Utopia and The Future

An acquaintance of mine recently sent me a book called Utopia For Realists by Rutger Bregman. I finished reading it last night.

Bregman is a popular Dutch author and historian, who has written other books about the future, utopia and creating a better world. In Utopia.. he makes the case for how the three concepts he advocates for the most, a 15 hour workweek, universal basic income, and open borders, could create a world without poverty, with much less crime, and with far more productivity than we have currently.

I reread a few of the posts I created along the lines of The Future, and have provided links to two of them.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-future.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/09/another-look-at-future.html

Utopia and the future.

I must confess, I have allowed my outlook to degrade in the past few years. I say this because I found a number of past posts I had written with forward looking, positive outlooks for the world, humanity, but far less with such an optimistic viewpoint in the more recent past. I often remark that I believe that some of the negative attitudes emanating from people in their 50's and above, are the (natural) result of nostalgic thinking that is so easy to revert to as we age, as well as the obvious but often ignored fact that death is much closer than we want to admit.

Whether this generalized outlook has also effected the tone of my posts, is certainly debatable. The phrase, just because someone is paranoid, doesn't mean there aren't those out to get them, may be appropriate in regards to the recognition that sad and angry making news seems to attract more viewers, more clicks, more attention, so perhaps I have begun to succumb to that trend as well, even while I remain happy in my life, although more sad in regards to the world around us.

While I have certainly begun to believe that our democracy is already dead, is it simply because I am avoiding the obvious, that I am closer to death than birth, or just a reflection of the awful politics that is prevalent at this point in time?

Utopia For Realists, offered me a chance to put aside the cheerlessness of such thoughts, and to read about a perspective that not only believes in the progression (for the better) of humanity, but offers ideas as to how to accelerate that trajectory.

A few times in the past, I have discussed with friends, the concept that many women who stayed at home to raise tomorrow's adults, fulfilling what has traditionally been the ultimate goal and purpose of a woman as wife and mother, were sold a bill of goods that has proved detrimental to their later adult lives. 

Whether through divorce or death, there are far too many women in their 50's and above, who find themselves with far too few resources, especially in the form of their social security checks, because they did not earn any money outside of the home during those years when they were performing the most noble of tasks, raising and caring for their children. 

When discussing the problem of older women who live in poverty, my standard reaction is that, recognizing this issue, we should develop a program whereby women (and men) who stay at home with their kids are credited with an amount of money towards their future social security earnings. This amount could reflect the average cost of daycare in the state where one resides, or the income which equates to the poverty level for one person. Regardless of the metric, women would at least have an extra safety net to counter events that force them to sell their homes, or take menial jobs to make ends meet, when their only crime was staying at home to raise their children. 

Bregman takes this concept to the next level however, proposing a universal basic income for all people. It is an idea that, while certainly not mainstream, is actually being discussed in reasonable tones, and is being experimented with in various iterations in a few countries, and especially as a way to end homelessness. Bregman cites all kinds of studies which demonstrate that giving people cash is far more effective than any of the standard, traditional methods of assisting those in need.

As part of this argument, Bregman agrees with those who rail against the various "helping" programs that exist, not because he believes we should only advocate for "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" which he finds immoral and inhumane, but because there is not enough proof behind the efficacy of so many of our current attempts to address the ills of poverty and homelessness, and that too much of the resources applied to the problem are wasted on administrative costs related to oversight and evaluation and fraud prevention. 

Whether universal basic income is actually the norm in 25 or 50 years, it has been documented again and again that giving people in need an infusion of cash, especially the homeless, propels them to correcting their situation, and saves future expenditures related to policing, prison, and welfare. It is an investment that almost always returns more than it costs.

The 15 hour work week, on the face of it, seems unrealistic. How can the wheels of industry continue to turn if people only work 15 hours a week, and, what will people do with all that free time? 

The latter question has always been offered as a reason by employers and other institutions as to why people need to work. And, frankly, given the rise in suicides and drug overdoses that occurred during the lock downs related to the pandemic, I can see why most people would shrug off such a concept. 

But, using a situational instance such as the pandemic is not a good evaluation of a program, since we were thrust into the changes that marked our attempts to save lives, whereas working towards a 15 hour work week would entail a progression of steps to get us there, not a sudden change. 

Also, there is something to be said for the belief that it is the very nature of our workaday world, the financial stress of always seeming to be just a bit behind, the jobs that provide little or no fulfillment, the pressures of holding ones tongue when presented with abusive co-workers or supervisors, that contributes heavily to high drug use and suicide rates. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not convinced even after reading the book, but if there is a way to reduce the sheer number of unhappy people who kill themselves, or drown their sorrows in alcohol, then I am willing to try a new way. 

Since Bregman's book was written in 2014, and re-released in 2017, there has been a real sea change in how we work as indicated by the meteoric rise in at-home work. Of course, there has been push back from some business owners, CEO's, certain politicians, but there is also growing data that people are more productive when working from home even if they put in less than the traditional 40 hours, since they work without the stress of a commute or the hovering of a supervisor in a safe, comfortable environment. Is this an indication that moving towards a 15 hour week is already upon us, or at least, less crazy a concept that even just five years ago?

The last concept in the book is open borders. Again, this was written before the demonization strategy of a certain politician who brainwashed a significant percentage of Americans that immigrants were evil people. I can't even begin to imagine any politician from any party or ideology, advocating in public for an open border today.

As it is, I see the phrase open border used in conjunction with Biden multiple times every day, even though that is far from the truth. An open border is not defined as detaining and returning to their home country hundreds of thousands of people every year. The very existence of ICE and other border patrol agencies, the existence of an asylum program for those escaping religious and political persecution, and the need for agents, lawyers and judges to operate those various programs, belie the daily use of the term open border.

Ironically, many of the ancestors of those very same people most vocal about open borders, came to America when we truly had an open border policy. 

As far as I know, the Pilgrims were not detained at Plymouth Rock when they arrived. While, perhaps, the indigenous people of the time should have required references, or proof of a skill, or familiarity with the prevalent culture, from the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620, there was an open border to the "New World". 

Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and most of the founders took advantage of the open border of the day, and, maintained that concept during the infancy of the United States. It wasn't until the late 19th century that the first restrictive immigration bill was enacted as a way to restrict Chinese immigrants to America. Racist? Certainly. 

It wasn't until 1924 that the United States initiated immigration restrictions that were not prejudiced, at least not on its face. That law restricted to 2% the number of visas issued for each nationality as reflected by their population from the 1890 census. We can debate the latent prejudice involved in the use of the 1890 census as opposed to the more recent 1910, or even 1900 census, but suffice it to say that the influx of immigrants from certain countries between 1890 and 1910, inspired the use of that 1890 census so that the 2% number was far less, meaning less of "those" people would be allowed to immigrate. 

So, in other words, the United States indeed had an open border for the first 150 years before its founding, and then another 150 years after its declaration of independence. Only in the last 100 year has there been restrictions on immigrants, and those have always been based on prejudice.

Bregman, again using all kinds of statistics, attempts to prove, that, once again, our current methods of addressing immigration by providing support for the country of origin of those wishing to come here, has not been proven to be effective, whereas allowing those people to come here, unencumbered, will be better for them as well as the country at large. I would recommend you read that section for yourself to test his logic and points.

Interestingly, Bregman reminds us in this section of the book, that goods and ideas are allowed to migrate from country to country, across borders without checkpoints. Of course, it is no surprise that most people are for free trade, as it is a staple of the entire capitalist system. 

But think about ideas. Is there anything more dangerous than ideas that counter the norms and rules of society? We have a history of labeling certain thoughts as dangerous, sometimes using the phrases immoral or anti-social, and we obviously discourage ideas that are associated with communism and socialism, yet we generally allow discussions of those concepts in the name of free speech.

Yet, a poor immigrant mother who walks hundreds of miles with her children are denied entry to America because she is some kind of threat to our way of life.

I have said it before, and will say it again. America is as great as it is precisely because we have accepted people from all over the world, because we enjoy the diversity of culture and experiences, and because we seek equity in opportunity for all people, those who did nothing to earn the blessings of our country other than being born here, and those who take great risk, leave everything they know, and come here for a better life.

Frankly, if you even pretend to believe in the phrase "all men are created equal", working towards more reasonable immigration laws which recognize the humanity of those seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while providing a process that provides a safe, legal pathway for them while easing the anxiety of those natives who worry about how their country might change, should be of the highest priority. Anything short of that, any words such as vermin and invasion when talking about immigration are not only saturated with prejudice, but fly in the face of what has made our country great.  

Whether Bregman's advice for us to return to the open border policies of our past which created the foundation of our country is followed, remains to be seen.

   

Nikki Haley for President

First, I want to publicly thank Donald Trump for saving us from nuclear holocaust, as he claimed in one of his depositions which was  recently made public.  Thank you sir!

Also, I would like to thank Barack Obama for also saving us from nuclear holocaust during his 8 years in office, as well as George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George H W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhauer, and, so far, Joe Biden. All those men served as president of the United States since the development of the nuclear bomb, and, since there was not a nuclear holocaust during any of their terms in office they deserve our thanks. Of course, I don't recall any of those men citing, under oath during a deposition concerning possible criminal activity, this achievement, but they did accomplish it nevertheless.

-------

After watching the results of the New Hampshire primary this past week, and then parts of Nikki Haley's post election speech, along with a few snippets of Trump's post election victory tantrum, it dawned on me that perhaps Nikki is our best bet for unity in America. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I support President Biden. Despite the constant criticisms leveled at him for the last 3+ years, he has done a remarkable job. Remember, when Biden took office in January 2021, about 500,000 people had already died from Covid, with another half a million still to come. Yet starting in the Spring of 2021, millions of doses of vaccines were rolled out and placed in the arms of those willing to join in the fight to combat the virus. 

Whereas Trump did a great job with Operation Warp Speed to get the vaccines developed, he failed to quell the conspiratorial stories about the danger of the vaccines, thereby contributing to a reluctance among his followers to get vaccinated. Strangely, the numbers show that a disproportionate number of those very same people died, as did those living in the red states where governors also ignored the science. 

But Biden didn't differentiate red from blue states; he made sure that all the states had access to the vaccine, and, as time passed, the mortality rate declined. I have no doubt that history will praise Biden and his team for saving tens of thousands of lives by making those vaccines available.

Then, as a result of the pandemic, there were supply chain issues, amplified by the invasion of Ukraine and the boycott of Russian oil in those countries who condemned that behavior (and subsequent, and continued slaughter of the Ukrainian people). Soon, prices began to rise, and inflation plagued both America and much of the globe. In addition, the pandemic monetary assistance for those most vulnerable to the loss of jobs, flowed freely, adding to an artificial ability for everyday people to pay their bills, buy food, maintain their homes. So, while some of Biden's monetary decisions added to the inflationary pressures related to supply chain problems and the rise of fuel, it also saved millions of people from foreclosure, food insecurity, and the choice between medicine and food.

Now, compared to most western countries, inflation in the United States is lower, unemployment is still under 4%, two of the three market indexes are at all time highs, and 401K balances are up. By almost any metric, America is in as strong a position as any country, and Americans, while certainly stressed from the shock of inflation rates not seen since Carter and Reagan, are also starting to gain purchasing power due to increases in wages.

Frankly, if Trump were president today, he would be crowing about how he saved us all, would be bragging about those same facts listed above, and Fox News would be full of positive stories about America's great comeback from Covid, instead of their relentless attacks on Biden. 

So, why title this Nikki Haley for President?  

While it is clear that Trump has a stranglehold on the GOP voter, Nikki's strength in New Hampshire was among first time voters, those  registered as independent, and the few remaining Republicans who believe that Trump's bullying, his constant skirting of the law, his lack of respect for the American electorate, not to mention the felony charges he is facing, make him unfit to lead.

Nikki is certainly going to lose big in her home state of South Carolina, but there are many other states with constituencies similar to New Hampshire. Trump can and will win the GOP nomination, but the demographics of America are more like New Hampshire than Iowa and South Carolina. It is the soccer moms of the suburbs, young voters who are leery of two old men as their choice for the next president, and the over 45% of Republicans who did not vote for Trump in Iowa or New Hampshire, who, may or may not support him in November, but have certainly indicated by their votes that they are OK with moving on from him as well.    

But, and this is a gigantic possibly pie-in-the-sky but, Nikki would need to soften her position on abortion to at least support states being able to decide themselves, but certainly no national ban, would have to emphasize her plans to strengthen the border without pushing to deport the 11 million undocumented people already in America, and, the biggest of all, have Donald Trump withdraw from the nomination and endorse her.

Now, I know what you are thinking, did you recently hit your head Joe? Donald Trump will never abdicate (I use that word purposefully) his eventual nomination. He loves himself far more than his party or his country. He is not a quitter. I am sure there are many other arguments that can be made for him to not withdraw from the race, although the recent one I heard uttered by one of his supporters in New Hampshire, that he was divinely sent to save us, I discount as one which only those fully down the rabbit hole of his cult would posit.

Still, I think only Nikki can unite America at this point. Trump will never be seen as anything more than a dictator wanna be to 52% of the people (perhaps more if he is convicted of any of the felony indictments he is facing, and likely even more when, after losing his ludicrous request for total immunity, he launches into another one of his ALL CAPS tirades about the courts and how they need to be dissolved). Biden had no choice but to call out the MAGA crowd who believe that the 2020 election was stolen, and who are OK with storming the Capitol and killing elected officials to prevent the transfer of power to Biden. 

Nikki, on the other hand, has the ability to walk that fine line between side stepping the truly crazy aspects of the MAGA movement while still talking about making America great again. By adopting and co-opting the beliefs that drive people towards Trump she can seem palatable to them (as compared to Biden) while also appealing to the independents and center left democrats that are unhappy with how inflation has hurt their finances (even though, as I said, it was a global event, and ultimately handled much better in America than most places), and are alarmed about the influx of immigrants, not because they see them as a threat or consider it an invasion, but because our system is not designed to handle such a large influx. In other words, we need to control it better, both for our benefit as Americans, and for those who risk their lives to come here outside the legitimate pathways. 

Clearly, I won't be betting my house, or even next week's garbage, on this scenario to happen. Sadly, I believe that even if convicted, Trump will still be the nominee, which will drive his people to be even more loyal while spurring even more independents to vote for Biden.

In essence, Nikki is the only hope the GOP has of winning back the White House, yet their blind loyalty to and, let's be honest, fear of Trump, is stronger than their desire to win in November, and ultimately, stronger than their desire to address our nation's problems.

In a past post, I asked Donald Trump to resign the presidency rather than allow our country's divisions to multiply. He ignored me at that time. 

But, rather than being deterred, I ask him again. Mr Trump, be the great man who you wish to be. Do what's best for America, as you claim you desire. 

Withdraw from the presidential race, throw your full support behind Nikki Haley, help her win the White House, and then accept her pardon with grace. 

Just think of the legacy that will create! 

The Big Chiller

Twice in the past month or so, I have stumbled upon the movie "The Big Chill" on TV, last night being the second time. I knew I had commented on this movie once before, so I reread that post before starting this one. Here is a link to that one, from 2010.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/big-chilling.html

It dawned on me as I started this post that I had never researched the reasoning behind the title of this movie. A quick google revealed that the Temptations created a song called The Big Chill Motown Medley which accounted for part of the answer as to its origin.

Additionally, Lawrence Kasdan, one of the co-writers, once referred to a physical chill that would pass through his body when encountering certain people in the film industry, and in life. The way he described it was not complimentary.

As it relates to the movie, however, it seems clear that the first reference, music, applies much more than the second one, although there are a few scenes between the girlfriend, Chloe, (played by Meg Tilly) of the newly deceased friend and one of the long time friends, Michael (Jeff Goldblum), that might remind one of the way certain men may be considered by a woman who recognize the intent of their attention, but is more repelled than attracted.

When I wrote that first reference post in 2010, I mentioned that those I considered my Big Chill friends were not drawn together at a college setting as in the movie. In fact, truth be told, it was at the McDonalds in Horsham, Pa, where we all met and began our friendship. While the movie friends were pursuing an education as part of their rebellious youth, we were making a living to fund our parties. The future for us was that night or the next weekend, or the next rock concert. Living for the moment. 

This is not to say that the characters in the movie didn't enjoy their time in similar pursuits. At one point, Harold (Kevin Kline) remarks something about "how much sex, fun and friendship can one man take", in reference to their time at Ann Arbor.

But there is a number of reference in the movie to idealism and commitment, as if the friends believed in something bigger than their shared good times. The friend (Alex) who has killed himself, the funeral being the reason for their reunion, seems universally considered the smartest of the group, yet apparently, one of the least successful in terms of societal norms. 

In fact, there is a scene in which Meg (Mary Kay Place) is riding in a car with Nick (William Hurt) where she recounts that the last time she spoke to their mutual friend, they argued, Meg telling him that he was wasting his life. Nick's comment, "that is probably why he killed himself", aside, her opinion reflects a theme that runs through the movie concerning lost idealism, and the compromises we make for material comforts.

In another scene, the character Sarah (Glenn Close) worries if their past idealism and beliefs were just "fashion." This is extremely poignant in that Sarah had a brief affair with Alex, yet was married to Harold who is far and away the most successful of the group. Before we get to know Sarah in more depth, there is a scene in which she is crying in the shower the night after the funeral. Is it just Alex she is crying for, or also the loss of her true soul mate? A man she did not marry, in favor of one who was able to provide her with children and the ideal comforts of the American dream.

There is also the words of Harold at the funeral. Just before he breaks down and is led away by the minister, he alludes to the belief that Alex was too good for the world. That, in combination with a news clip the friends find in Alex's possessions which recounts how he turned down a prestigious opportunity as a promising physicist, again leads us to think that Alex was not able to remove his ideals from the direction of his life.

And then there is the scene in the kitchen with Nick, Sam (Tom Berenger) and the husband of Karen (JoBeth Williams). It is clear that Karen and her husband are not exactly passionate lovers at this point in their marriage. We find out during the movie that Karen openly admits she was drawn to her husband as a reaction to what she alludes to as a difficult childhood, ostensibly due to her father's infidelity. Her husband is solid, loyal, provides a good life for her and her children. 

When he comments to Nick and Sam that perhaps the problem with Alex, the reason he decided to take his life, is because he was unable to make all the compromises to "set his priorities straight." And, lastly, that "no one ever said it would be fun, at least, no one ever said it to me." 

As a side note, I had a serious crush on JoBeth in my youth. Seeing her in this movie reminded me of that, and helped counter the idea that in the movie, The Big Year, she plays a grandmother. Yikes!

In some ways, the Big Chill fascinates me in that most of the friends, baby boomers who "experienced" the social upheavals of the 1960's, whose generation promised to change the world, are financially secure, have well respected careers. Meg is a lawyer, Harold a businessman, Sarah a doctor, Michael a writer, Sam a famous actor. 

Whether their ideals were fashion or not, almost all of them made choices that allowed them to live comfortably. While I can't go so far to say that my Big Chill friends and myself were far less successful, most of us are living comfortably, we are far less accomplished as the characters in the movie. Was that done purposefully, to present in stark contrast what Alex could have done if he "set his priorities straight" or stopped "wasting his life?"

While there was not a suicide in my group, there was a friend who lost himself at some point. His death created our group's Big Chill moment which I discuss in a post from September 2022.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/09/a-friends-death.html

Idealism. 

It certainly seems true that we jettison the ideals of our youth as the realities of life swarm upon us. We can't just quit a job that doesn't challenge or fulfill us, if we have a mortgage or a family. Must sometimes hold our tongue in the face of unfairness when it occurs at work. Worry less about a company's ethics or practices and more about their dividends. Identify with a politician who tells us who to blame rather than challenging us to make the world better for everyone, not just those who resemble us in their beliefs.

Perhaps no other generation faced such difficult decisions, in terms of maintaining one's ideals, than the boomers. Frankly, as I have said before, I don't feel we did such a good job. 

At the end of The Big Chill, the friends promise to stay in touch more regularly than they had in the recent past. Nick decides to live nearby Sarah and Harold, with Chloe, in the house that she and Alex were working on. One might say that they realized who their real friends were, who was the most important people of their lives, even if they never fully resolve their doubt as to whether they abandoned their ideals. 

For us in the real world, continuing to turn our back on the ideals related to promoting the building of character over portfolio, and to gauging ourselves and our society with a yardstick that is less material and more spiritual, is far more important than celluloid friends who lament, for a weekend, that they may have compromised those ideals. 

But at least films like The Big Chill presents us with a chance to look at ourselves in the mirror while reminding us of the times of our youth when it was all in front of us.

 

The Weaker Sex

In my last post, I lamented at its end that I have crossed the line into believing that we have lost our democracy in America. (See link below)

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/colorado-georgia-maine-oh-my.html

In this post, I will backtrack ever so slightly from that opinion, but only slightly in that I will offer a reason why we may yet extend the life of our democracy, although extend is not necessarily the same as saving our democracy.

First though, I did some research concerning the topic of the decline of masculinity by entering the google search "decline of masculinity". The range of opinions defining and offering solutions to this problem was astounding. As was the fact that lamenting about the loss of masculinity, or should I say the battle of defining male masculinity, has been with us since the birth of our country. 

While I hesitate to assert that any of the articles I perused struck me as the most enlightening, or the most accurate, I did enjoy the one I read in Politico. Here is a link to that article from July, 2023.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/14/josh-hawley-masculinity-crisis-00105436  

If we assume then, that the crisis of male masculinity has been ongoing for as long as America has existed, and perhaps as long as men and women have existed, is there anything special about the current anxiety concerning the loss of masculinity? Or put another way, what factors that exist today are different from those that were cited by those mourning the decline of the male gender in the past?

The one that jumped out at me was education, and the effect that education has on a person's ability to alter his/her life. Obviously, at the start of our nation, education was almost exclusively for white, males, specifically, white males of certain households. While a very few women from families of means were "allowed" to be educated, everyday men and women were rarely represented in institutions of higher learning, and certainly not people of color. 

As education became more universal, women, sons and daughters of the working class, immigrants, and minorities were now exposed to advanced learning, which in turn, allowed them to pursue occupations that provided higher incomes, and access to business and government jobs that altered the demographics of who was making the rules, and consequently, who was benefiting from those rules. 

If one were to assume that being the breadwinner for a family was one of the definitions of what it meant to be a man, it is clear that as the percentage of women attaining 4 year and graduate degrees increases, then the percentage of families with the male as sole or primary breadwinner will decline. Today, while the male is still the sole breadwinner for a family a little over half of the time, almost 30% of households feature an equal income level between the man and woman, while 15% of the time, the women makes more money. 

And, since the percentage of women enrolled in higher education is well past the 50% mark and pushing 60%, it is certainly not inconceivable that 50% of or more of women may earn as much money as their husband sometime in the near future, which will put quite a dent in the concept of masculinity being tied to supporting one's family through a higher outside income.

Assuming that construct is less than satisfying in the chase for a definition of masculinity, and since there are female executives at the highest levels of the business world, and a host of women presidents and political leaders in the world, what does that leave for men to claim as their own domain?

It has only been about 30 years since the term "man cave" was coined. Ah, the man cave. Often the basement or the garage, but generally the least hospitable place of the home which men were allowed to decorate as desired, get as big a TV as would fit, and hang out with their buddies watching sports and drinking beer. 

Not necessarily a horrible existence, and certainly a great place to yell at poor sporting performances by the home team's group of men, and the referees who are supposed to render fair judgments, but a far cry from dominating the halls of business and government.

If I were prone to a particular kind of conspiracy theory, I might conclude that the man cave was a clever way for women to throw their husbands a bone.

But I digress.

One area where men still statistically dominate women is suicide rate. Men kill themselves at almost 4 times the rate of women. Drug use is also higher among men than women, and, since there is some evidence that women seek treatment at a higher rate than men, the actual difference may be higher than is documented. 

And of course, men die by violence, especially gun violence, at a much higher rate than women, but even worse, men are responsible for an overwhelming percentage of violent deaths, both against other men, and women as well.

Now, aggression in men has long been assumed to be genetic, part of our heritage as the physically larger gender, and entwined with our hunter gatherer past. 

If dominance in business and government, and at home in terms of income, are less a part of the definition of masculinity, does that leave only the physical manifestations of a gender with higher testosterone levels?

Clearly, as has happened multiple times since America was founded, and in fact throughout history, the definition of masculinity is changing, has changed. 

But be clear, so has the definition of femininity! Is it any less challenging to be a women in today's society than a man? And, is the focus on masculinity just another manifestation of the patriarchal nature of our society? 

Frankly, I can't imagine that the role and definition of what it means to be a woman, hasn't changed at least as much, if not more so, than what it means to be a man. 

The Weaker Sex. What is my point?

Currently, we have a presidential candidate who has smashed through all the norms of our political discourse. Someone who refused to graciously congratulate the winner of a presidential election that he lost. Someone who ignored his constitutional duties to provide a peaceful transition of power to the next administration. Someone who suggested that if his vice president, a man who steadfastly defended him throughout his four year term, did not do the "right" thing by illegally ignoring the state electors chosen by the American people he would be disappointed, and then tacitly agreed with the rioters on January 6th who chanted Hang Mike Pence. Someone who joked about being a dictator for only one day.

What is amazing to me is that the republicans who are standing up to him are almost exclusively women, not withstanding Adam Kinzinger. It was Cassidy Hutchinson who was the star witness of the January 6th committee hearings, not Mark Meadows who was by Trump's side far more often than Hutchinson. 

It was Liz Cheney who sacrificed her political career to serve on the January 6th committee and objectively evaluate the evidence uncovered while a host of her mostly male GOP counterparts first condemned the actions of the mob on January 6th, then kissed the ring of the Mar a Lago resident, and began a process of rewriting history to pretend that Trump didn't ignite the mob with his words then watch gleefully on TV when they ransacked the Capitol.

It appears, at least in this one topic, that it is men who are the weaker sex, as they allow their desire for power and influence to overcome their duty to their country and fellow citizens. 

Perhaps then, a new definition of masculinity should include a resistance to the absolute powers of a dictator, and an understanding that their position as the only educated gender, the only leaders in business and government has passed. But that doesn't mean they are less important. 

On the contrary.

Acknowledging that power and influence and rule making and following the rules makes everyone stronger when it is shared might be a good start to redefining masculinity. That America is greater because of the diversity of its leaders, economic and political, and that the household is greater when everyone under the roof has equal opportunity, might be a good trait of that definition.

The realization that it is not a zero sum game where sharing in the benefits of our society means men get less if women get more, or when white men lose influence because women and minorities now have a say in the direction and future of our country might be a far better standard to gauge a man's masculinity.

Which brings me back to my claim that there still may be a way to temporarily extend our democracy. Our only hope is that women, who make up about 52% of the electorate, will continue to be the stronger sex and vote for candidates who accept the results of elections, and who believe that women should be treated as first class citizens, and not merely baby factories subject to (usually) male generated restrictions concerning their bodies and their health care.

Anything short of a resounding victory in November for these principles will not bode well for America.  

Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Oh My

It's snowing today. Normally, snow in the winter months in eastern Pennsylvania would not necessitate a comment, but there are parts of southeastern PA that haven't had snow in over 700 days. Without waxing nostalgic, I have many memories of huge snow piles created by snow plows in the parking lot behind our Mt Airy home in the 1960's, as well as similar scenes at our home in Horsham during the 1970's. 

Of course, as a child, snow meant much more than the inconvenience of shoveling, and having enough food in the house for a few days. So when my wife and I moved to Perkasie in the late 1980's, we experienced snow events as both adults and through the eyes of our children once we began our family in the 1990's. One of our favorite pictures depicts our son and daughter and a neighbor child bundled up against the cold, surrounded all around (and above) by huge piles of snow. I also, to this day, remember seeing my daughter's face, flush against the lower window of our front door, breath fogging the window as she peered out at me shoveling off the front porch. 

We were unfortunate to have street parking during those years, so every snow fall meant a neighborhood effort to dig out the cars and clear the sidewalks. While I certainly don't miss the snow, the neighborhood camaraderie was priceless. 

-----

My last post discussed the immunity question being debated in the courts concerning Donald Trump. While the Supreme Court decided not to address it yet, it is conventional wisdom that once the DC  District Court makes its decision, an appeal to the Supreme Court will follow. Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/12/scotus-decision-on-trump-immunity.html  

However, since that post, decisions from Colorado and Maine concerning Trump's presence on the Republican Primary ballot have occurred. While the process for each was different, the result was the same; the removal of Trump from the ballot.

In Colorado, after a judicial process in which a suit was filed by voters in that state to determine if Trump was eligible to run for president based on section 3 of the 14th amendment which says, and I am paraphrasing, that no person shall be an officer of the United States if they have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution but have engaged in or provided aid to those who participate in an insurrection. In Maine, the Secretary of State was the person who determined Trump should be removed, in this case after a trial in which proof of his action surrounding the 2020 presidential election and all the ways he tried to illegally stay in power proved he was an insurrectionist. 

This amendment was created and established immediately following the Civil War as a way to prevent anyone who fought for the Confederacy against the US Government from taking office. Seems kind of obvious, except that since so many of those who served in the Confederate Army were the leaders of the southern states, both political and military, the creators of that amendment knew that the voters of those states might look to those same leaders to represent them in Congress, and so they felt it necessary to make it illegal for those very same people who actively fought against the United States to then become lawmakers.

There is no real middle ground here. People who engage in insurrection against the United States should not be allowed to run for office. The specious arguments that the Presidency is not an office of the government, or that Trump, as president did not take an oath to support that Constitution (the exact words he stated, hand on bible, were to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution which sound even stronger than support, to me) should be dismissed out of hand. 

The real question is, does engage in insurrection require conviction of said crime. And, of course, is Trump guilty of such.

In both Colorado and Maine, a judicial process occurred with witnesses and testimony as a result of Republican voters wanting to know if they would be wasting their vote for Trump in a primary, then only to have him be disqualified for the general election. In Maine, the secretary of state was empowered to make that decision, while in Colorado, when a judge ruled that Trump did engage in insurrection but that should not disqualify him, the appeal went the Colorado Supreme Court, and a 4-3 vote resulted in the decision that the original judge was wrong not to disqualify him.

I present these details as a reminder that every state has different rules for running its elections. That, in fact, states rights in the area of voting rules has long been controversial, which is why states have different early voting rules, mail-in voting procedures, voter registration requirements and rules, etc. 

While the right for every American citizen to vote is, at best, assumed by the founders, it is various amendments to the Constitution that have delineated who is a citizen, and who is allowed to vote. It took an Amendment to grant citizenship to anyone born on American soil (before that Blacks/slave were not considered citizens, and therefore not allowed to vote), it took an Amendment to give women the right to vote, it took an amendment to allow 18 year old citizens to vote.

In other words, the founders assumed American citizens should be allowed to vote, but their definition did not include at lease half of the population (women), and certainly did not include children of slaves who were born here. In fact, originally, common men did not vote for president. In the beginning, a bunch of presidents were chosen by Congress as the founders, as a group, did not trust the everyday, working men of the day to be able to make a correct choice for someone as important as president.

So, should the current Justices of the United States Supreme Court continue to lean into their strict literal interpretation of the Constitution and the belief that anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution as being the purview of the federal government  should therefore be controlled by the states (see recent abortion decision), it is possible that they could rule that Colorado and Maine have every right to remove a candidate from the ballot. 

That being said, I don't think this will happen for any of a number of reasons, foremost being that by allowing states to use an interpretation of the 14th amendment as it applies to an insurrection, without a precise definition of whether engaging in an insurrection requires conviction, and whether gleefully watching on TV for hours while the Capitol is attacked by "your" people, and then promising to pardon those convicted of various crimes related to an attempt to subvert the peaceful transition of power, equates to providing aid and comfort qualify as reasons for disqualification, could be disastrous. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that should SCOTUS uphold either states' decision, it will only be a matter of days until Texas or Florida or some other state with Trump devotees, rules that Biden should be removed from their state ballots based on their definition of this section of the 14th amendment.

So, assuming they rule that Colorado and Maine and any other state cannot remove a candidate under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, does that mean that section is now null and void? Clearly, SCOTUS will not be willing to alter the Constitution in that way. My guess is that they will uphold the intent of Section 3, but will rule that Congress must flesh out the meaning of this section when it comes to national elections. In other words, if a state court rules that a candidate for an in-state election should be removed from a ballot for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, fine. But only Congress can determine specifics for eliminating candidates at the national level. 

Personally, I believe Donald J Trump is an insurrectionist. I believe that a president has even more responsibility to uphold the Constitution, so the bar for eliminating a presidential candidate from running for such an important office should be lower than for other local and state elections. Because remember, those people who fought with Capitol police, smashed windows, threatened various legislators including the Vice President, did so because Trump told them to. Because he lied about the election being stolen, lied about massive election fraud. Because courts have determined that Fox News was guilty of libel to the tune of $785 million to Dominion Voting Systems for promoting guests on their shows who also lied about election fraud. Because Rudy Giuliani was found guilty of libel against the two poll workers from Georgia who he (and the president) publicly accused of voter fraud without evidence.

But even more than all of this, who on planet Earth believes that Trump will accept the results of the 2024 presidential election should he lose again? He has no respect for democratically held elections, and frankly, no respect for the American electorate. When asked in 2020 if he would honor the results of that upcoming election, his response, live, on TV, was, we'll see. In other words, if I win, I accept the results, if I lose I cry fraud.

Why do we want candidates for any public service position, whether dog catcher or president, to say that only when I win, will I accept an election result. Election deniers have no business appearing on any ballot in the United States of America, not because there is a rule or law or "norm", but because it is what we should demand, as voters, of our candidates. The fact that millions of Trump supporters don't get this very basic fact is the primary reason why, sadly, I believe we have already lost our democracy. And why, regardless of how SCOTUS rules on this or the immunity question, history will mark these times, the effect of Donald Trump, and his ability to convince Americans to turn away from the foundations of our republic, as the beginning of when another great country collapsed from within, like so many have in the past.