Tuesday, June 19, 2018

American Values in the Trump Era

I saw a Facebook post over the weekend, containing the line "What the fuck happened, America?" The post's author didn't specifically state what it was written in response to, but it's not hard to guess.  Over the weekend, the story broke that the Trump administration had directed Customs and Border Patrol to specifically begin splitting up families that cross into America's southern border.  The children are housed in Spartan detention camps, while the parents are presumably deported.

Read that again.  The Trump administration ordered CBP to split up families who cross into the United States from the south.  CBP went right along with it, without hesitation.  And many of his followers rationalized what the administration was doing.  Some even cheered.

"What the fuck happened," indeed.

This policy (it is absolutely NOT a law, and don't believe otherwise) is intentionally cruel and appalling; and if you're not shocked by it, you need to recalibrate your moral compass.  But the truth is, it didn't just come out of nowhere - in more ways than one.  First, the United States government has been party to other inhumane practices, both large and small throughout its history.  You probably know of some of the bigger ones: slavery, the Tuskeegee Experiments, interning Japanese-American citizens in WWII, and the Trail of Tears, to name a few.  As for the smaller ones, the ones that immediately come to mind tend to be more recent.  Camp X-Ray, rendition, and "enhanced interrogation" (AKA torture) desensitized us to the government treating non-Americans cruelly.  The TSA enacted increasingly invasive and unnecessary security measures while providing no mechanisms for recourse or accountability for abuses of authority, and many people shrugged their shoulders and accepted its infringements on all of our rights.  Ditto with the NSA and its bulk data collection.  We largely ignored the Pentagon's 1033 Program, which supplied surplus military hardware to police forces across the nation; and just as the old saying about "when all you have is a hammer..." goes, those police units began adopting more aggressive attitudes and tactics.

The CBP's separation of families is a convergence of all the things I just described: the TSA's lack of accountability, police forces' aggressive posture, and Camp X-Ray's barbaric treatment of non-Americans.  And we - American citizens - kind of let it happen by abandoning our civic responsibilities.  The more often we turned a blind eye, or halfheartedly protested, the more these practices became entrenched.  Acceptable.  Widespread.

But that's only part of it.  Another huge factor, as I'm sure you can guess, is President Trump.  The Trump administration's policy of separating families should not be a surprise, if you paid attention to what Trump said and who he surrounded himself with on the campaign trail.  Remember when Trump referred to Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists? That was almost three years ago to the day.  Trump has never bothered to hide his hatred for Latino immigrants or his racism, and now he's pushing policy in line with his attitudes.


As much as Trump is at the center of this, it's not just about him, though.  The family separation policy may have been in the planning for a while, but it was only rolled out recently.  Did you notice how quickly CBP fell in line, though? I don't see many people talking about that, except tangentially.  I've seen a few articles about how indifferent, even cruel, the CBP officers have acted toward the detained children, but AFAIK nobody has asked how they got that way.  Institutional cultures don't shift so radically in such a short time, which means that the CBP behavior we're seeing has been there for a while, just below the surface.  Trump's policies may have drawn that cruelty out, but it didn't create it from scratch.  Regardless, curbing the CBP excesses will be one of many problems this country faces after Trump leaves office.

I often claim that Trump unleashed this country's ugly side.  All the racism, the misogyny, the anti-intellectualism, the corruption and the lying, the obnoxious boasting, and the "burn it all down" style of governing - it didn't originate with Trump.  Like the CBP agents, there were a lot of shitbags who Trump has emboldened.  They will still be here after Trump is gone, and they won't go quietly. The fallout from the Trump administration will shape politics for decades.

Because this is about a lot more than the family separation policy.  It's about Trump's entire worldview, something that informs everything he thinks, says, and does.  Think back to Trump's comments about immigrants being criminals and rapists, and how those comments relate to this current family separation policy.  Now think about other things Trump said during his campaign.  Remember all of his racist and misogynist dog whistles? Remember when he said he'd only acknowledge the election results if he won? Or how he popularized a slogan calling for a political rival to be jailed - and still uses it at rallies and speeches?

Does this mean I think we're on the march toward genocide or a dictatorship? That Trump's going to seize control of the government and declare himself emperor or something, or that we'll be herding immigrants, Muslims, and who knows who else into camps? I honestly don't know, but I'm giving both non-zero possibilities at this point.  I may very well be overreacting, and there's certainly a significant chance I'm wrong.  However, there have been a lot of indicators that Trump wants to do so.  He's installed family members in key posts, centralized the decision-making process, made targeting minorities and other protected classes a common theme of his policies, and fawned over more than one totalitarian despot.  At the same time, the institutional checks meant to keep a president from seizing power are weakened.  The GOP-controlled congress won't stand up to him, because of either cowardice or opportunism - I can't figure out which; and the Democrats suck as an opposition party, because they won't come up with a coherent platform.

They need to, quickly; and they need to fight to win with everything they've got. (Everything legal, of course.) Because if the Trump administration is separating immigrant families today, what will it be doing tomorrow? Will it move on to some other group next after it's done with immigrants, Muslims, or transgender people? As I already said, I don't know.  Nobody can predict the future.  But that's why it's important to smack down any authoritarian policies early, because by the time people are getting marched to the gas chambers, it's too late.

This isn't a debate about policy any more, it's about morality.  Right and wrong.  Trump, the members of his administration, his Republican enablers in Congress, and his supporters - they're all embracing a very immoral and un-American set of values.  History will someday judge them as villains - IF the rest of us do something about it.  Vote, protest, call your elected reps.  Do what you can to render the Party of Trump ineffective as a political movement.  There should be no place for their ideas and policies in American society.

Because history will judge you too.

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Much Ado About Nothing

Thoughts on a recent social media circus. . .

The hugely-publicized summit between the United States and North Korea took place a few days ago, and one of the many things about it that struck me as interesting was people's reactions over how both nations' flags were on display.  The American and North Korean flags were posted at the same height, which led some people (although not the ones you think - more on that shortly) to lose their minds.

Honestly, it's a lot of sound and fury over a non-issue.  Here's why.  Every official meeting between two heads of state, as well as many of their ambassadors, cabinet officials, etc, etc, etc, is planned down to the most minor detail according to a long-standing set of customs and courtesies.  They probably come from ancient Roman traditions or practices that became common back when kings and queens were in style.  I don't know the history.  But the point is that neither country improvised this recent summit.

Here's a fun fact: did you know that the US State Department has a branch just for this sort of thing? It's called the Office of the Chief of Protocol.  Here's what it has to say about foreign nations' flags:

Q: What is the order of display for the U.S. flag and a flag of a foreign nation?

A: The two flags should be on separate staffs.  Both flags should be the same size and flown at the same height.  The U.S. flag is flown in the place of honor, which is to the viewer's left.

So, you see, there's already an established procedure in place for this.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that some junior-level worker bees from the US protocol office, and their North Korean counterparts, were feverishly flipping through some thick, hardbound manual to figure out how both nations' flags were displayed.

Do you really think that the same person who can't be bothered to read an intelligence briefing longer than a page seems like a person who gets that involved in the mundane minutiae of a diplomatic ceremony? Hell no.  Relax, folks, he probably had very little to do with planning this ceremony; and he certainly didn't micromanage it down to the last detail. And despite his obvious affinity for authoritarians and strongmen, I can guarantee he didn't order the North Korean flag to be at the same level as the US flag.

But that's exactly what you would think he did, based on the level of outrage from some sources.  I was expecting some vitriol, and I found plenty of it on Twitter.  The anti-Trump crowd was losing its shit.  Now, I can certainly understand where they're coming from.  If you didn't know about the flag protocol, it appeared that the United States was treating Kim Jong Un as an equal.  That's certainly not a good look, given how much blood he has on his hands.  But a lot of people should have known better.  Maybe not about the specific regulation concerning flags, but at least the general awareness that these kinds of meetings are very traditional and ritualistic and based on established precedent?

Hell, I figured that out because I served in the military, where there's a collection of regulations for damn near every formal event: parades, promotion boards, change of command ceremonies, and so on.  The State Department isn't the military, of course, but diplomatic duties involve a fair amount of ceremonies.  Therefore, it's not hard to guess that State has regulations for all of those ceremonies, just as the military does.

The people who were coming down on Trump for the flag non-issue should have realized this, or at least been aware of the possibility.  There are countless valid reasons to hammer on Trump, but if it becomes an instinctive thing to the point someone lets their loathing override their logic, the anti-Trump crowd is devolving into a tribal mob.  I saw what that's like for about eight years, as Hannity, Limbaugh, and a handful of other hacks made it their goal to whip their viewers/listeners into a frothing fury over every little thing. (Hey, remember the "latte salute" incident?) And guess what? It was pretty successful.  If the anti-Trump crowd is going to engage in the same kind of knee-jerk resentment, they've become the mirror image of the Hannity/Limbaugh crowd.  That doesn't help put the country back on the right path.

I'm curious what they expected, though.  Hypothetically, if North Korea ever gives up its nukes and rejoins the global community, there's going to have to be several ceremonies like the one this weekend.  International politics often means associating with unsavory people, even the Scum of the Earth.  It's not like every nation on earth is governed by perfect saints.  On top of that, what would arranging the ceremony to treat Kim as an inferior accomplish? It makes the US look kind of like a bully, and makes North Korea resentful.  History buffs know that humiliating a country like that can sometimes backfire spectacularly.

On the other hand, the people who one might expect to get worked up over the flag display have been largely silent.  Curious (not really, I'm being rhetorical), considering how worked up those people have gotten over similar supposedly disrespectful behavior toward the American flag.  I suspect that if you could draw a Venn diagram of the people who are shrugging and saying "meh" over this particular flag issue and of people who fly into a rage over NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, it would be a near-perfect circle.  I guess those people forgot to get outraged this time, because they were too busy fawning over their political savior.

Both sides of this brouhaha are letting their tribal instincts override their common sense.  That's hardly a surprise, given how polarized things have gotten.  But this is such a ridiculous thing to get fired up over, especially when there's an unexciting, simple explanation.  (There are a lot of parties who have a stake in seeing the population get worked up over a relatively inconsequential issue, though, and I might tackle that topic in the future.) Tribalism is a helluva drug, though.  It shuts off your critical thinking abilities and turns people into hypocrites.

ADDENDUM: In a postscript to the flag non-issue, President Trump was captured on tape saluting a high-ranking North Korean general.  Now, there is a school of thought that a President shouldn't be saluting AT ALL, in accordance with not blurring the line between the military and its civilian leadership - retired Navy Chief Warrant Officer Jim Wright wrote a great Twitter thread about it, here.  I personally think the Commander in Chief can render a salute without sliding into one of those pseudo-military strongmen that exist around the world, but I do see the logic in what Wright is saying.  However, even if military customs and courtesies permitted the Commander in Chief to render salutes, AR 600-25 states that service members only renders salutes to military officers of friendly foreign nations  The US and North Korea are technically still in a state of war, so North Korea is not a friendly nation by any stretch. 

It's perfectly natural to wonder if the salute was yet another manifestation of Trump's affinity for authoritarian regimes, because there have been so, so many.  But there's a saying that goes, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." I think it applies here.  I'm going to chalk this up to stupidity, even though accidentally saluting an officer in a hostile nation's military seems like a pretty damn big brain fart.  I'm not going to pin this on some sinister authoritarian explanation, but I'm not letting Trump's dumb ass off the hook either.

Sunday, June 10, 2018

No Corporation is an Island

"You know what they want? They want obedient workers.  Obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it." - George Carlin

You might have seen this in the news lately: Seattle has announced a plan to tax corporations that make over $20 million per year $275 per employee, in order to raise revenue for affordable housing and programs that help the homeless.  Reportedly, Seattle's new tax is gaining traction with a handful of Silicon Valley cities, but it's also drawing a fair amount of criticism.  Can you guess why? You got it - Amazon will likely respond by simply moving its offices somewhere else.  In fact, Amazon has hinted that it's considering such a move.  Man, what a bunch of fools those city officials are! Their plan is going to cost the city both jobs and revenue.


Except that Seattle (kinda) has the right idea.  I don't agree with Seattle's new tax - how much control does the city council think Amazon and the other corporations really have over the local housing market?  But I would get behind a similar concept, like steep monetary penalties for wealthy companies that can, but choose not to, pay their workers a living wage.  (Looking at you, Walmart.  Along with just about every fast food franchise.) Those companies' workers have to make a tough choice to cope with shortfalls, given their salaries: go without, work a second job (if possible), or rely on government assistance.  It shouldn't be that way.  They deserve wages that will let them cover basic necessities: food, clothing, a decent place to live, the means to afford the inevitable medical emergency.  I don't think that's too much to ask.  Let's penalize the companies that hoard the revenue and make their employees subsist on scraps.

By this point, I can practically see people objecting.  (That's right, I can see you out there, saying "What is this bullshit?" to yourself.  Hang on, I'm getting to you.) I've been hearing the same objections, more or less, for years, so let me write a few words to address them. 

First, people often say that low wage jobs don't deserve higher wages because they don't require a lot of skill.  Well, go work one of those jobs some time.  There's a lot more work involved than most people realize.  Take a fast food worker.  The act of grilling a burger, deep-frying some chicken wings, or preparing whatever fast food an establishment serves, isn't terribly difficult.  Try doing it nonstop for an entire shift, though, including when you're under pressure because a huge crowd of people showed up at the same time.  Don't forget that you'll be performing some other task like cleaning or stocking during the slow times.  So yeah, fast food employees work their asses off all day. They absolutely deserve a living wage.

Second, opponents argue that it will negatively affect businesses.  I can kinda/sorta see that, if it's a mom-and-pop operation we're talking about.  Small businesses have thinker profit margins, so requiring them to pay higher wages will probably cause a lot of them to go out of business.  But we're not talking about mom & pop businesses.  Walmart (I like to single it out because it's the king of asshole companies) raked in $482 billion in FY 2016, so it could easily spare some of that to give its employees a boost.  Here's a Fortune article that crunched the numbers, so I don't have to.  Point is, just about any retail/restaurant/fast-food franchise could provide pay & benefits without suffering much lost revenue.  If it really wanted to. 

Of course, this won't happen, because companies are obsessed with their balance sheets.  Businesses that can will just move to a place where they don't have to pay employees as much - just like Amazon is hinting it might do.  Hmm, that sounds familiar, like something that happened before. . .wait, it's on the tip of my brain. . .oh, I know! Outsourcing! That happened mostly in the 1990s so I think it's been long enough for us to gauge the impact.  How'd that work out for everyone involved?

Not so well, right? Sure, it was great for the companies: they got a ready supply of inexpensive labor, and saved money by paying pennies on the dollar, with no perks like insurance or a pension.  But for everyone else, not so much.  A lot of companies moved to America's immediate neighbor to the south, but later packed up and moved again when they found a better bargain elsewhere.  Think about that: the companies thought Mexico was too expensive.  In other words, the competition for those manufacturing jobs basically became a race to the bottom.  Remember that piece of info, because you will see it again.  And the American economy took some hits too.  Several million American factory workers (sources vary from 5MM to 14MM) were unceremoniously dumped back into the job search, with a predictable effect on wages, per the law of supply and demand.  Here's a graph that helps explain it, courtesy of the University of Toronto (and some modifications by yours truly.)  You'll notice that when you increase the labor supply (shown here by the dashed line labeled S2), wages go down.

Could outsourcing (and also technological advancements, to be fair) be responsible for the wage stagnation that's been happening for the last four decades? The number of jobs lost to technology and outsourcing ranges from 5 to 14 million, which represents about 3.9% - 10.9% of the total US workforce (these percentages are based on the April 2018 workforce of 127.2 million workers.) Those percentages are pretty big chunks of the workforce, so outsourcing & technology almost certainly played some part in wages flattening. 

And it's not just outsourcing or technological gains.  The "gig" economy, self-driving vehicles, retail kiosks (okay, I guess those last two are technological gains), the "retail apocalypse". . .they're all combining to make jobs, especially stable, well-paying jobs, harder to find.  Add in factors like rising costs for housing and health care, and the result is that it is becoming harder for people to get by. 

And people realize it.  They instinctively "get it," even if they're not expert economists armed with reams of data to back up their arguments.  They've understood things haven't been getting better for years now, and they've been making their frustrations known.  The Tea Party.  Occupy Wall Street.  The 2016 Presidential election.  These have all been expressions of the population's discontent over the status quo.  They know the economy isn't working for them, and they're pissed about it.  Amazingly, Washington and Wall Street still haven't gotten the message - if the recent tax reform bill is any indication.

Seattle kind of gets it.  Its tax proposal, despite a few severe flaws, is a step in the right direction.  And also why Amazon's CEO is an asshole for threatening to relocate unless the city of Seattle gives into its demands; it knows (or should know) the lessons from recent history about how a company's race to the bottom is detrimental to the overall economy (I told you that would come up again.)  An economy is like an ecosystem, and when one part of it breaks down, it creates a ripple effect throughout the entire system.  Right now, a decent-sized portion of the workforce is at risk.  People need money to buy all the products our economy churns out, and they need good jobs to get that money.


But maybe I'm wrong.  It's hard to know how events turn out while you're in the middle of them.  Maybe this will all turn out okay, more or less.  Things turned out more or less okay after industrialization and mechanization in the mid-1800s, right? Maybe we'll be okay this time too.

But what if we're not?

"There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy." - Alfred Henry Lewis