clever and intriguing on so many levels that it’s hard to cite exactly what makes it worth reading. Of course, it’s a murder mystery, the setting is a Benedictine monastery, and the detective is a Franciscan proto-Holmes. But that’s just for starters. What intrigued me most about this reading was the extensive information that Eco provides about the tremendous social upheaval in the late medieval era, the intersection of economic and social change, religious conflict, and personal power. Sound familiar? As always, highly recommended.

Classic Fiction: A Room with a View by E.M. Forester (1908). Another book read in anticipation of our visit to Florence. Compared to other Forrester works, this is a bit of a frolic, a romance. The setting is not limited to Florence and Italy (the setting moves “home” to England), but that’s where the nub of the story unfolds. In the end, it’s a “who-marries-who” story and a delightful one at that. Good for a visit to Italy or any occasion. (The Merchant-Ivory film production, by the way, does a fine job of translating the book into a film.)

Recent Fiction: Science in the Capital Trilogy: Forty Signs of Rain, Fifty Degrees Below, and Sixty Days and Counting by Kim Stanley Robinson. These three well-integrated books aren’t so much science fiction as imaginative fiction about contemporary science and life. Stanley’s novels follow a small group of scientists and their friends as they attempt to grapple with the scientific, political, and personal consequences of climate change. Read the headlines and then read these titles, and you’ll note a strong correlation as any number of the characters might note. The characters are quirky and engaging, with intrigue and adventure mixed into family life and the quotidian world. It’s the type of fiction that doesn’t rock you with poetic insight, but that does give you insight into the world in which we live. Very enjoyable, despite the frightening topic.

You'd Never Read This Before? The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstram (1972). As I read this book last fall, while visiting south China and while anticipating our current visit to Vietnam, I kept asking myself how I’d not read this book before. It was often assigned to college classes and was everywhere for a while. I doubt that it’s ever been out of print. The author was well-known. I’d just never gotten to it, but last fall I did, and I was enthralled. The book details the men [sic] of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who led the U.S. into the Vietnam War (or the American War, as it’s known here). As Halberstam notes, these men were considered the best and the brightest, the top-notch, get-it-done guys who would lead the fight against Communism based on their brains and their will power. And then things went to hell. Halberstam, writing after the release of the Pentagon Papers and with lots of personal interviews and experience as a correspondent in Vietnam, paints carefully measured portraits of the players involved (McNamara, the Bundy brothers, Dean Rusk, etc.) and brings them each into focus as he details the unfolding of events. This book is a first draft of history, and an exemplary effort. In a sense, Halberstam is an American Thucydides, attempting to chronicle and understand how this horrible failure of judgment and policy unfolded. While there are now other works that I want to read on this subject, I can’t imagine a better place to start when considering the acts of the decision-makers. I was just young enough to avoid having to face being drafted, but I am old enough to know how the war tore our nation apart and how it shattered this beautiful country. Given the ways of the world, we’d do well to burn these lessons into our psyches.

Nerd Reading. The Idea of History and The Principles of History and Other Writings on History by R.G. Collingwood. I finally read The Idea of History, one of the great works on the topic and according to The Guardian, one the outstanding English non-fiction works published after the Second World War. Collingwood remains a relatively little-known figure compared to others philosophers in the U.K. during his time (the inter-war years), such as Wittgenstein, Russell, Moore, Ayer, and so on, yet he was—and remains—a formidable thinker. His work and training as an archeologist of Roman Britain, along with his thorough grounding in the history of philosophy and the history of history (as a discipline and way of thought) give him the intellectual muscle to complete this momentous task. His assessment of his predecessors and his original perspective creates an amazing work. And The Principles of History, based on manuscripts discovered by Oxford University Press in the 1990s—over 50 years after Collingwood’s premature death—helps round out our sense of Collingwood’s project. It’s deep, nerdy, and amazing.

General, Overall Fun Favorite: Natural Born Heroes by Christopher McDougall. This book had it all, like a great salad: some greens, some crunch, some sweet meat, all properly dressed. My review pretty much says it all, but I’ll say it again—it was a fun read and listen.

A lot of fine, fun books are ignored on this list, but these are some of the highlights. Happy reading to all in the year of the monkey! 

Is Tom Friedman Right? Is that a Tremor? Or Am I Imagining Things?

In his column "What If?", Tom Friedman contemplates a configuration of disconcerting events that could make life much more challenging (to put it mildly). The slowing or ending of Chinese growth (a main engine of world growth), low oil prices pressuring petro-regimes, Europe under pressure from migration based on Middle East turmoil, the U.S. caught in an increasingly polarizing politics that leads to further inaction, and so on. And while I don't see Bernie Sanders "socialism " (whatever that is) as an equivalent of the proto-fascism of Trump (Italian-style) or Cruz (McCarthy-style), I do think that Friedman's other points bear some scrutiny.

In fact, for some time now I've begun to wonder if there isn't something below our conscious awareness that's causing us humans some great unease. Perhaps we're like animals who can sense that an earthquake is about to happen. I don't know how true that is of animals, let alone humans, but I'm beginning to wonder. Are we getting too crowded? In large parts of the world (centered in Asia) we are too many for the environment, while some places, like Europe, seem to be imploding. We know that economic inequality is a big problem in the U.S., with many people feeling a deep economic angst that grows into resentment. Most people know that climate change is real and unavoidable now, the official ostrich position of the Republican Party notwithstanding. What upsets will that cause? And we have a tiny, tiny group of Moslems who have not hope of gaining true power, who are essentially reactionary nihilists, who are creating fear and even panic far beyond their power to cause serious harm. And in all likelihood, political extremism and religious millenarianism across religions will increase.

The mass of people who are expressing their unease don't go to Davos, don't read The Economist or the New York Times, and aren't guided by reading the official tea leaves, but they feel--and they feel fear. To paraphrase FDR, we should fear fear. It's a terrible guide to decision-making because it's intended by evolution to act as a warning and quick trigger. But we don't need a quick trigger, we need considered action, and politicians peddling that are in short supply.

Yea, I could ruin a dinner party, too.

Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth, by Peter Turchin

In Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth,  Peter Turchin has another book that translates his sophisticated models of historical dynamics into a prose exposition that non-specialists can enjoy. As in his previous work,  War and Peace and War, he has succeeded in his task by mixing accounts of historical (and pre-historical) incidents and epochs with lessons about the science of evolution. Having admired his accomplishment in War and Peace and War, I held high expectations for this book. He has met and exceeded those expectations by addressing a set of topics of even greater and wider import than those of his first (popular) book. He does this by following the course of most academics whom I admire: they transgress departmental boundaries to explore new connections and arrive at new insights. In his case, he moved from an academic specialization in population dynamics to helping found the new science of Cliodynamics, the study of history using large data sets to create mathematical models of historical dynamics. Although already a fan (and thanks to the internet for allowing groupies like me to follow along with new thoughts and trends between books), I almost shouted “Amen!” aloud when I read:

The situation [of competing theories] is made worse by the division of social science into “tribes” of anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, and economists. Each discipline tends to emphasize its own set of theories while disagreeing with others (and even among its own adherents). Social scientists are the blind men touching different parts of an elephant and drawing different conclusions about it. -- Peter Turchin, Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth, Location 567.

The thesis of Ultrasociety is simple: over the course of human evolution, we humans have become the most cooperative species on the planet, outpacing our nearest rivals,  the more numerous and highly cooperative ants. As Turchin points out, several factors account for this distinction, including two factors that take humans beyond the biological. First, in addition to biological evolution, which is slow and random, humans developed culture, the transmission of information via representation. The transmission of information by culture from generation to generation allows changes in human behavior to occur much more rapidly than any change in the human genome would allow. As a practical matter, the lives of humans, especially in the last 10,000 years (since the advent of agriculture) have changed by orders of magnitude far beyond anything that biological evolution by itself could have allowed.  

Mild-mannered look belies intriguing thoughts: Peter Turchin

Turchin identifies a second crucial spur to changes in human ways of life, and it may come as a shock to readers. It’s war. Especially in the last 10,000 years, war is—for all its horrors—the most potent source of cultural evolution. War compels change and change occurs through cooperation within groups. As humans developed societies beyond those of hunter-gatherers, as they developed civilization (a society based on cities), war became more organized and pronounced, and increasing competition for survival ensued. The seeming paradox is at the heart of Turchin’s analysis.

By the way, Turchin notes that the idea of the "noble savage" leading a bucolic, pastoral life is a fantasy; in fact, hunter-gatherers have shockingly high rates of violent death from warfare and other forms of homicide. Note that Turchin is not a war-monger. He concedes the horror of war and that it entails destruction—often vast destruction. He is not, as some--especially during the period before the First World War--who think war a fine tonic for whatever ails society. Not at all. However, he recognizes war as a competitive environment that spurs intra-group cooperation.

Competition between groups and cooperation within groups, whether hunter-gatherer tribes or highly developed and coordinated nation-states are traits that evolutionary theory explain. The controversial (but increasingly accepted) theory of cultural multilevel selection is a key concept for understanding the dynamics involved in these competitions that require so much cooperation. To explain this, Turchin provides a brief history of evolutionary biology and the controversy about whether groups can evolve and undergo a process of natural selection. As recently as the 1970s, with the publication of Richard Dawkins's book,  The Selfish Gene (and more recently in some of Steven Pinker’s work), mainstream biology believed that evolution occurred only on the level of individual genomes and not among groups. Turchin points out that there was an early, naïve theory of group selection that did not hold up to scrutiny. However, in work conducted by by David Sloan Wilson and colleagues, the theory of multilevel selection became more sophisticated. This theory now provides a persuasive—albeit not universally accepted—theory of how groups compete and evolve.

Part of what makes Turchin's work fascinating is that he translates the highly theoretical and mathematically modeled work of evolutionary biology (his native field) into commonplace examples taken from anthropology and history. For instance, he draws upon his academic home at the University of Connecticut, which has a phenomenally successful women's college basketball program (and a successful men's program as well) to frame the problem of cooperation and competition within a group. He uses examples of sports teams as a microcosm of the problem of cooperation and competition. As a member of numerous sports teams and now as a boys varsity basketball coach, this issue has long intrigued me. How does one promote competition within the team to draw out the best individual performances and determine playing time, while requiring those same individuals to coalesce and cooperate unselfishly at the highest level to defeat an opponent? To the extent the team succeeds in cooperating against an opponent, the team will likely win. Maximum success depends on individuals putting aside their selfish interests (glory, pay) for the benefit of the team. Moreover, what applies to something as inconsequential as sports (at least at bill level of high school sports), applies to the level of intergroup competition in something as deadly serious as war. (Of course, this leads one to speculate on the relationship between war and sports, but that's a subject for another time). Turchin explains the dynamics involved and provides some revealing information about how relationships and status among members of a team affect team performance. Studies have shown that wide disparities in pay between professional players correlates with poorer team performance. Those teams with the greatest equality of pay tend to be the most successful. Although Turchin does not mention this directly, one has to wonder how this applies to society as a whole. With an increasing awareness of a growing inequality in American society since the 1970s, one can't help but notice the increasing social and political polarization that occurred during the same period. We have become an increasingly less cooperative polity and society as inequality has grown. Turchin also notes the triumph of individualist philosophies espoused by Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek (which is a selective reading of his total work by some proponents), and others who emphasize a highly individualistic and laisse-fair ideology. Turchin quotes the "greed is good" speech by the fictional character Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street as an exemplar of the ascendant selfish ideology that began running amok in the 1980s. Turchin makes clear that an undue emphasis on individual accomplishment and selfishness hurts the society as a whole.

Turchin can claim to be the founding father of Cliodynamics, a discipline that works to discern patterns in history and prehistory based on the quantification of data through mathematical modeling. Attempts of this sort in the past have been failures. Through the lens of the philosopher R. G. Collingwood (of whom I've been reading a great deal lately), this endeavor doesn’t qualify as history properly understood. For Collingwood, History is the history of thought and not the history of behavior. But Turchin's work and the work of others in Cliodynamics demonstrates the weakness of Collingwood's position. When Collingwood emphasizes history as the history of thought, including the thoughts behind human actions and choices, he limits history to examining the tip of the iceberg. Just as humans are the result of eons of evolution layered one upon another to arrive at our current state, with most of the functions of our bodies running involuntarily and without our conscious knowledge or decision, so with many of the actions of society. Many actions seen together, aggregated over large groups, display behaviors that are not the result of a conscious decision. Often they are the aggregate of individual decisions that reveal a larger pattern. We deal with this every day when considering market "decisions." (But note our personification of markets often leads to poor analysis. The “market” is not a conscious individual; it’s an abstraction of many individual actions aggregated for the convenience of analysis). Turchin analyzes data from the past to better understand the past. (Note: the only source of knowledge is the past!) To me, Cliodynamics is a welcome addition to the field of history. Although I retain my prejudice for history as the history of thought, with an emphasis on political and intellectual decisions, we simply cannot ignore the fact that human beings are both a part of Nature and apart from Nature. To understand the totality of the human past—the highest intellectual endeavor—we need to take advantage of all the tools available. Looking at history through different lenses provided by of social and natural sciences is a resource that we are foolish to ignore. 

Indeed, in this book, Turchin suggests that perhaps we humans can move another step forward on our evolutionary journey and make war obsolete. The massive improvements in warfare and killing efficiency epitomized by atomic weapons make this more than a utopian dream. It's a practical necessity. The next logical—even necessary—step in cultural evolution must be increased cooperation, or we run the risk of regression to a less cooperative, must more barbaric (in the worst sense of the term) reality. Turchin uses the international space station as an example of the level of cooperation that nations are capable of attaining. He suggests that perhaps economic competition can replace war as a means of spurring cultural innovation without suffering the horrors of war. Paul Krugman, another social scientist inspired by Isaac Asimov’s vision of “psychohistory” outlined in his Foundation books, suggests we need an attack of aliens to foster an economic growth and cooperation, which is much in keeping with Turchin’s direction of thought. I believe that with the imminence of global climate change, we—as a species working through nation-states—will either ratchet-up our levels of peaceful cooperation to combat (by abatement and adaptation) what will become an increasingly alien environment—or we will suffer an increasingly deadly level of social and political conflict.

One mark of a successful book is that it leaves you wanting more. You hear yourself saying, “telling me more about this and that.” So it is with this book. The number of issues that it raises, the number of possible areas of explorations it suggests, are too numerous to list completely. But to name just one area of where I’d like to know more:  Turchin describes the idea of “cultural evolution” as a scientific theory “based on mathematical models [that] are empirically testable.” Id., Location 330. Moreover, there is a tradition within sociology of social evolution and development theory, as well as theories of history (addressed by Turchin in War and Peace and War). However, I’m wondering about connections with theories of cultural evolution (or change) based on language and other symbolic systems, such as the work of Owen Barfield, Walter Ong, Jean Gebser, William Irwin Thompson and Ralph Abraham, and Clare Graves and Don Beck (an eclectic list, I admit). None of these thinkers, I believe, would necessarily disagree with the biologically based theory of cultural evolution espoused by Turchin, but it would be interesting to determine where they mesh and where they conflict.


So, I’ll stop here. With an outstanding book, the temptation is to go on and on about it. I’ll not. Go read it yourself. 

Dilbert on Donald: I'm Not Persuaded

Comment withheld

Along with many, the Donald Trump phenomenon fascinates me. He comes across as a bombastic, narcissistic demagogue, mostly (but not entirely) full of hot air and baloney. On the other hand, he was until recently the favorite of most Republican voters. Many political commentators have attempted to deconstruct the Trump phenomenon. Is his popularity the result of his personal characteristics? Or is it the result of a miasma in the political air that has infected Republican voters? (I’m happy to note the Democrats and sane people seem immune to the Trump airs.) However, one assessment of Trump that has caught my attention comes from Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip.

Dilbert creator & hypnotist Scott Adams

Scott Adams wrote How to Fail at Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of My Life Story, a book that I enjoyed. (My review here.) In that book, Adams writes about many topics, but his distinction between goals and systems is worth the price of the book. But the book has much more than that. Adams is an open-minded and inquiring fellow, and he’s willing to try ideas and techniques to figure out what works and what doesn’t. Among the many practices he’s tried is hypnosis, and he finds it effective. I’ve been doing some reading on my own about hypnosis as a part of my interest in all types of persuasion, influence, and power. And while I don’t have any training in hypnosis, Adams does, and he writes about it in his book and in his blog. He defines hypnosis broadly, and like me, he’s interested more widely in persuasion. As a part of this interest, he’s been writing about Donald Trump. Adams describes Trump as one of the “Master Wizards” of persuasion (His Master Wizard—or Master Persuader—Hypothesis is an offshoot of his Moist Robot Hypothesis. Read his book or go to his blog for details.) In his ongoing commentary on Trump and the Trump presidential campaign, Adams entertains the possibility of a Trump landslide in the coming presidential election. By the way, Adams doesn’t claim that Trump would necessarily be a good president, just that he’s in a good position to win because he’s exhibiting the ways of a Master Wizard. I think that Adams is onto something, but I find Adams’s hypothesis has severe limitations.

In reading about hypnosis via The Rogue Hypnotist and Kreskin, as well having done some background reading on Milton Erickson, I believe that there are situations where conversational hypnosis can work. Also, there’s the whole topic of advertising and propaganda as a form of mass persuasion, which relates to hypnosis. Kreskin, for instance, claims there is no hypnosis in the sense of a pure trance, only suggestibility, and from what I’m learning, that’s probably an accurate characterization of what goes on. Kreskin reveals that in his shows, when he “hypnotizes” someone on stage, he makes a point of choosing a volunteer who is readily open to suggestion (which he’s learned to identify quickly). Some people are more much open and suggestible than others.

I believe that I’m on the less suggestible side of the scale. I’m WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) (courtesy of Jonathan Haidt), and I’m also a lawyer with over 30 years of experience in negotiations, hearings, trials, and appeals. In other words, I have a professionally trained crap detector. This is not to say up never been bamboozled (I have), but at least in the arena of a courtroom I know how to ask probing questions and deploy appropriate skepticism. This attitude carries over, at least to some extent, in other aspects of my life.

For instance, this skeptical-inquiring mindset, which is so handy in cross-examination, kicks on when watching a Republican presidential debate. The amount of free-flowing crap is immense. I'm not suggesting that the Democrats don’t dispense it, just that it's not the same magnitude of volume. Some people may accuse me of being close-mindedness, but I believe that reality has a well-established liberal bias. (Please take the statement with a large grain of salt as I stated it with tongue-in-cheek. Oh! How I love a good cliché!) Of course, someone will say that this is merely my liberal bias shining through, but I started my life as a Republican and only left that fold slowly and without rancor towards family, friends, and acquaintances that remained within the fold. (I learned in the most recent debate that I’m over three decades ahead of Ben Bernanke.) I’ve changed other beliefs and practices as well, and these changes didn’t occur as a matter of whim or some spooky, undue influence. In other words, careful thought and reason play a role in my life and can play a role in the lives of others. It can play a role in politics.

So the question becomes, “How much baloney can a candidate dispense and still garner a majority of the votes?” This a vital question because it goes to the viability of democracy itself. Some have defended democracy as good enough if people are smart enough to vote for their own interests. (I think Richard Posner makes this argument in Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy.) Of course, self-interest or organized group interests do carry significant (often inordinate) weight in political decision-making, but even granting that weight, many decisions aren’t compelled or even influenced by financial self-interest (narrowly defined). Most issues about cultural and ethics discussed in the political realm, such as gay marriage, abortion, and marijuana legalization, aren’t issues that affect the pocketbooks of most voters. Yet, many hold strong views on these topics. If those views are not informed by reason and inquiry, and not shaped by self-interest (narrowly understood), then how are they shaped? Visions informed by habit, fear, or hope quickly fill any void. In the arena of values (culture war) politics, we see and hear political pitches aimed at fundamental beliefs, fears, and hopes. (Alas, fears trump—pun intended—hopes as primary motivators.) In this arena, the candidate with the best skills for suggesting—without arguing—for a position will probably come out ahead. But can the candidate who fools a lot of the people a lot of the time win over enough of the voters?

Scott Adams suggests that Donald Trump is bluffing about immigration to establish an opening negotiating stance, or that Trump’s actions are the opening act in a three-act play will bring about a happy ending for both the protagonist (Trump) and illegal immigrants. Tragedy will turn to Romance. Maybe. Adams may argue (and I haven’t seen this yet), that candidates throughout American history have campaigned saying one thing and then doing quite another. Sometimes this is a matter of duplicity, sometimes the result of a change in circumstances, and sometimes the result of a genuine change of beliefs. However, it must remain a fundamental tenet of electoral democracy that we believe that a candidate will act consistently with what the candidate says during the campaign. When this doesn’t happen, such as Nixon’s pledge to “Bring Us Together”, it causes a profound rend in the body politic. Thus, the most fundamental question becomes one of the degree of trust we can place in a candidate to do what the candidate says he will do. Alternatively, as some voters tacitly suggest, should we grant a candidate carte blanche upon entering office? Most voters do this by not paying any attention to candidates. They base their choice on the flimsiest of reasons, such as whether the voter would like to sit down and share a beer with the candidate (typically men) or whether the candidate would “keep us safe”.

Trump reminds me of the former Italian leader, Silvio Berlusconi and the current Russian president Vladimir Putin. Both of them were elected leaders, with Berlusconi often playing the clown and accomplishing very little. Putin is quite severe, actively increasing the power of the state and pushing a nationalist agenda. Other elected leaders who provide a negative role model are Hitler and Mussolini, both of whom came to power through electoral process (they both immediately threw overboard after having gained power). Note! I’m not saying the Trump is a Hitler and a Mussolini. I’m only citing them as examples of the efficacy of some types of political rhetoric and persuasion. Hitler was able to persuade a many in the German nation to follow him. Of course, he killed or imprisoned those whom he could not persuade. Persuasion that draws upon nationalistic rhetoric, triumphalism, and fear, can—in certain circumstances—prove extremely persuasive. No matter how persuasive Trump may be to some, to support him for his persuasive abilities (if they do hold up enough to get him even nominated), is not an indicator of this fitness for office. (And, again, Adams has not endorsed Trump.)

A general reservation that I hold about Scott Adams’s Master Wizard Hypothesis is that it doesn’t address democratic eloquence. For instance, the current incumbent two-term president, Barack Obama, is often quite eloquent in formal speeches, and quite measured in his interviews. In rhetorical style, he’s the anti-Trump. And so for that matter is Dr. Ben Carson, Trump’s current chief rival for the Republican nomination. Despite significant obstacles, American voters have twice elected Obama as president of the United States. (And remember wooden Al Gore outpolled the affable George W. Bush.) If we look throughout American history, the greatest and most effective presidents, Lincoln, Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, are all displayed a high level of verbal intelligence and eloquence. In the modern era, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt could speak movingly to large crowds, but their off-the-cuff bombast – well, I can’t think of any examples of that. The era of presidential debates started in 1960 with Nixon and Kennedy. Neither of those two candidates displayed the verbal sparring and insult that we hear now between the Republican candidates. In fact, both were courteous and respectful toward the other. While not always the case, the verbally eloquent and articulate presidential candidate defeats the opponent with a greater amount of bombast, even those who may have used some of the techniques of hypnotic suggestion that Adams find so empowering in Trump. From what I can discern from my study, hypnosis works in a significant way when the receiver wants to be open to suggestion. We may thus conclude that many Republican voters want to receive the suggestions the Trump (and the other Republican candidates) want to purvey.

All this may prove moot, as some national polls, as well as most recent Iowa poll showed the Ben Carson is now ahead of the entire field. Mild-mannered Dr. Ben Carson, another anti-Trump. Or is he just more subtle in his choice of language and staging? It appears that people are attracted to Carson precisely because of his mild, understated manner. How does this work with the Adams’s Master Wizard Hypothesis about Trump?

In one blog, Adams notes that someone measured Trump as speaking at a fourth-grade level. Adams thinks that’s a part of Trump’s communication wizardry. Any effective speaker must know the audience and match the appropriate linguistic register to that audience, but how low should you go? For instance, listen to Obama talking to and about “folks” when he’s in a small group or informal setting and compare that to the more literary register of his formal speeches. Or think of Lincoln telling humorous tales and bawdy jokes to his friends sitting around a cracker-barrel and then penning the immortal words of the Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address. Did Churchill bring the English language to war by using vague phrasing at a fourth-grade level to rally the British people in their darkest hour? And that later became their finest hour in part because of his eloquence. All of these speakers used powerful images and sophisticated language that resonated with widely held beliefs shared by their audiences. So does Trump do this so well? Has the American electorate been dumbed-down? I’m not persuaded yet.

Based on my years of study and practice of persuasion, I don’t believe that there is a Holy Grail of persuasion. There are many little things that you can do to increase your odds of success, but nothing guarantees success. We are subject to the whims and caprices of that most implacable of gods, the Audience. Even the Master Wizard Gerry Spence, who’s Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail--Every Place, Every Time, that Adams has read (if it follows Spence’s earlier How to Argue and Win Every Time I’ve read) says you can’t win every time—at least not in the sense of getting everything you hoped for through persuasion. (Spence’s titles go in for hyperbole, but he is very persuasive and credible.) You have to choose your battles as best you can. I believe that Trump’s success to date is more a function of the hopes and fears of his audience. Or more accurately, their hopes that he can deliver them from their fears. I believe that this Washington Post article, assessing Trump’s appeal as a function of his audience provides greater explanatory power about Trump’s success to date than does Adams’s Master Wizard Hypothesis.  

David Brooks & the Effective Executive

Candidate sought, no experience required

Sometimes I feel that I pick on David Brooks too much. His ideas are usually sound, but not quite. In his column entitled "A Sensible Version of Donald Trump", Brooks imagines an attractive version of the political outsider. But he stumbles in important places.

Extreme make-over needed

He provides a speech for his fantasy candidate: "I’m no politician. [Brooks doesn’t address how someone running for president isn’t by definition a politician, but we’ll let that slide for the moment.] I’m just a boring guy who knows how to run things." “Run things”? Politicians, at least politicians who aspire to leadership, don't“run things," they lead people. In a democracy, they should be leading citizens. The Brooks fantasy (all too common) is that business executives, who often enjoy a degree of command and control greater than found in the military, make good political leaders. They don't. Governing is a matter of leadership, and the greatest presidents in American history on this list includes no business executives. Washington and Jefferson, who operated slave plantations, come about as close as any of the possibilities. (And Jefferson wasn’t very good on the business aspect of his plantation.) The most common background besides having held office? Lawyer. All of the top 10 were accomplished leaders. Even former generals like George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower are distinguished by their ability to work with others and to use persuasion as well as command. Politicians—at least the ones we should elect--articulate visions and then translate those visions into laws and policies for the benefit of their constituents—and they have an encompassing definition of their constituency. It's not a matter of managing things; it's a matter of leading people. That too many politicians don't do this well is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the reality of what is necessary and possible.

I understand that those politicians who have held office, as opposed to those that are now running for office for the first time, have records that show them bending to the will of their constituents and campaign contributors. That is, they've had to take positions and make decisions that reflect the tug-of-war between the myriad interests and ideologies of American politics. The difference that Donald Trump and Ben Carson share is that they have the luxury of not having served and not having created a record of political performance. We would be naïve to believe that somehow their inexperience would allow them to rise above the quotidian world of political give-and-take arising out of the demands of contentious voters and contributors.

Brooks rightly notes that we have a polarized and corrupt political culture with little accomplishment. Congress fiddles while we burn. However, he refuses to identify the overarching role played by big money in politics, the regime of legalized corruption that now pervades our campaign finance system. Reforming the system, which in some measure all of the Democrats support (especially Lawrence Lessig), isn't a cure-all, and it won't make fringes of political discourse come to reason, but it is the first and most important step and should be promoted on every occasion. Brooks seems loath to do this.

Brooks is certainly correct in identifying the fact that those in the lower echelons of the income and wealth distribution, not necessarily accurately defined as just “the lower half,” have seen their quality of life deteriorate in many ways that often begins with financial loss. Brooks goes on the cite a study that shows that the integration of poor families into better neighborhoods results in a long-term improvement in many measures of quality of life for those families. He cites this as an example of the value of society and community in improving the lot of individuals. He takes a cheap shot at Bernie Sanders because he accuses Sanders of being a "statist" and claiming the term "socialist" (seeking maximum irony) for his outlook. There's a good deal of irony in Brooks’ assertion given that some of the most dynamic communities in America have arisen on the political left, specifically in the labor movement. Community exists in small towns, as well, along with the dull force of conformity. Like many a conservative, Brooks likes to ignore the role the state can play in fostering community and collective action when the demands of a problem exceed those of civil society and smaller units of government.

Brooks hedges his “socialist” bet by saying we should be “getting a little moralistic." By this, he means setting standards for individual behavior. In this, I'm all for him. I value an integral approach to social and political problems of all sorts. By integral, I’m referring to the work of Ken Wilber and those working along similar lines. For example, problems in communities suffering poverty, crime, family disintegration, poor education, etc. are “wicked" problems that demand assessments and actions from a variety of perspectives. Human problems can't often be resolved only through individual initiative or through community action alone, but only through a combination of both. Brooks seems to have this sensibility, but he doesn't articulate it nearly as well as Ken Wilber and Alan Watkins (for example) whose book, Wicked and Wise: How to Solve the World’s Toughest Problems, I’m currently reading. Their template is the most sophisticated template for addressing “wicked” problems. By the way, “wicked problems” as they define them, have multiple stakeholders, multiple causes, multiple symptoms, and multiple solutions, and the problem continues to change. Thus, the business executive who believes that she (a nod to Carly Fiorina for the sake of gender equality among poor candidates) can say just do “x” or just do “y” and the problem will be solved. That doesn’t work in the Middle East or Ukraine, in dealing with Putin or China, or with global climate change, or—well, just about anything involving a multitude of human beings.   

So once again, thank you, David Brooks, for almost getting it right and thereby allowing me to finish the job. At least to my mind.