Moderation in All Things

...Including moderation.

This post is a long, long time coming and I can't put it off anymore. With the State of the Union airing last night, it's as good of a time as ever. I'm sure you're all expecting big things from me. I first mentioned making a political post back in... I dunno... April? Then I got busy with all my travelling. Then I needed a break from writing. Next I was consumed by job applications. Then I fell behind on the news cycle. So with our understanding that it's impossible to stay informed on absolutely everything, I bring you my break down of some of the hot topics over the last year since Trump's election. And I'll do it in the same style as when I penned articles for several of Tufts' political magazines: philosophically, sans pragmatism. I won't say everything I want to say in this one post, because that would be much too long. I could write a book on this presidency. But if this post is well-received and generates some discussion, I'd love to do more - I could address a topic more in-depth rather than painting in broad strokes like I'm about to do.

One of my reasons I left Raytheon to travel back in March was because I feared what the government and military might become under Trump. So far, the military's objectives and MO haven't changed significantly, but has the government's? Definitely. Friends working within various government agencies see it. Outwardly, you can see it yourself in the qualifications of political appointees, but perhaps more starkly in the number of vacant political positions. Standard for Republicans, the right wants to downsize the government. This is however a much more extreme tactic than previously employed by Republicans. This is Trump-brand Republican^TM, and not a priori a bad thing. I'll return to this topic, but I want to address Trump's election first.

So many people want to put Trump's success/Clinton's failure on one source. People of course like to blame easy targets. Was it sexism against Clinton? In part. Literal fake Facebook news targeted against politicians? Yup. The FBI's and congress's handling of emails? Sure. An atrocious DNC campaign? That too. Racism against Obama and his party. Flippant accusations of racism against conservatives. Bigotry against Mexicans. Religious intolerance against Islam. Liberals' dishonest handling of the problem of Islam. An uneducated bloc of voters. A lack of deference to scientists. Suckers looking for manufactured outrage. Identity politics. Third party voters. Indifferent voters seeking perfection. The 50% of eligible voters who, for one reason or another, do not vote. Spiteful Bernie bros. Counter-culture against an ever more visible, more demanding group of social justice warriors (The real and original SJWs, not the "SJW" that has become nearly synonymous with progressive). Gunslingers. Religious nuts. An outdated electoral college. ALL OF THE ABOVE. I was able to ramble these all off the cuff; I'd bet there are many more of which you can remind me. I've read from people who attribute Trump's election to each of these, and I can see truth in all of them. These all could get their own article.

Which factor had the biggest impact? There's some merit in posing that question, so as to figure out what needs to be addressed most urgently. But really it's dangerous to even ask - coming to an answer means psychologically pigeonholing yourself into ignoring the other factors. As much as liberals might want to claim otherwise, there are many breeds of Trump voter. They are not a monolithic ideologue. To claim uniformity in your political adversaries sets yourself up to make no progress in getting through to them.

When Trump first appeared on the scene and announced his run for presidency, I was on board. I grew up with parents that revered pre-politics Trump. "Go to Wharton, like Trump." His most prominent feature shown in the news was how he was breaking through political correctness. And we need some of that in society. But over time it became apparent that this guy was politically inept. He's talented in some departments, absolutely - he has an uncanny ability to pulse swaths of America and tell targeted stories. But I would sure love it if Trump had some minimum of political experience. If he understood the energy industry. If he understood crime. If he understood Israel's history. It could all be a face he puts up for his voters, as is frequently claimed, but what is the difference at this point?

Policy-wise, I can see merit in some of what Trump offers, and then a lot of policies I don't want to touch with a ten foot pole. One of Trump's biggest goals is to shrink the national government and return power to state and municipal governments. Trump's "America first" attitude manifests in dismantling Obama's globalism and "dictatorial" style. Obama introduced so many mandates that are beneficial, but he semi-overstepped his constitutional powers, according to strict textualists, in order to institute well-intentioned policies. For example, one "evil" deregulation Trump enacted was overwriting an Obama-era order to prevent hunting of hibernating bears. Does this mean Trump wants hunters to kill hibernating bears? No, it means Trump wants local governments to institute their own policy that prevents the hunt of hibernating bears, should the local government deem it necessary. Local governments are in better touch with the people under their jurisdiction than the high-level national government. People are living in more like-minded clusters than ever before, with liberals in cities and conservatives in the countryside. When conservatives refer to the "elitism" of liberals, they are usually referring to the liberal insistence that they know best for the entire country.

Let me be clear, I do not think Trump's approach is best here: globalization is happening, and we need to embrace it. We are more efficient as a national government and, I hope one day, as a world government (strengthen the United Nations). There are some things that make no sense to control on a local level, like guns. The topic of globalization deserves its own article, and it is dishonest to pretend that you or I have the answer. I just want to shed light on the heart of the conservative. So many liberals have no idea whatsoever where a Republican is coming from, and thence come the accusations of racism. Surely they hate black people if the national government is removing protections for black people!

"The greatest evil in our country today is not racism, but ignorance. I believe unconditionally in the ability of people to respond when they are told the truth. We need to be taught to study rather than to believe, to inquire rather than to affirm."

Policies are NOT the main issue with Trump - his character is. He has set back political discourse to a level from which we may never recover. The parties are so revved up that compromise is a thing of the past (last night's SOTU gave me a little bit of hope, actually). Racists are emboldened. Who knows what sexual assault means these days, in light of his locker room talk. America is now post-fact. When I was touring the First White House of the Confederacy in Montgomery, a woman was shut down on some matter of fact by the orator and she goes, "Well we all have opinions." YOU MORON, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR OPINION HERE, LISTEN TO THE EXPERT. At a protest in New York, back when the revocation of Obamacare was on the table, one Trump supporter got cited an analysis from the CDC that 24 million Americans would lose healthcare and he replied with "That's just your opinion."

It is this lack of intellectualism that gets us in trouble. Stop believing that your "opinion" (read, misinformation) carries as much weight as the expert's assertions. We can debate the implications of losing healthcare, how much a life is worth, etc., but do not shove aside experts. We are at a point where we need to fight that climate change exists, when we should be arguing how much humans need to spend to counteract it. Experts can certainly be wrong. The best we can say about any theory, in any field, is that it is not wrong yet. But it has always been experts that show them to be wrong, not Joe Blow. We need to show much greater deference to the people who have devoted their lives to a topic.

What is the purpose of government? Setting aside fringe anarchists, even the most ravenous libertarian believes in government on some scale. What do we all, collectively, want out of such an organization? I posit that the government should protect its citizenry, on balance with creating a fair and free environment. (I've never screened this idea in front of anyone, so I'm looking forward to the holes you can poke.) I'm no poli-sci scholar, but I think this is very Lockean, and by no coincidence well-aligned with the familiar phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I think America's Founding Fathers had some good heads on their shoulders. It is this question and answer that we must always keep in mind when forming any policy.

This is the land that fought for liberty. 

Now when we fight,

We fight for bread.

Here is the thing about equality:

Everyone's equal when they're dead. 

When any president as wild and unfamiliar as Trump takes office, the country could go through a rocky time. America seems so stable, especially to a 28-year-old, because not too much happens in three decades (for only half of which am I politically-aware). Having learned so much of American history throughout my travels, it really hits you that America is a young country, and we aren't necessarily stabilized. The framework for our country was laid out by smart men 250 years ago, but they weren't superheroes with godly foresight. They used the successes and faults of the English monarchy "to form a more perfect union." But it isn't necessarily absolutely perfect, nor absolutely stable, so as citizens we are obligated to shout when we don't like the country's direction.

Last point I want to make for now, because it has driven me up a wall since middle school. And everything else can be left to future posts.

Are you a Republican or a Democrat? No, you are neither, and stop associating with either party. You are not running for office. You aren't backed by the party's funds. Your state might require party registration in order to vote in the primary, but even in that case, there is no reason of which I'm aware to extend your affiliation beyond the primary vote. You are an individual with many beliefs, principles, and intentions. Quit limiting yourself. Quit caring about your "team." Start evaluating policies critically.