The Social Civil War of America

Have you watched the cable news or Facebook postings lately? If you have, I am sure you have realized that something extraordinary is taking place. Folks are not in the mood for talking, they are not willing to listen, and their mind is made up.

One side accuses the other of all kinds of “crimes and misdemeanors”. There is no room for reconciliation, no space for rationality, and no willingness to give one another the benefit of the doubt.

The language used in the exchange is often crude and profanity-laden. Folks have reached their limit … no more nice guy! It is time to fight!

Reminiscing

About 157 years ago, the civil war began. The North States were against slavery, and the Southern States wanted to preserve it. This was the overarching reason. But, there were also other reasons behind the divide … economics, religious, political, and so forth.

It was a war about ideology and values. The temperature was so hot that folks decided to lay their lives on the line, in some cases, brother against brother. More than half a million Americans died as a result. The Northern States were victorious in imposing their will on the Southern States.

After all those years, some Southern folks still resent the imposition of rules by the North, and lament the loss of a cherished lifestyle, while African Americans celebrate their emancipation and journey toward freedom and increased equality.   

I recall asking a professor in Vladimir, Russia, some fifteen years ago whether the overthrow of communism had benefitted her people. She told me that yes, some people were better off as a result. I inquired if she was one of them. She shook her head. No, she was not. Her salary as a full professor had dwindled to $ 60 per month – hardly an adequate sum to make ends meet. She was not happy about the change.

Fast Forward

Not much has really changed since then. We don’t talk about the North versus the South. We now define the geography in terms of the Coastal States versus the Heartland States. We now don different uniforms: blue or red. We are dressed for full-scale combat. It is not the traditional hand-to-hand combat with rifles, bayonets, and other lethal armory. But it still is a mortal confrontation of historic proportions. The differences are irreconcilable, and the ideology diametrically opposite. There appears to be no middle ground. It is a fight to the end! An exaggeration? Perhaps! You will be the judge of that …

What is at stake?

The clash is between two very different ways of looking at the world. On one side, some folks want the country to edge more and more toward the social democratic model (contemporary), and on the other, some folks cling resolutely to the laisser-faire individualistic model (traditional). The two models are in full combat gear, ready to fight to the last person standing.

The contemporary model wants a world where everyone is taken care by the state, while the traditional model wants to preserve a cherished way of life. Each views the fight as right versus wrong; good versus evil; humane versus cruel.  Contemporaries see the world as the reference point while traditionalists see the nation as the reference point. Contemporaries want everyone treated the same, regardless of their economic and social status while traditionalists abide by the notion that equal access does not mean equal capabilities and results.

Traditionalists want a smaller government. Contemporaries, on the other hand, want a larger role for the government. They advocate income redistribution and do not object to taking from Peter and passing it on to Paul. There is disagreement on the border policy. Traditionalist want secure borders, while contemporaries are OK with open borders. Contemporaries lament the damage to the environment and are willing to reign-in industries and practices they perceive responsible for the decay. Traditionalists do not readily accept that climate change is primarily the result of human activity, and are loath to punish industries and throw people out of work in the name of a quixotic fight against what they consider “dirty” sources of energy.

To cling to power, one group relies on identity politics by slicing and dicing the voting population into segments and catering to each segment's wish list. The other relies on the preservation of the status quo and appeals to its glory days.

Emotions run high. One faction, for example, promotes the notion that you do not need to obey laws with which you do not agree. The rise of Sanctuary Cities to protect illegal aliens facing expulsion following the commission of a crime is a case in point. Furthermore, these cities believe that collaborating with ICE would jeopardize relations between the immigrant community and local enforcement agencies. On the opposite side, folks bemoan the lack of respect for the law, a cornerstone of American civil society.

Traditionalists cling to the constitutional provision protecting their right to bear arms. They see any attempt by contemporaries to outlaw weapons as a conspiracy to disarm them and take away their right to protect themselves.  Contemporaries claim that weapons endanger people’s lives and make neighborhoods unsafe. Traditionalists point out that crime is highest in states with the most restrictions on the purchase of weapons, and that the violence in the inner cities is due to criminals raking violence as they engage in illegal activities.

Battle Cries

The main battle cry from the left is the ominous By Any Means.  It seems to imply either by legal or illegal action – a battle cry that might encourage some deranged person to commit a capital crime. Another, perhaps less dangerous cry, is to question the legitimacy of the opponent, and to engage in a variety of actions ranging from obstruction to confrontation to lawsuits to ballot stuffing to demonstrations, and to even riots. All is rationalized that all is fair in war.

On the right, the response is also virulent. It is to engage in counter demonstrations, hurling of perhaps racists or xenophobic slurs, and in purchasing heavy weapons. Voter suppression tactics are employed to make it more difficult for poor folks to cast their vote. Chants of “go back to your country” and provocative slogans chill the air and prevent rational dialog from occurring. Racists, homophobic, and xenophobic insults can also empower a deranged person to engage in horrible acts of mayhem.

As was the case during the civil war, the battle rages on. Heartland States object to the permissive philosophy of Coastal States. Coastal States, on the other hand, ridicule the belief system of traditionalists as being archaic and anachronistic. Neither is willing, or perhaps capable, of listening to or empathizing with the other. Emotions run very high.

Friends stop talking to one another. Spouses engage in heated debates across the kitchen table. Positions are taken and people are unwilling to let go without a fight. The narratives are so polarizing that it is difficult to make sense of either position. Anger permeates the dialog, and shouting results. Much name calling follows.

Are We Doomed?

The schism between the far right and far left will not go away soon. Emotions are raw and will continue to smolder for decades. The divide will continue to grow and morph as demographics shift in one direction or the other.

They say that people don’t change until one of two things happens: (1) sheer survival is at stake, or (2) dissatisfaction with the status quo rises beyond what can be tolerated. These conditions do not bode well for our future.

What can help us in the near term is the removal of some obstacles. Here are some examples:

·      Streamline our immigration laws and process.

·      Agree on a healthcare law that straddles the middle.

·      Implement a tax code that ensures more equity across economic stations, and makes our business more competitive on the world stage.

·      Enact laws that protect our environment without imposing penalties on business that shave off their competitiveness.

·      Eliminate discriminatory practices in equal pay for equal work.

·      Grow the economy at a good clip (3% or more) so that abundant job opportunities make it possible for more people to achieve their aspirations.

I am sure that the reader can add to this list. We desperately need at minimum a truce. Unchecked, we will continue to lambast one another and keep the house divided to our common regret.

The Presidential Election: Four Months Later

The 2016 election was the 16^th since I came to America. The aftermath of Trump’s win over Clinton is like nothing I have seen before.  The vitriol, rancor, and mass hysteria are well documented and public. Why?

Everyone has his own take or spin. Here is mine …

Democrats had pretty much concluded that Hilary’s win was in the bag. After all, Trump was a racist, misogynist, homophobe, and other choice epithets. Intelligent and compassionate people surely would reject him wholesale. National polls confirmed this view. Clinton was so much ahead that Trump could not possibly close the gap.

Democrats met on Tuesday evening November 8^th in various parts of the country expecting to celebrate the historical win by a female candidate for President. There were balloons, joyful background music, beverages, and hugs aplenty.  People were cocky sure that it would be a great win, including control of the Senate and possibly the House as well.

As election results started to trickle in, the roar of the celebrating crowd started to dim. Surely these initial results were coming from red states or republican counties, some folks thought. Once votes started to come in from the urban areas, the vote count would surely change trajectory.  As state after state was being called for Trump, the celebration became more and more silent. A remaining ray of hope was the wall … Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. There was no way that Trump would win in these blue states … so people were asked to be patient and wait for the count from these democratic bastions.

It was about midnight on the East Coast when the writing on the wall was crystal clear. Trump would carry by a small margin, not only Florida, but also Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Watching the reaction to the vote tallies as they were announced was quite poignant.  Tears, hugs, displays of irritation, bursts of anger, and signs of desperations were everywhere.

Stoking the Fire?

Soon progressives began to stoke the fire by suggesting that a Trump win would result in mass deportations, registry of all Muslims, a surge of intolerance, emergence of a plutocracy running the nation, a dismantling of the safety net, and an dangerous foreign policy.

Shock soon gave way to anger (Not My President). Disappointment soon succumbed to threats (Chants of By Any Means). Unpreparedness was immediately followed by a call to action (Resist, resist, resist). Many progressives got caught up in this fury … their tactics seemed to become more rigid and extreme. Those who disagreed with their conclusions were shouted down, others were not even permitted to speak.

It did not help the situation when a few republicans gloated about the victory of Trump and the defeat of Clinton. It was like rubbing salt on the wounds.

Reality soon overtook all the rhetoric and electioneering. It was a historic rejection of the progressive agenda nationwide with a few exceptions along the western coastline and the Northeastern corridor where Clinton outperformed Trump in the national vote by over 4 million votes. Republicans not only won the presidency, but also retained the majority in the Senate and House. In the words of President Obama: another shellacking.

Progressives vowed to make Trump an illegitimate president, by the ominous chant of by any means. They became determined to throw any and all roadblocks to effective governing. Trump’s objectives of increasing manufacturing jobs, streamlining regulations, strengthening the military, muscle up our foreign policy, replace the healthcare, and building the wall should be obstructed all the way. The fear is that if Trump delivers on his promises, the republicans would surely control the presidency for the next 16 years.

The Democrat’s Kabuki Dance

Unable to accept defeat, by any means became a reality:

Blame the defeat on the Russians

Blame the loss on the FBI Director

Attack the Electoral College as undemocratic

Ask for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania

Offer electors in the Electoral College favors for switching their vote

Start demonstrations, marches, and confrontations

Initiate lawsuits in as many States as possible

Caricature whenever the newly elected President

Hurl epithets, profanities, and threats against the republicans

While these events might have helped diffuse the anger and move some folks toward acknowledgement, the paranoia, whining, and pent-up resentment are still present.  Trump’s late night twitter messages have not helped his cause or the situation. They have actually inflamed and harden positions.

Democrats’ remaining strategy is to slow down the legislative process and mire the nomination of cabinet officers. Powerless to stop the republican machine, their fate has been relegated to evening news snippets of accusations of corruption, questionable dealings, and conflict of interest.

Strategies for Change

Research on change has taught us that there are eight “pure” strategies for change. Pure is intended to connote a theoretical rather than practical framework. In practice, these eight strategies are used in combination.  I had to dust off my academic papers to find these descriptions.

Fellowship Strategy

Confrontation Strategy

Economic Strategy

Political Strategy

Academic Strategy

Military Strategy

Engineering Strategy

Normative Re-educative Strategy

Each of these strategies has advantages and disadvantages.   When grouped together, we have three major types of change: power-coercive (Political, Economic, Military, and Confrontation), rational-empirical (Engineering, Academic, Fellowship), behavioral science (Normative-Re-educative).

The strategy so far adopted by the resistance movement combines power-coercive (Confrontation) with rational-empirical (Fellowship).

The basic assumption in the Confrontation Strategy is that through nonviolent argument one can force people to look at problems, and as a result, desired changes will be made. This strategy is useful in releasing tension, venting anger, and arguing for moral values. The strength is that it makes people take a look at problems they would otherwise ignore. However, this strategy offers no solution and is sometime ineffective because those who use it typically lack power, and also generates a backlash.

The basic assumption of the Fellowship Strategy is that getting people to know and like one another will facilitate mutual influence and change. This strategy’s strength is its commitment to the individual and giving dignity to that individual. It is good at getting things started. Problem is, however, that due to conflict avoidance and inability to effectively reach decisions, such a strategy suffers from a sense of directionless. This lack of direction can decrease commitment of those involved.

Getting Back to Reality

Demonstrations, marches, town hall confrontations, and other displays of opposition will help democrats release tensions, vent their anger, and argue for moral values as we tackle emotional and hot button issues about illegal immigration, abrogation of the Affordable Health Care, defunding of Planned Parenthood, and social justice grievances.  Being in your face forces people to acknowledge that we have problems that need our attention and resolution.

Community organizing is an effective tool for getting people to talk to one another, to respect one another’s dignity, and station in life. However, no significant decisions will come out, and the many grievances it tries to resolve diffuse energy.

It would be much better if democrat members of Congress identify those areas of common interest with the republicans and work together to address them. I am basing my assumptions on the fact that reasonable people can look at problems in rational terms. By focusing on those who have power, decisions can be more easily achieved. A tall order? Perhaps, but what are the other options?

IF Trump is successful in achieving these six goals, the republicans for sure will control the presidency for at least the next 16 years:

·      Fix the decaying infrastructure

·      Grow the economy at 3%+ per annum

·      Increase number of high paying jobs

·      Make trade policies fairer

·      Fix the immigration problem

·      Enact a healthcare system that works for all

What is your take on what’s going on with our political system? I welcome your thoughts.