Millennials and Snowflakes

I was asked, "Why are Millennials sometimes referred to as "snowflakes." Actually the question was why young Liberals get that label, but it seems more balanced to look at the ideological spectrum that Millennials span.

You might recall the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign? You saw some very loud protests against the status quo from some of the population. You saw people feeling loud and proud about their feelings toward others. One might wonder whether the “snowflakes” were the people who didn’t speak out and didn’t vote.

Young (and not so young) Conservatives were angry and Donald Trump became their spokesperson. They were angry about the disappearance of good-paying jobs that don’t require higher education. They were angry about civil rights they believe have “gone too far.” They were angry about social programs that cost them money through taxes they pay. They were angry with “the government.” We saw many become quite vocal about their right to speak out against Hispanics, Blacks, Muslims, Jews, and women. We saw an increase in hate crimes (that continues). “Snowflakes” is not an appropriate metaphor here, even though they were/are, overwhelmingly, white people. Maybe “tornadoes” would work as a metaphor?

Young (and not so young) Progressives were angry and Bernie Sanders became their spokesperson. They were angry about the status quo in politics where the coziness between most politicians and “special interests” are legion. They were angry about inequality of opportunity and inequality of treatment under the law that they witnessed through disproportionate and harsher incarceration for Blacks and Hispanics who committed the sames crimes as Whites. They were angry about the increasing wage gap between the richest Americans and the middle to lower socioeconomic classes. They were angry that the U.S. is the only developed country with a government that does not make sure that every person has access to health care, regardless of their ability to pay. Young Progressives included people from many demographics: wealthy/poor, black/white/Hispanic/etc., male/female, straight/LGBTQ. They tended to be more highly educated than Trump supporters and to live in major urban areas. If you saw any of the rallies for Bernie Sanders, you know that “snowflakes” is entirely the wrong metaphor. To keep the metaphor thing analogous, let’s consider something like “thunderstorms” as their metaphor.

It’s pitiful that derogatory terms get used (by anyone). I guess we all have a 5-year-old inside us, just waiting to call someone a name. Some seem to lack the will to quiet that little child and focus on what matters.

Does respectability politics have a place in America’s value of harmony?

In the U.S., relying on “respectability politics” undermines the very foundation of the country’s stated reverence for diversity. Respectability politics espouses the philosophy that, to earn respect, the only route is to adopt the dominant culture’s value system and to speak in the value-language of that dominant culture. Where’s the diversity in that?

The long-standing challenge for those who are not part of the dominant culture is to balance respect for one’s “tribal” culture with respect for some forms of assimilation. President Obama, for example, tried to encourage more men in the African-American community (along with other “Black identity” individuals) to embrace the practice of keeping nuclear families intact— as an involved father and partner. Yet, he was quite vocal that one need not apologize for “being Black." Rather, one should celebrate positive cultural traditions and values (while remaining aware of the harshness of Black history).

No community or subculture should think of itself in terms of needing “self-policing” (another aspect of respectability politics). Every community should think of itself in terms of benefiting from self-improvement. There’s a huge difference here. One is oppressive and the other is empowering. Self-improvement suggests that we are in charge of our cultural and individual behavior and that we get to decide what constitutes an “improvement.”

I am sympathetic to the notion that we are all a whole lot more alike than we are different, but that does not mean that one community should spend its energy proving that it is happy to be totally aligned with the dominant culture. To be so is to, at best, stand in the shadow of that dominant culture—receiving none of the light. A social psychology in which one feels the metric is “to what degree the culture aligns with what the dominant culture says, does, and believes” sets up an unhealthy imbalance in terms of respect and appreciation. The challenge is that most (all?) dominant cultures insist on this imbalance and on using themselves as the metric for superiority.

However, any community/subculture that has an inadequate voice does well not to be outright oppositional. It’s my experience that it is not possible to find acceptance from anyone we are shouting at with a hostile epithet. Any community that wants acceptance and respect needs to embrace ways of commanding respect without alienating those who are most receptive to the right for that respect. There’s a difference between righteous indignation and in-your-face hostility. I am looking at this from the perspective of someone who has lived within the dominant White American culture my whole life. However, I pay attention to what goes on around the world. No matter what regional culture I’ve observed (e.g., Nigerian, Indian, Brazilian, French), no one is “converted” by hostile attacks.

A mature individual knows how to command respect without demanding it. And if commanding respect without demanding it works best when dealing with those who are sympathetic, that is even truer when dealing with those who are not receptive, such as many people in a dominant culture.

Respectability politics reminds us that a culture is unlikely to be embraced if it loudly negates the values and behaviors of the dominant culture. That is just a practical observation of the way that societies and individual human psychology work. It is dangerous, though, if that realization is not balanced with insistence on retaining what is beautiful and cherished in the culture that commands respect.

In the U.S., the choir must sing in harmony, never in unison. Do not ask the baritone to sing the soprano's part.

Embracing a Chance to Become Wise

My father was a very intelligent person— precocious, even in elementary school. He was also a loner, joined the U.S. Navy at the age of 17 to fight in WWII, nearly died from a war injury at the age of 19, and developed severe PTSD. And it was like that trauma prevented him from becoming wise, even though he was still incredibly intelligent. He and my mother raised three daughters. He loved his work. He was devoted to my mother. But he lacked insight into himself and his relationships with others— all of which suffered from his PTSD (a term that did not even exist when he acquired it).

When he was about 55 years old, he had a severe case of perforated ulcers (compliments of the PTSD) that almost killed him. While still recovering, he became more reflective about his life and what was actually important to him. The next year, he was diagnosed with melanoma. He had grown up at a time when the word “cancer” was barely uttered because it was so feared. He had surgery that was successful. But he was no longer able to work at the job he loved so much. The permanent damage to his health from these two medical traumas changed his life in ways that left him feeling lost. So, as he said, he had a lot of time to look at the ceiling and to think about what was truly important and about the implications for how he’d live his live.

Over the next few years, Dad became wiser about the importance of his relationships with the people he loved. His behaviors— ones we thought could never change— mellowed. He was quicker to smile at the good things, quicker to feel “emotional” in a variety of situations that previously would have simply cause him to shut down, emotionally. Sometimes, tears would well up in his eyes, just thinking about how profoundly he loved his daughters.

We don’t always talk about emotional wisdom, but it’s incredibly precious. It’s not something that you can learn by reading. It’s obviously not something you can learn simply by analysis. It comes from taking the brave step of letting yourself feel.

It took two near-death experiences for my father to realize just how highly he treasured the people he loved and to open up to feeling and expressing his love in joyous ways. That wisdom he gained by taking those first brave steps to self-awareness was worth more than all the knowledge and intellectual skills he’d developed over his life.

The Great American Hoax Hoax

Perhaps the most obvious hoax on the American people is that which claims that most news reports that oppose their beliefs are hoaxes while none of the reports that reinforce their beliefs are hoaxes. There are many examples of this phenomenon, of course. One that continues to thrive in July of 2017 regards whether news reports of a Trump-Russia connection are a hoax. Whether we are labeling these reports as humorous deceptions or malicious deceptions, there are informative news reports that present verified facts; they are not "hoaxes."

I’m not sure whether many people are amenable to changing their mind about whether the news reporting on the Trump-Russia connection is factual. It’s extremely difficult to let go of a belief that any of us have embraced. If you aren’t interested in knowing information that might question the Russian-Trump "hoax" belief, I respect that. I know I have strongly held beliefs that I’d have a hard time giving up. I believe that direct statements and observable actions by politicians tell us what these people are saying or doing; anything else is a secondary source that is likely to cherry pick “facts” or is a theory about what we don’t actually know to be true. Sometimes those primary sources are telling the truth, but all you can say about what they’ve said is “this is what they said; this is what they observably did.” I’d have a difficult time changing that belief about primary “evidence” being the best source of information! I also believe that conspiracy theories are damaging the U.S. as a nation and that the Russians are exploiting this phenomenon. At least that’s what I’ve heard a Russian operative say in a recorded interview.

I’m thinking we might want to consider what Donald Trump, Jr. has shared directly of his email messages and his personal comments rather than citing the “reprobates” at CNN, for example. To wit: He tried to collude with Russian operatives to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton but (at least as of July 15th) claims he got nothing and instead was lobbied to lift sanctions on Russia. Both activities are illegal; neither attempt by the Russian operatives was reported to the CIA at the time. Someone left that room with a folder of papers that arrived with one of the Russian operatives who attended the meeting. Who took the papers had not been confessed as of July 15th. There should be no speculation but a lot of further investigation.

President Trump is now saying that, yes, the meeting took place; yes, his son and son-in-law (and others) were eager to know what dirt the Russians had on Clinton. However, Trump, Jr. did not do anything wrong. “Opposition research” is the name of the game in politics, and Trump, Jr. didn’t realize it was illegal to deal with the Russians on this. (The Trumps are new to politics, after all, say the apologists. For the rest of us, ignorance of the law does not confer innocence.) Jared Kushner has gradually added over 100 incidents in which he met with Russians when providing his security clearance application form. The additions have come after he was given a security clearance. Reports of these situations are not hoaxes. Trump, Jr. and Kushner have acknowledged these facts. That they did not report these facts in a timely way is not proof that they did or did not know it was wrong to deceive. Knowing the intent for the deception (or oversight) is extremely difficult to prove, so jumping to conclusions about innocence or guilt about intent is not appropriate. However, it's what they did that matters.

Back to one of my beliefs: Avoid all second-hand sources, whether it’s CNN or FOX, Hannity or Maddow. Look at the collection of email exchanges that Trump, Jr. released and clearly stated are what went on (including his “I love it!” statement regarding Russians interfering with U.S. elections). Listen to what Trump, Jr. and the others who attended that meeting are saying about what transpired. Even information about who was in that meeting has been released like a slowly dripping faucet that needs a new washer. There may be more details coming, but Trump, Jr. has already made it clear that there is a “Trump-Russia thing” (to quote Trump, Sr's term).

All of the intelligence agencies in the U.S. government had independent investigations regarding whether Russia (via operatives or directly with Putin’s leadership) interfered with the 2016 U.S. elections (not just with the presidential election). All of the intelligence agencies came to similar conclusions: Russia did interfere and they know many of the situations where this took place (e.g., state elections as well as federal). It is not a hoax that Russians interfered. It is almost surely not true that all federal agencies are in collusion against Trump and, therefore, are going after an innocent Russia or an innocent member of Trump's entourage. Look for transcripts of summaries of those reports; listen to the directors’ public comments on the subject.

CNN has been accused (and found guilty) many times of rushing forward with a story that is unconfirmed in order to have a larger audience. That they pushed forward with a Trump-Russia story before we had the facts we have now would not surprise me, but the timeline suggests that CNN’s Van Jones spoke before having the facts that were revealed the week after his sidewalk comment that there was little substance to reports of the Trump, Jr. meeting with Russian operatives and less substance in Democrats’ response to what was known at that time.

Many Americans believed that those closest to Trump and his campaign would not have met directly with Russian operatives, but now know they were wrong. CNN’s Van Jones could have been post-rationalizing about his nothing-burger comment on the day after O’Keefe published his edited version of Jones’s dialogue. However, the nothing-burger comment and its post-rationalizing was made before all the factual revelations came to light. At the time of the nothing-burger comment, a lot of people thought that Liberals were attempting to light a bonfire without any wood. Jones was apparently one of those people. And, let’s face it, the Democrats are not getting out a coherent message that people are listening to.

Believing this hoax theory after the Trump entourage's confessed activities were made public is amazing, but not surprising. It’s a belief that some Americans are holding on to, though fewer since Trump, Jr's statements indicate that there’s a lot of burger in that sandwich.

Can President Trump "make America great again"?

“Great again.” The question is, how will we measure “great” and “again”? What were the halcyon days of the United States and in what ways?

The GDP Definition of “Great”— The White House, despite all its internal, warring factions, is defining “great” strictly in terms of economics: GDP, job numbers, and Americans’ disposable income (a questionable indicator of The American Dream). You would think that by paring down the dozens of issues that affect the U.S. and its people to these three would make it very easy to be “great.”

The Historical Definition of “Again”— But maybe, not great again; even during the Reagan years, people in the bottom tiers of the U.S. socioeconomic classes were struggling, some kinds of taxes were replaced by other kinds of taxes. Unemployment tends to follow international economic swings, so the fact that things actually got worse while Reagan was president is somewhat similar to what President Obama inherited as the globe was taking an economic dive (in large part due to financial institution over-extension with debt offerings). Again? Under FDR? Truman? Nixon? Reagan? Bush #1? Bush #2?

The 2017 Federal Budget Definition of “Great”— Almost every issue is now framed in terms of theories about what will make the U.S. GDP grow faster than that of other countries. The exceptions are increases in military funding, Dept. of Homeland Security funding, and a $1T investment in “infrastructure” (to be a shared expense with businesses that participate). “The Wall” is based on a different theory of economic benefits vs. the cost of construction, maintenance, and staffing. Drawing from the White House budget document, we can see the places where Americans can expect less:

• Major reduction in healthcare insurance availability and in healthcare services available.
• Reduced and eliminated financial institution regulatory oversight (reintroducing the circumstances that led to the financial institution collapse of 2007–2008)
• Substantial reduction in access to Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, temporary financial assistance (aka “welfare”), and the Children’s Health Insurance Program for families living in poverty
• Substantial reduction in government oversight/administration of student loans
• Substantial reduction in funding for teacher training, after-school programs for children living in poverty, and programs designed to give children living in poverty and those with disabilities or other learning disadvantages a “boost” in completing their education and being prepared for post-high school education/training; move from support for public schools to greater support for private and religious K-12 schools
• Reduction in support for farmers/agriculture (plus the elimination of much of the workforce that plants, tends, and picks the crops)
• Reduction in retirement benefits for federal employees (other than senators and House representatives)

The devil is in the details. For example, a quick look at the spreadsheet in the budget document shows that the federal deficit decreases as percent of GDP for a couple years, and then it increases as percent of GDP. Another issue is whether the targets for these reductions are achievable. As an example, look at reductions in Medicaid as a way of understanding what’s behind some of these cuts. The major fraud committed with Medicaid comes from healthcare providers. (In Medicare, the major fraud is split between insurances billing for services not received by patients and healthcare providers delivering treatments that are not needed or are over-billed.) However, the “remedy” being offered in Congress and the White House is to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid. It’s not clear how remedying something other than the root cause of the problem will make things great for anyone other than those insurance companies and healthcare institutions that are unscrupulous.
And then there’s this: The theories about rapid GDP growth for middle- and working-class Americans and for the working poor are based on a premise that has been proven false: When corporations make more profit, their shareholders benefit, especially if they don’t expand their workforce. By law, corporations are required to maximize shareholder returns. The stock market rise is based on the belief that corporations will continue to make record profits, not that they will expand their workforce.

We’re already great! The U.S. is already great. In fact, in many ways, it’s the best it’s every been… even if you just look at GDP. Yes, the U.S. can get even better, but that’s different from claiming it’s not great now and it will be later. Unfortunately, “Make America great again!” has a sound bite advantage over “Make America even better than it’s ever been!” American nostalgia for what never was is infamously resistant to facts.

U.S. Quality of Character— Since the November election the rest of the world has been judging the U.S. more harshly. They had their frustrations with G.W. Bush and Barack Obama— frustrations that pale in comparison to what they’re feeling now. They’re judging the President and the 63 million Americans who voted for him because the White House’s notions of what makes a “great” country should include a lot more than GDP.
Let’s assume that a “great America” has something to do with the “quality of character” of the nation in the way that it treats its citizens, residents, and world neighbors. Quality of character includes being

• honest & prudent
• self-disciplined in behavior
• respectful of others
• collaborative
• well-informed
• generous/benevolent
• dependable
• persistent & consistent
• principled (making decisions and behaving based on fundamental ethical principles)
• benevolent/generous (of spirit and deed)
• responsible (taking responsibility for one's words and deeds, plus looking out for all Americans, in our case)

In other words, for the U.S. to be “great,” its leader(s) need to have these qualities of character. Of the eleven characteristics listed, President Trump demonstrates about one (persistent but not consistent; principled in some ways and lacking integrity in others— awarding 1/2 for each).

Quality of Character and Treatment of Americans— Further marginalizing people living in poverty, including the working poor (67% of those on Medicaid), taking funds from the public schools that working-class and poor families must depend on for a quality education, and increasing the financial assets of the upper class disproportionately more than that of the middle- and working-classes are actions that are contemptuous of many, if not most, Americans. This is a consistent mentality: The wealthiest nation on Earth should do whatever it can to accelerate its economic growth, even at the expense of others. And the wealthiest individuals in the U.S. should do whatever they can to accelerate their financial growth, even at the expense of the rest of the nation. This is not a mentality we normally associate with a high quality of character. It is selfish in terms of assets and power. It applies to many in the current White House.

Quality of Character and Treatment of Allies— Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency, he has maligned, snubbed, and disrespected U.S. allies and their leaders while praising despots like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Rodrigo Duterte. His profound deficit in knowledge about world affairs is not just a deficit in being "well-informed"; it is actually a deliberate preference not to know the facts: He would not attend intelligence briefings after the election, deeming them a waste of his time; he says he does not like to read and prefers to base decisions on his “gut.” In a meeting with President Xi Jinping, Trump volunteered that ten minutes spent talking about North Korea introduced him to some of the complexities in dealing with Kim Jong-un and that government. (And that statement was given the same importance, by Trump, as noting that the chocolate cake they’d had was “fantastic.”) However, it is not just Donald J. Trump who is treating allies with disregard. There are others in the White House who are rabid nationalists (not just Steve Bannon, by the way). To be clear: Most members of the U.S. Congress, especially the Senate, recognize the importance of respectful and tactful international relations… especially with allies. They, too, represent the nation and, in that capacity, their quality of character should be acknowledged, at least in that regard.

Can President Trump make America great again? Probably not, unless we consider only GDP and not who within the U.S. benefits from that. Surely not, if we consider the quality of character of the nation’s leadership and the nation’s domestic and foreign policies.

Cuts to Medicaid? What do we need to understand before applauding or condemning?

At the time of this writing, many people are expressing outrage at the proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. Before taking constructive action, we need to know a whole lot more than that the Trump White House budget calls for “a large cut to Medicaid and Medicare funding.” This terse statement, which can be found in many news summaries, is utterly insufficient to deciding whether to be incensed or encouraged… or somewhere in between.

The proposed deep cuts to the Medicaid budget are bound to have a profound impact over the next decade... should nothing change to prevent what's proposed for 2020 and beyond. The proposed Trump budget calls for a 25% reduction in federal Medicaid expenditures by 2026, relative to what is currently estimated on the books. The proposal, which is based on the current House version of the AHCA, is not that easy to summarize in a single statement. What the Kaiser Family Foundation "opines" must be based on a lot of assumptions about how those reductions will impact various states and where individual states will choose to cut their Medicaid rolls. Are those in skilled nursing facilities likely to be "discharged" as the means of adjusting to the eventual 25% cut in federal Medicaid funding? There is no state that has made that kind of decision. Questions about how to adjust over the next decade have barely been asked and have definitely not been answered by each of the 50 states. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Because the Republican Congress follows confederate ideology, the solutions to this gradual, federal budget cut must come at the level of individual states. The federal government will provide less; states can decide whether to supplement with state funds or to cut the number/type of people who are eligible. In the current version, any state that has not already expanded eligibility would be forbidden from doing so. For example, some states, under the ACA, extended Medicaid eligibility to cover *anyone* living in poverty. Other (mostly Republican-dominated) states did not. The default is that the individual must meet more than the financial criteria (less than 133% of poverty level).

Across the United States, only 23% of non-elderly recipients of Medicaid are not employed. 63% have at least one family member who is employed full-time. [Henry J. Kaiser Foundation website, "Distribution of Nonelderly with Medicaid by Family Work Status"] Of those 23% who are not currently working and are *able* to work, what percentage of them would find employment that paid so much that they would no longer need Medicaid? I can't find anywhere that provides the data and an answer to this question.

The Congressional Budget Office estimate for this AHCA change in Medicaid coverage is that it represents an $800 billion total reduction in Medicaid costs between now and 2026. As a reference, for fiscal year 2016, total Medicaid spending was $574.2 billion. [Henry J. Kaiser Foundation website, "Total Medicaid Spending"]

Of course, I hope that the proposed changes at the federal level do not happen. We already have great disparity in Medicaid services between states. A gradual 25% cut at the federal level would undoubtedly exacerbate that disparity.

For now, I think we should all be planning ahead, to the extent we can put aside our own resources. With or without the AHCA, something has to change with Medicare and Medicaid. Either the withholdings for those programs have to increase or some other major change in healthcare for older adults and poor people has to happen. Insurance has to pay for itself. We will also need to pressure federal and state officials to develop plans that answer the question of what we do with the people who become ineligible for Medicaid and do not have the means to pay for essential care for themselves and their families. And the answers have to be viable; they cannot fly in the face of facts.

How can we determine President Trump’s actual agenda?

With the release of the first Trump White House budget, we know what some in the White House are trying to accomplish. There is, however, a great deal of discord within the White House staff and cabinet. It’s still not clear how many of the proposals come from Mr. Trump’s overarching objectives and how many are the work of members of his entourage, some of whom might be “fired” at any time. And, our Tweeter-in-Chief has been known to say two opposite things in the span of less than 24 hours. So in terms of specific ways that his nationalist and anti-regulations agenda will be carried out, this budget is our best indication of his agenda to date. It includes

• big increases in Dept. of Defense
• big increases in Dept. of Homeland Security
• big wall
• big decreases in health/medicine
• big decreases in science and technology
• big decreases in education
• big decreases in environmental protection
• big decreases in foreign aid

How do we translate these budget priorities into the Trump White House agenda? Fortunately, the budget document that was submitted to Congress explains the rationale pretty clearly. This gives us the assumptions they’re making and their “agenda.” Two examples give an idea of the agenda with respect to domestic policy.

Example #1: Trump put Scott Pruitt at the head of the EPA— a spokesperson for climate change deniers who sued the EPA about a dozen times, and Trump has now proposed an EPA budget cut of 31%. As outlined in the budget document, this guarantees there will be no further federal support for cleaning up toxic sites (like the Great Lakes, which hold 20% of the world’s fresh water). Pruitt’s EPA has already removed all the confirmed data on climate change (such as the relative contributions of natural meteorological variations on Earth, natural variations in solar energy release, and human use of fossil fuels) that was on the EPA website.

Pruitt and his advisors are “working on” a replacement for the 2016 EPA website. They say that the new website will focus on commerce (turning away from the EPA as our environment protector). Pruitt intends for the new site to explain how economic growth requires greater use fossil fuels, which will happen if businesses can pollute more (Some environmental regulations are already being repealed.) At the same time, the EPA has an updated section of the overall website that specifically addresses the importance of reducing pollution by U.S. businesses: https://www.epa.gov/p2/p2-resources-business [May 2017].

Pruitt recently claimed that carbon dioxide is not a “greenhouse gas.” (Pruitt has no background in chemistry, biology, or atmospheric sciences, so it is not surprising that he would make such a fundamental “misstatement.”) The EPA budget greatly decreases support for renewable energy options. The most recent headline regarding Trump’s position is that he is moving away from contending that the claims about climate change are part of an international hoax. This, after hearing from G17 leaders that he needs to adhere to the Paris Climate Agreement and why.

White House Assumptions & Rhetoric: If businesses can be free to pollute more, they will create more jobs and enjoy larger corporate profits. This is a specific instance of how trickle-down economics is purported to work. If toxic sites are going to be cleaned up, it’s on each state to find the budget to do so. If fossil fuel drilling and mining do not have to meet standards for toxic and polluting releases into the air, water, and land, then those in the fossil fuel industry will expand their drilling and mining (which feeds back into the first two assumptions).

Agenda:

#1-- Support the fossil fuel industry’s dominance as a provider of U.S. energy.

#2-- Convince working-class people that more manufacturing jobs will come their way as a result of significantly more jobs in the fossil fuel industry and, indirectly, more jobs in the business sectors that choose to increase the pollution they create.

(Republican caveat: There is also talk of Washington dictating to states that they cannot have more stringent laws regarding environmental protection, which flies in the face of Republicans’ strong push for states’ rights over federal rights.)

= = =

Example #2: Science, health, and technology are taking huge hits. Trump’s right-wing cronies are not fans of scientific research in many areas. The explanations for these reductions are mentioned in the budget proposal document. However, one recent White House comment is that these cuts are, in part, because scientists within the federal government have gone “too far” in their research on climate change. Here are a few of the agencies that are being cut to or through the bone.

National Science Foundation: 11% reduction in budget
This is how university innovation is funded: through NSF grants. Academic scientific research and early prototyping of applications are a major way that the United States develops advances in science, health, and technology. The majority of American businesses that used to have their own research labs have changed their innovation model so that they take the results of academic research (free and open to all because they’ve been federally funded) and develop their own products and services. (That is not to say that there is no research in these businesses, only that the investment is modest compared with what it used to be.) This new model substantially reduces the risk to businesses that used to have a one-in-ten internal research outcome that could be turned into profitable product lines and services.

Department of Health and Human Services: 16% reduction in budget
The stated intention is to cut Medicaid severely, to greatly reduce eligibility for children’s health insurance, and to eliminate the low-income energy assistance program. There is no acknowledgment that most Medicaid recipients have jobs, jobs that do not pay enough to be able to afford health insurance and co-pays for medical services. Instead, White House officials suggest that Medicaid can be cut significantly if recipients would “just get jobs.” According to the Congressional Budget Office, there will be about 23 million more people without health insurance. This, compliments of the House AHCA proposal. Trump has vacillated on his policy intentions regarding healthcare coverage for Americans. It appears that the vacillation may be due to gauging the reaction to his political base of supporters (who seem equate reduced coverage with reduced income taxes), but some of that vacillation appears to be due to learning-on-the-job about these federal services’ benefits to his base.

National Institutes of Health: 19% reduction in budget
These are the experts who regularly make breakthroughs in medicine and related health problems. It’s also the NIH that funds university research in important problems, from technology that will help elderly people live longer and more safely in their homes to prevention and cure of cancers. Notice how these would be ways to reduce the government’s costs for the AHCA, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 17% reduction in budget from last year, bringing it to the lowest level in 20 years.
The cuts significantly reduce the ability of the CDC to discover new ways to effectively prevent diseases and to respond to emergent epidemics. The budget explanation states the intention to nearly eliminate all CDC aid to populations most at risk regarding health,  such as Native Americans living in tribal “reservations,” where poverty is endemic, and those in socioeconomically “disadvantaged” areas. “Disadvantaged” is a euphemism for disproportionate lack of economic opportunity and availability of services that would lead to improved opportunity and health outcomes.

White House Assumptions & Rhetoric: Federal funds have to come from somewhere to finance increased military costs, homeland security strength, and construction and maintenance of The Wall. It (apparently) isn’t important for the U.S. to be a leading contributor in advances in technology, science, and medicine. Science is highly over-rated as a source of facts. (I’m not sure where they think “facts” originate.)

Agenda:

#1— Fund nationalism (for example, increased investments in the DoD and DHS) through a significant reduction in support for Americans’ health.

#2— Put Americans at ease that science, technology, and health advances aren’t that important to their day-to-day lives.

Getting Passed a Fear of Confrontation

Someone recently asked me, "How do I get over my fear of confrontation?"

First of all, wise people know that there are some kinds of confrontation that they should avoid. When one person is aggressive in confronting another, that can be dangerous— physically, psychologically, or both.

My observation? Hostile people can be toxic. You don’t have to be afraid of them. Just be smart enough to walk away, figuratively or literally.

My advice? (1) Don’t step up to outright confrontations (hostile arguments). (2) Become more comfortable in discussing differences of opinion that are not expressed with hostility.

I think your fear of confrontation might benefit from “desensitization.” In this way, you can develop an ability to tolerate some forms of conflict without fear. Start with minor types of differences that don’t have much of a consequence if you continue to disagree. Start with people who are not hostile toward you when presenting their argument. Be patient with yourself. It takes a while to be comfortable with expressing disagreements, that is, with arguments.

The payoff is that desensitization produces a healthy change in one’s state of mind about verbal conflicts. The way this technique desensitizes you, of course, is that you learn, in your gut/amygdala, that not all verbal conflicts are psychologically “unsafe.” Arguments can be opportunities to learn more about an issue and to understand how people can differ in their opinions.

The complement to this desensitization is building up enough self-respect and righteous indignation about a person’s behavior when they forcefully confront rather than respectfully disagree. To be sure, hostile verbal language and hostile body language are no way to treat someone with whom one has a disagreement. Verbal and nonverbal aggressiveness are forms of bullying, even if the other person is not consciously aware that he’s gone that far. You don’t have to accept this kind of treatment. Because you’ll have been practicing desensitization, you’ll also have had experience recognizing when a difference of opinion trips over from a respectful disagreement to a bellicose argument. Keep that dividing line clear in your mind.

There is a difference between fear of confrontation and wanting to avoid conflicts. Many people just don’t like to argue. And there’s a lot of wisdom in that. When was the last time you watched two people argue and one convinced the other to change his opinion? Yeah. Doesn’t happen often—probably only when there is already deep respect on both sides and true listening happens. It almost never happens when one person aggressively attacks the other person’s beliefs.

However, many people who are conflict averse are so simply because they are uncomfortable in social situations that seem to demand that they mount a defensible argument on the spot. That’s a good time to say you’d like to talk later, after you’ve had a chance to think about the issue. Then stand your ground about that delay.

What is essential to overcoming conflict avoidance is to be unwilling to compromise your values and beliefs in order to “keep the peace.” Keep that dividing line between respectful argument and hostile, aggressive confrontation in mind. Learn how you can change your thinking about your options when someone approaches a discussion as a confrontation. There’s neither a requirement to argue… nor to acquiesce. Agree to disagree and move on.

Signs of Patriotism

I was recently asked whether Liberals’ vocal opposition to President Donald Trump is unpatriotic. Actually, the question was, “Why are Liberals so unpatriotic?” The questioner made the argument that not “getting behind” President Trump was especially dangerous in this time of war. The questioner argued that Liberals’ criticism is putting the country and its military in greater danger, even going so far as to suggest that Liberals’ criticism is encouraging terrorists to attack the U.S.

This was my response:

Christopher Hemphill said, “Although poles apart ideologically, they are both unashamed of their patriotism.” Most fundamentally, patriotism is a feeling of strong attachment to one’s country— not to a particular politician, a particular political party, or particular culture within that country. We are all, in some sense, idealists. We have a vision for what our country could/should be. We have notions of what needs to change and what we need to hold on to. The “United States of America” means different things to different Americans.

With an understanding of what “patriotism” actually means, we can proceed to consider how those of a particular political ideology might or might not be patriots. But, first, let’s consider the “concerns.”

• Criticizing a president during a war: There has been no U.S. war in which our freedom of speech, including our right to oppose the positions taken by our government or our president, has not been our highest right. That right is established in the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution: There can be no law “... abridging the freedom of speech....” Did Republicans criticize President Obama for eight years about his approach to the existing Afghanistan and Iraq Wars? Yes, they did. Were they being unpatriotic? No; they were exercising their First Amendment rights. It is an important sign of the health of a nation when it allows, listens to, and considers diverse opinions and ideas, especially in times of severe adversity such as war.
  
• Putting the U.S. and its military in danger: What puts the U.S. in danger is not citizen criticisms of its president, legislators, or judiciary. Did Conservatives’ criticism of U.S. strategies in 2008–2016 put the U.S. in additional danger? Did those criticisms put our military in further danger? No. It is the Commander-in-Chief who puts our military forces “in harm's way.” It is our generals, in executing a war, whose strategies and tactics have the greatest impact on the safety of our troops.
  
• Encouraging terrorists to attack: Currently, the U.S. is dealing with a few kinds of terrorists: Islamic extremists, White Nationalists, and Russian operatives are probably the big three.

• Islamic extremists: On September 11, 2001, Islamic extremists coordinated attacks on three locations in the United States: two planes headed toward the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane headed toward the Pentagon, and one plane commandeered to hit the Capitol Building or White House. This terrorism did not happen because some Americans were critical of President G. W. Bush. Since then, acts of Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil have been by radicalized individuals. One can theorize about what caused them to become radicalized, but we know it is not because, say, Conservatives were criticizing President Obama.

• White Nationalists: Hate crimes against Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Latinos, and LGBTQ people have increased within the U.S. as White Nationalist groups announced that they have a political figure to look up to, one who would support their latent aspiration to make the U.S. a White-dominant, Christian nation (by some interpretation of what Christianity means— an interpretation that a lot of Christians find abhorrent). Was it criticism of their favorite candidate, Donald Trump, that made extremists begin to damage synagogues, mosques, churches that serve Black communities, social places for members of the LGBTQ community? Of course not! If there is no loud criticism of these hate crimes and the anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Black, (etc.) rhetoric coming from politicians (in particular) and voters, these White Nationalists will feel even more empowered. It is our patriotic duty-- whether we’re Conservatives or Liberals-- to condemn such domestic terrorism.

• Russian Operatives: There are many kinds of terrorism. But one kind we often don’t think about is cyber-terrorism. When a foreign government or its operatives attempt to destabilize another country’s way of governing, the results have the potential to be far more damaging to a nation than an AK-47 going off in a school yard or a fire set in place of worship. During the 2016 presidential and congressional campaigns, Russians took advantage of the existing hostilities between Liberals and Conservatives to undermine those federal elections. They took advantage of a predisposition of so many Americans to believe anything bad about one of the candidates, including a whole lot of stuff that simply was not true. Easy work for the Russians. They just made stuff up and trafficked in innuendos. Many Americans were so eager to believe the nonsense that they didn’t even stop to find the actual facts in order to determine whether any of the social media posts were true. The Russians took advantage, in particular, of Conservatives’ criticism of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to further sow seeds of distrust about the U.S. elections. But, should we blame the Conservatives for this? Of course not! Dissent is at the foundation of what it means to be an American. There will always be tyrants who try to use our freedom of speech and freedom of thought against us. However, we should not blame Conservatives who were critical of President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton for Russia’s motivation to conduct political cyber-terrorism.
  
• Standing united behind the president: In 2008, President Obama won the popular vote by a margin of 52.9% to Senator McCain’s 45.7%. He won the Electoral College vote by 365 to 173. In other words, neither the popular vote nor the Electoral College vote was close. Was it unpatriotic for those who did not believe in President Obama’s vision for the U.S. to criticize that vision? Of course not! It was their patriotic duty to speak their minds.
  
  Now we have President Trump in office. Secretary Clinton obtained 48.2% of the popular vote to President Trump’s 46.1%. The Electoral College gave President Trump a 304 to 227 (for Secretary Clinton) win. Here we have a popular election in which one candidate won by almost 3,000,000 popular votes while another candidate dominated the Electoral College vote. Is it unpatriotic for those who do not support President Trump’s vision for the U.S. to criticize his vision or his behavior in office? Of course not! It is their patriotic duty to speak their minds.
  

While I’ve mostly used examples of the ways in which Conservatives’ criticisms and complaints are examples of patriotism, you can turn that around to understand that Liberals’ criticisms and complaints are also examples of patriotism, that this exercise of our First Amendment rights does not cause terrorist attacks or harm to U.S. troops. It is what our U.S. troops fight for every time a president places them in harms’ way: a fight for our Constitution (and all its Amendments) and our way of life.

How Can Liberals Understand Conservative Thinking?

The greatest imperative in understanding someone with political ideologies other than yours is to listen without interruption.

Right now, Republicans are having difficulty “understanding” each other. So, “the other party” is, for now, not so easy to characterize. However, the basic tenets of political ideologies in the U.S. answer just a few questions (that you can ask of Conservatives whom you know). For each question, understanding comes from asking the follow-up question, “What reasons do you have for believing your position?” Listen. Don’t even think about using a tone of voice that could be interpreted as accusatory.

• Is federal government or state government where the seat of governance and the provision of services best located? This is the argument of federalism vs. confederalism that has been part of U.S. history since states were trying to decide whether or not to sign the Declaration of Independence. This was the essential question of the U.S. Civil War. It is a war that is still being fought.
• How much of social welfare is the responsibility of the government (either federal or state)? Conservatives rightly point out that at the founding of the U.S., social services were not central to the U.S. Constitution and the responsibility of the government. However, the U.S. Constitution speaks to the rights and freedoms of individuals, starting with freedom of the press, of speech, and of religion. Major events over the past 240 years, such as economic disasters, have taught us that national security and national stability are strongly linked to economic stability— of institutions and individuals. Most social services came about as a result of economic disasters, like the Great Depression, or the impact of national and foreign wars.
• Do people in certain demographics of the United States have inherent obstacles to achieving economic well-being? If so, is there an obligation on the part of government to lessen these obstacles? There is the Horatio Alger portrayal of disadvantaged Americans as people who just need tenacity and hard work to achieve “success.” There is the cultural belief in the right to achieve “The American Dream” (owning a home, having food security, being able to take vacations away from home, etc.).
• Who is deserving of legal protection against biased treatment? This starts with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause. But most Conservatives believe the law has gone too far. Protecting people in the LGBTQ community? Muslims? Hmmm.
• How much should the government regulate? For national regulations pertaining to the financial industry, the same economic disasters have driven the addition of regulations. The most recent motivation for asking this question was the Great Recession of 2007–2010. Sub-prime mortgages and other forms of very loose lending— not just in the United States— are credited/blamed for this recession (from which some industries and individuals have not yet recovered). In 2017, there seems to be a difference in interpretation of what happened in 2007. Get past those interpretations and understand a Conservative’s belief about if and when the government (and the semi-independent Federal Reserve) should assert itself into the economy.
• Which alternative to free trade is best for the U.S. in the long-/short-term? For international agreements, all political ideologies talk about “free trade” and no party actually wants it. The question requires some understanding of the global economy and the ways that trade agreements and trade, itself, are tied to political foreign affairs. So, the question to a Conservative is to understand which alternative to free trade they think the U.S. should pursue (and why).
• What are the pros and cons of the separation of Church and State? It’s difficult to understand at least the majority of Conservatives without understanding their beliefs about how religion (especially, Christianity) should influence such things as Supreme Court decisions and Acts of Congress. Noting the preponderance of pros vs. cons will tell you a lot.

In my experience and as a fundamental belief, there is no better way to understand the thinking of “Conservatives” than to talk with then (not at them). “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” (Steven Covey, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People)