The Curmudgeon Speaks

We have traveled a lot since we retirement, but the pandemic has limited what we can do. We have missed two trips to Europe to this point. We finally decided to take our camper on the road visiting a couple of state parks in Wisconsin. It is amazing how popular camping has become. As long as you have the equipment and function without using facilities, it seems pretty safe. The problem has been finding a camp site that has not been reserved.

I do maintain a blog site specific to our trips – https://grabetravels.blogspot.com

Some see colleges as sowing the seeds of liberalism in young and impressionable minds. Some of my relatives think so. I am not even certain what this is supposed to mean. Does it mean as a prof you talk politics in your class taking the opportunity of having a captive audience? Perhaps the mission of different disciplines in the social sciences and humanities focus on content and values that happen to be liberal? There is some evidence that this is the case, but there is also evidence business and engineering profs are less so. We do know that the level of education is related to the probability of voting Democrat or Republican. However, are these relationships cause or effect? Does the discipline shape values or do folks with different values commit to different disciplines?

I encountered a longitudinal study following approximately 3500 college students and trying to determine how their values changed. Students were asked about their attitudes toward liberal and conservative people.

In 2015, 42% of students had “high” positive attitudes toward political conservatives. That share increased substantially to 50% in 2016. Three years later, in 2019, it returned to 42%. Meanwhile, positive attitudes toward politically liberal people generally increased during college. All told, 58% of students reported “high” positive attitudes toward this group in 2015. That number grew to 66% in 2016 and then hit 70% in 2019.

I attempted to dig a little deeper into the methodology and the exact questions that were asked. I found that the items were part of a larger study examining how attitudes toward people of different religions changed across the college years. The original study describes the results as follows:

Overall, positive feelings toward politically liberal people increased during college among students in the study. By contrast, positive feelings toward politically conservative people leveled off or declined after the first college year, varying slightly by worldview group. Notably, some of the groups with the greatest appreciation for conservatives at the end of their first year showed the sharpest declines thereafter, including Hindus and Latter-day Saints.

We were watching CBS Sunday morning and one of the segments on the news show concerned income inequality and the pandemic. A good part of the segment described the differential impact of the pandemic on the economy of the wealthy versus other participants in the ecnomy based on the work of Thomas Piketty. My thinking on economic inequality has been strongly influenced by my reading of Piketty’s book Capital. The segment mentioned the release on Amazon of a documentary based on this book – Capital in the 21st century. I rented and watched this documentary this afternoon.

The book and documentary are part history, part economics, and part political analysis. Both are a remedy to simplistic notions such as the American Dream and any positive assumptions folks of advantage have regarding the superiority of unchecked capitalism. Claims such as Reagan’s trickle down economics simply ignore the data. For those who point to the high stock market shortly before and during the pandemic, the documentary explains just how few actually benefit and how unemployment and income inequality can be increasing even as the stock market rises. I now refer to the documentary because plowing through the book is a struggle even though the focus is on explaining more complicated economic constructs (e.g., capital) for those who do not study such theings.

The documentary in part addresses an issue I write about and understand at a deeper level – technology in society. Technology is in some way a boon to recent economic trends creating new wealth and new opportunities. The video considers the notion that new technologies are job creators rather than job eliminators. While often true, the key issue is whether there are meaningful options to which individuals replaced by technology can move. The creators of the documentary note that this may not be the case with digital technology. One factoid they note is that within the next decade the first or second occupation in nearly every state is likely to be replaced by technology. This occupation is professional driver of one sort or another. This is not like moving from horse power to steam power to gas and electricity. Technology is replacing occupations of every type and there comes a point at which there is simply not meaningful work for those displaced.

When factors such as the pandemic impact an economy you immediately see the value of capital and technology in increasing inequities. Those at the top in multiple vocations have low risk and great economic opportunities. Consider the benefits to Amazon and any media or communication industry under present circumstances. Those at the bottom face danger in providing necessary labor and cannot escape the danger because of the threat of no income. With so many out of work, their labor has not resulted in higher income because others will be willing to take low pay jobs. People are turning away from small businesses as unnecessary and concentrate their spending on big businesses that benefit from their scale in providing necessary goods and services.

We are in a time when passing on a better life to offspring will be less likely than has been the case for generations. Changes in taxation and business practices allowing tax havens will be necessary to preserve our way of life and limit the unrest that is now growing.

I don’t follow Trump or Biden on Twitter, but it is quite informative to check on their tweets to see how they see the world and their supporters. It is easy enough to do. Just select search and open the search text field. Suggested searches will likely bring up both men. Take a look at the topics both author and share. Consider the vision both portray. Try to grasp the totality of the content. The difference in content is stark – darkness and light.

Bullying and cyberbullying were topics I studied during a part of my academic career. With an extremely capable graduate student, I was able to publish several articles on the topic and my colleague went on to complete a post doc with a leading school bullying researcher. Schools struggle to address these challenges and one of the established predictors of success is school climate [https://www.apa.org/advocacy/interpersonal-violence/bullying-school-climate]. School climate which is typically measured with questionnaires might be translated as values and culture. I like to describe it as how a group thinks about itself – what kind of people are we? School culture builds over time, but on a daily basis it is developed and communicated by staff and student leaders. Efforts to promote a more positive school climate sometimes involve efforts to get student leaders to communicate that bullying our peers is not who we are. Those peers regarded as leaders are quite influential in establishing valued behaviors. 

I tend to use this model of influence to understand how appropriate behavior is modeled and communicated in society. What examples do our leaders demonstrate? What kind of people are we? President Trump’s present wife claims to share my interests. She offers a message to young people captured in her suggestion that young people #bebest. However, this suggestion comes across as disingenuous given the slurs and belittlement used as a tactic by our President. Culture tends to be controlled much more strongly by leaders than by those who watch. Those who study the phenomenon of bullying identify multiple actors in many settings involving abuse. There can be passive bystanders and encouragers. There may be those who attempt to shield the victim. As I have applied my personal interest to understand the behavior of Trump, I wonder what type of culture encourages belittling labels and racist slurs. This type of behavior can’t be discounted as the naïveté and lack of experience of middle school kids. What category of actor in a bullying scenario would you as a researcher assign to Melania? There is the message of #bebest, but then there is the silence and indifference in the face of actual behavior. Someone ignoring inappropriate behavior in a President despite the personal rejection of exactly this type of behavior seems to establish a new category – something different from passive observer. #firsthypocrite.

There is no new Republican platform this year. The 2016 platform is carried over. A set of goals broken down by area was released [https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-campaign-announces-president-trumps-2nd-term-agenda-fighting-for-you]. Here are the two goals for education (I assume K12). Not making this up.

I understand the initial goal given familiarity with the DeVos agenda. School choice is a very controversial topic assumed by many to increase the inequity in the experiences students receive. I am not exactly certain what American Exceptionalism means. I tried to locate an official definition, but on its face I find promoting that you are exceptional is offensive and encourages division rather than cooperation.

Given the challenges faced by educators coming up with these two goals shows the authors to be out of touch with the profession and the challenges as they exist and I would guess to be offensive to many educators.

For contrast, here is the link to the Democratic platform. It is lengthy and online as a pdf. This link should take you to the section addressing education – https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-07-31-Democratic-Party-Platform-For-Distribution.pdf#page65

I think I have written about this before, but the problem continues and offers the opportunity for an amplification or a way to reach new ears. I engage heavily in social media and welcome the chance to use such services to share my opinions and challenge opinions that run contrary to my way of viewing the world. I believe in the exchange of ideas and I believe in true debate. Of course, I don’t get to set the rules, but for meaningful conversations and debate to occur there must be rules.

One of my observations is that most issues are complex and nuanced and the tactic of simplification results in everyone becoming frustrated at the resulting waste of time. One of the most common tactics of simplification is the expression of an objection to a claim or situation by the application of a label. Recent examples associated with political discussions involve labels such as socialist, communist, or fascist. Vague appeals to religion also fit this template.

Using labels is lazy. Using labels offers the perception of making a sound argument when nothing specific comes to mind and often does not exist. Using a label is a way to communicate with others holding a similar existing view but completely useless in explaining to individuals who are neutral or who disagree why they should change their perception. 

Those who use labels open themselves up to challenges of “how is this any different from that” and rightly so. The issue that comes immediately to mind is government sponsored or required health care. Would this be socialism? If socialism to you implies the government intervenes to assure a service universal health care would represent an example. However, if you are against the government taking responsibility for a given service and believe you shouldn’t have to accept such mandates you are against military service and conscription, public education, and the postal service among many other examples. It could be argued that paying for and serving in a military operation should be a personal choice. Those of us of age in the late 60s and early 70s know that this isn’t the way our democracy works. When drafted, you don’t get to say that I won’t serve because this war is not responsibility. You can certainly complain and do whatever else is within the law to object, but you can’t reject the requirement as socialism. We all pay for education whether we have kids or not. Our taxes partially support the mail SERVICE even though the cost/benefit is very unequal depending on where we live and how frequently we use the service. A political system is clearly not either socialist or not depending on whether any given service requires a commitment from all.

So, don’t claim that democrats are trying to impose socialized medicine on all of us. Socialism has nothing to do with whether any given service can be expected of a government. If you object to a health care system that allows the political system to ignore the needs of individuals, just say that this is your position. I see protection of the country and the individuals within the country by support of the military and the protection of the country and the protection of individuals within the country from disease and injury to be commitments I accept making. It doesn’t make me a socialist to have these values. It simply means I see it my responsibility to address certain basic needs with health and protection from foreign aggression being among these basic needs.

I would be pleased to discuss with you what needs you see as the responsibility of all citizens.

I hope the old style convention supporters learn things from this year’s approach. As a consequence of the face to face audience, the traditional approach is less effective in communicating with voters who will always be watching at a distance. I understand communicating with the public is not the only function of the “convention”, but in terms of influencing voters this year’s approach was very well done.

I would argue that the intended focus of the convention was to establish differences in character. The inclusion of this kid and his message made this difference so clear. There was no need to draw the comparison to Trump’s mocking someone with a disability during one of his events to make the point.

What about issues? I think a solid case could have been made promoting different positions on income inequality, health care, the environment, regard for the role and responsibilities of the U.S. within the global community, etc., but these distinctions seem obvious and vary in how individuals feel impacted. The difference in character is so obvious it probably makes the most general case for which individual is the best leader.

Michelle Obama has a podcast and it is very good. It is only available through Spotify so I am assuming there is money involved. You can listen using the free subscription version of Spotify. To be fair, the podcast is done through Higher Ground – the Obama media company – so the production value (e.g., nice music) is high. I could not help thinking this may be the initial step in an Oprah empire. While the Obamas obviously have political interests, this is not what I consider a political podcast. It involves issues and featured guests. The first full offering is Barack and Michelle talking about their life stories.

I find this kind of rhetoric to be so strange. A sitting President claiming the country to be incapable of completing an election that determines the will of the people. He is promoting the logic – if I win, I deserved to win. If I lose, I have been cheated. Promoting this kind of nonsense is damaging to the core principles on which the country operates and no leader of a democracy should be making such claims as a means of self promotion.