Dr. Biden, I presume...

Ralph Alswang, White House 
photographer

Now eighty million American voters, well over fifty United States judges, and the electoral college have awarded the title of president elect to Joe Biden, mainstream conservative publications have a problem. Refusing to call Mr. Biden the president elect looks increasingly desperate, increasingly unrealistic, and with increasing clarity, it reveals a lack of respect for American democracy. At the same time, it seems evident a great many people with influence among conservatives don't believe in conceding with any grace. Perhaps they have internalized Winston Churchill's quote:

Nations which go down fighting rise again, and those that surrender tamely are finished.

 Most of us can discern the difference between the Wehrmacht and the Democratic Party, but American politics has grown more extreme lately. Some conservative opinion journalists in search of a hill to defend have found one: they may have to call Mr. Biden the president, but to call the incoming first lady by her academic title of Dr. Biden: never.

It started with an essay in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal decrying Dr. Biden's use of her title, then spread to National Review, where one article gives the laxity of American libel standards a serious workout by suggesting, with no apparent basis save the writer's own opinion, the University of Delaware had chucked its standards to award a degree to the spouse of a senator.

Voting, voters, and entropy

Tucker Carlson
by Gage Skidmore

A popular metaphor for entropy, attributed to Schopenhauer, goes like this: if you take a barrel of sewage and pour in a glass of fine French wine, you have a barrel of sewage. If you take a barrel of fine French wine and (shudder) pour in a glass of sewage, you have a barrel of sewage.

In one of his nightly opinion pieces, Tucker Carlson sarcastically lauded the triumph of voters who cast ballots from the grave. He later had to retract one of his examples after learning one of the ballots he cited had come from a very much alive widow, who had identified herself as Mrs. (husband's name). Carlson's sarcasm had an interesting effect: it produced an emotional reaction sufficient to briefly cloud my analysis, and I had to take a (virtual) step back to analyze what he had to say. Once I broke his arguments down and considered them, I found a couple of interesting layers, ones hinting at American Conservative strategy going forward. 

The Problem of Traditionalism

 The American Conservative published a somewhat predictable jeremiad against modern thinking, lamenting the inability of the modern, rationalist outlook to comprehend the phenomenon of Donald Trump's popularity. The author wrote:

 As the AP European History concept outline in my textbook uncritically puts it: “They [Enlightenment thinkers] sought to bring the light of reason to bear on the darkness of prejudice, outmoded traditions, and ignorance, challenging traditional values.”

He later writes: 

One can almost imagine the line I just quoted grafted onto the present: They [Democrats] sought to bring the light of reason to bear on the darkness of prejudice, outmoded traditions, and ignorance, challenging the traditional values of Trump voters in flyover country.

Well, everyone has the right to imagine, or if you insist, "almost imagine" anything, although I cannot quite see why anyone would go to the trouble of "almost imagining" anything. But equating the traditional values of mediaeval and pre-enlightenment Europe with whatever motivated Americans to pull the lever for Donald Trump ignores almost all of the specific principles at issue. The Declaration of Independence, and even more the Constitution of the United States are, after all, manifestos of 18th century enlightenment principles. The analogy falls apart the moment you apply hard specifics: voting, the idea of the people collectively selecting the head of their state, specifically repudiates the idea of the divine right of monarchs, a cardinal value of European politics from the fall of the Roman Republic up until the Long Parliament and the Glorious Revolution. The voters who went to pull the lever for Donald Trump acted out a basic ritual of the enlightenment.

The article did mention a peasant revolt against the extreme rationalism of the French Revolution, but instead of addressing the critical divide between principled conservatism and traditionalism, the author descended into a lament for the students these days.

And thus we have another article exemplifying traditionalism: a bare-knuckle defence of the outrageous innovations of a decade or a century (or two) ago. 

Looking ahead

 

Gen. Gus Perna, second from left 
(Photo Credit: U.S. Army)

Sunday night, the CBS news magazine program 60 minutes interviewed General Gus Perna about his work preparing to distribute Covid vaccine to all Americans upon completion of the necessary clinical trials. Seeing him speak, seeing him hold himself accountable for achieving results for the American people, seeing him describing the gaps in his knowledge and his method of educating himself, I had two thoughts.

First, for the sake of my American friends, I hope this man succeeds. Second, I hope he's a Republican. The only candidates for the next Republican presidential nomination I have seen floated so far have no practical experience or qualifications except in opinion journalism. Even a short glimpse of General Perna at work suggested how much better Republicans, and indeed Americans, can do.

General Perna may not deliver, of course. A single 60 minutes interview hardly provides a basis for a comprehensive assessment of anyone's character and abilities. Operation warp speed may fail. The whole project, and particularly the military role in it, may turn out badly, and I have observed this administration long enough to know their decisions do not come with a guarantee of quality. But seeing the way General Perna took responsibility for his part in the work, without qualification, gave me a reason to hope for his success, and a reminder of how much better the Republican Party can do.

Alex Trebek and the Donald

RIP to a giant who made knowing stuff cool. https://t.co/GQybsCTDLo

— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) November 8, 2020

 If the clue reads: "In 1984 George Orwell wrote this thing was statistical, though the book says, clearly, it isn't", the correct response is: "what is sanity?"

On the day after most media outlets called the election for Mr. Biden, Alex Trebek died at his home, with his family, after a brave struggle against pancreatic cancer. In his public fight over a year and a half with the cancer, he showed grace, humility, and a defining gentle, self-deprecating humour. 

He provided a useful, even healing, counterpart to the career of that other TV show host, the one who disastrously took his act into the White House. Alex Trebek did more than making "knowing stuff cool"; he made reaching for the truth cool. He made acknowledging and correcting his mistakes cool. The TV show "Jeopardy" taught us many things, some trivial, some not, but perhaps the most important lesson the show taught came not from the clues or the questions, but from the occasional adjustments to scores as the judges accepted a response Mr. Trebek had rejected, or rejected a response he had allowed. Alex Trebek always conveyed these changes courteously, always with a tinge of regret for taking away points, and never, not ever, with any hint of wounded vanity at having his calls overruled. In doing so, he taught us nothing matters more than the truth, not the flow of the play and certainly not the ego of the host. Without display, without fanfare, without even speaking to the matter directly, he taught everyone who watched the show the importance of getting things right. 

401-k and fantasy

 In the American election just past, a voter gave the state of her 401-k retirement savings plan as a reason for voting for Donald Trump. I don't begrudge anyone feeling happy about the state of their preparations for retirement. I don't even feel moved to condemn anyone for overlooking Mr. Trump's egregious offences, from the hundred thousand excess American pandemic deaths to the separation of families on the Southern border of the United States. We live in a merciless, every person for themselves society, and  some of us come to terms with that by taking steps to secure their future.

I have something else to say to this Trump voter: the numbers in this person's 401-k statement and in the stock market section of the news she reads may make her feel happy, but they have a good chance of meaning as much to her actual life in retirement, or even her ability to stop working, as Darth Vader's revelation to Luke, or Aragorn's marriage to Arwen. Three related reasons explain why.

Police and Violence

 Justin King (Beau of the Fifth Column on Twitter and YouTube) recently noted, in a tweet, the lack of sympathy for police in an online forum for military and security contractors. After a gunman shot and seriously injured two Los Angeles Sheriff's deputies, he noticed a series of comments ranging from ironic to hostile, and it puzzled him.

I don't pretend to know the reason this particular community appears to have turned against the police, but I do know about some trends in police training. When I consider the notions of honour I observe among people in high risk occupations, and compare that with what I see in police training and police behaviour, I can see one explanation for the hostility in the series of tweets Justin King quotes. I may not have the right explanation, but I think my hypothesis fits the available information.

Watch any television show from forty years ago and compare it with just about any similar show today, and the change in police tactics and equipment will appear instantly. Where twenty or thirty years ago a pair of detectives might knock on a door, today's shows portray squads of officers in full body armour taking down doors with battering rams. Television may exaggerate, but it tends to track social change, and police behaviour has indeed changed. Radley Balko has written about this, calling the phenomenon The Rise of the Warrior Cop. In the most important sense, however, the dominant attitudes in police training and department policies make the police of today less truly warriors than the police of forty or fifty years ago. Driving a Bearcat or an MRAP and wearing a plate carrier and a tin hat does not make anyone a warrior. Trading a revolver for a Heckler & Koch rifle doesn't make anyone a warrior. One thing only defines a warrior: a willingness to die for something outside yourself. Warriors die for a principle, or for their friends, or their country. A generation of training and policy have combined to impress on police the idea they have a single duty: to go home at the end of their shift with a whole skin. In one particularly egregious case, in the United States, a municipality fired an officer for failing to kill a citizen, claiming he took an unacceptable risk by attempting to deescalate a confrontation instead of shooting. 

It is a commonplace to say the police have a problem with "bad apples", but I consider "the fish rots from the head" a more appropriate metaphor. Many of the issues with police behaviour arise from official policies and training, often with provincial or state and national support, and driven by promoters and influencers with an international reach. The result seems clear: much of official and unofficial police culture inclines officers to kill people in their charge rather than take the risk of making non-violent choices. It does not surprise me to see respect and support for the police have declined as well. 

Steps Toward Abolishing Police and Prisons

I’d like to present some steps toward police and prison abolition. These proposals assume three overriding principles: first, do no harm; second, make progress sustainable; third, follow the golden rule.

Start by understanding we can make things worse. If we eliminate a large part of the police force and end up with a greater role for private security, we will certainly have made things worse; private security doesn’t answer to anyone but the people who write their salary and expense cheques. However bad the police and justice system today, at least in theory they answer to the whole public and not only to the wealthy.

Nobody, no party or coalition and no political program can guarantee uninterrupted progress toward liberation. Ground one government gives their opponents will try to reclaim. To make reforms sustainable, we have to make them work, we have to make sure they take root in our communities, and we have to make certain we make, and keep, the public aware of their benefits. That means, always, making sure each change we make responds effectively to the actual needs of people and communities. It means making each step sustainable on its own, so if our progress suffers a check we have the least risk of going backward.

Finally, follow the golden rule. We still have no more effective guide to moral decision making than reciprocity, asking ourselves what we would think, feel, or do in the other person’s position. That means taking the obligation to listen to the concerns of other people seriously. It means both respecting other people’s pain and anger, and not working in such a way as to inflict more pain.