Whither Goest Social Media Forums?

As a hopeful kind of person, I envision widespread social media forums that support meaningful relationships that cut across the sociopolitical and socioeconomic and sociocultural spectrums—even momentary relationships with strangers. I do not see this on the horizon, at least not the part about being widespread. Without these means of establishing and maintaining meaningful relationships, I fear our American nation will crumble and fall.

An equally problematic reality is that the user experience with most social media applications is so poor as not to result in long-term patience from users.

Nevertheless, there are examples of ways in which we might move toward constructive and informative exchanges. The examples of poor user experiences abound. Let’s hope someone at Facebook et al are working to improve these experiences in major ways.

If we value meaningful conversation, Quora has a pretty good model. I am continually impressed with how polite and complimentary people can be on Quora. It reminds me of San Francisco’s KQED Forum program in the quality of the interviews and of the comments of people who call/text/tweet during their programming segments. A lot of this respectful, information-valuing culture has to do with Forum’s and Quora's expressed missions and their guidelines for participation. And once you have established that, the people who are drawn to listen, read, and comment become self-selecting. While exceptions to respectful commentary exist, these forums have a certain degree of self-policing. The signal-to-noise ratio is pretty high.

A reaction on Quora such as one I saw this morning ("Phenomenal! Thank you for breaking things down by topic (paragraph). Very enlightened response!") does a lot to keep this community from deteriorating into banalities or crudities. It’s encouraging to get feedback that you’re not wasting time when you respond to a Quora question… or ask one. We need to do more of the same: When we read a posting that we think is especially helpful, we need to upvote or “like” it. If we feel that what someone has written is particularly informative, well-written, or enlightening, a compliment would surely be appreciate and could reinforce a model for the discourse.​ For the most part on Quora, when other respondents disagree with someone’s perspective, they respond with facts or anecdotes and rarely with invective. Quora’s hope is that someone will flag an invective post, Quora staff will review it, and it will be removed if it fails to meet the guidelines. It’s a start toward social media that encourages us to contribute something positive to society and to each other.

​Making choices on our use of social media matters. We're either part of the problem or part of the solution.​ That seems to fit the use of social media as much as it fits in other parts of our lives. Sharing knowledge, seeking knowledge, having respectful discourse, and practicing the niceties of "thank you" all seem like parts of the solution/alternative to what's currently happening in social media-mediated discourse. The use of Quora is an example that we each can contribute to constructive discourse-- even when people have radically opposing views, that we have the right to expect that we will not be insulted or verbally abused, and that a service supporting the community in maintaining respectful, relevant standards of discourse is (apparently) essential.  

We have the luxury of not being part of a social media solution to unbridled abusive rancor. But if a primary desideratum for our behavior is whether it would be equally acceptable if all people behaved as we are thinking of behaving, taking that “luxury” makes us part of the problem. Without this guiding ethical principle, we must believe (consciously or not) that we're better than others. Deep down, we know we’re not. Instead, we can even consider extending the guideline of “don’t participate in verbal abuse” to “participate in respectful commentary.” We can become part of the solution.

= = =

The big problem for me with Facebook is not their business model. I'm seriously thinking of closing my Facebook account. It's not a protest against their business model as I don't have a solid solution for how they can continue to improve shareholder value (the number one fiduciary responsibility of a corporation) without mining our data and metadata and using that to present ads and other posts that their real customers (not us) will pay for. Apparently, the majority of Facebook users are not willing to pay for the service in order to have their profile, data, and metadata remain truly private. There seems to be an opportunity for tiered services that I hope companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter will consider, one in which we can pay for additional privacy and no intrusions, much as we have with subscriptions that cost more if we elect not to receive ads. There is, unfortunately, a concomitant issue that those without the money to spare don’t have the option to keep their privacy while using the service. That seems unacceptable. I’d love a change in business model, but even if there were one that better protected me against intrusions, I’d still be on the edge about continuing my account.

My biggest complaint with Facebook is its user experience. I find the Facebook user experience to be abominable. This is only an example; all social media have a long way to go in providing an interface that makes us happy to use it. The Facebook feed is a nonstop stream of detritus that most of us don't want to see, with updates from real friends and real family members barely visible in the stream. We can get notifications of replies (to other friends' posts!) but no notifications that someone we care about has just posted something we care about. We get notified anytime one of our FB friends is "interested" in attending an event; it’s a variation on a “like” only less relevant. And to think of the hours we'd have to spend to see if we could find a way to set up our UI to be more tailored to our needs? I can think of few ways I'd less like to spend my time. 

Without Facebook-like social media, we become more isolated. An obvious hesitation in deleting a FB account is that we will, realistically, lose touch with people we care about—such as personal goings-on in our extended family and with those we’re less close to but are interested in "following.” For the many people who've acquired the handicap of not being able/willing to use email or to use a phone for phone calls, expecting someone to respond to an email or voicemail is ill-considered.

Back in the day, when you moved to a new location, you gradually or quickly lost touch with people with whom you'd had some degree of friendship. They didn't write (handwritten or typed); calls became less frequent; you moved on. Most friendships are now mediated by social media or email, even those with your neighbors. So if you literally or figuratively "move on," that makes having new, non-mediated relationships more challenging to establish and maintain.  

Leaving social media such as Facebook is like moving to an Alaskan outpost where mail delivery is monthly and only during the months when the roads are passable. You would have little junk mail and even less mail that mattered, like correspondence from someone you actually know (or once knew).

It would be arrogant (and unrealistic) to put the onus on others to track "me." A colleague of mine decided to close her Facebook account. Her comments and posts were always heart-felt and meaningful. She has a blog and website and has encouraged people to keep in touch that way. This puts all the onus on the friend, whose life is busy enough that they're unlikely to schedule time to check her website on any regular basis. It's an example of the desideratum of what would happen if everyone behaved as she's choosing to behave. Imagine if all of us had a checklist of people we think should keep in touch with us. On the outside chance that they will choose to read our writing and view our photos, the relationship still turns into a very passive relationship for our friends, like watching a television program or, at best, listening to fine music. Or it turns into no relationship at all.

Further trivializing our relationships is a frightening possibility (or reality). When a so-called communication consists of posting a photo of oneself in a grocery checkout line with the addition of bunny ears on one’s head, I ask myself just how superficial we, as a society, can afford to be. If our relationships must be Internet-mediated in this early part of the 21^st century, must they also be designed to omit the substance of what it means to have a friendship? Emoticon- and bunny-ears-based “conversations” are part of the dumbing down of the society, using thumbs-up emoticons when we have already simplified our conversations below the simple-sentence level. We are trivializing our understanding of ourselves, others, and the world around us. If we were all to follow this practice, what would become (or is becoming) of our society?

It was not that long ago when the substance of our relationships was nurtured by conversations about our children/parents/partners, about our successes and concerns. That created a kind of bond that formed a stronger human network. Our society’s human network is thinning and, in some places, breaking apart.

Being Part of the Solution:

For those who care about the strength of our society, we must demonstrate that with action. We each need to make choices that will work for us, realistic choices but hopeful choices.

I ask you to think about each of the points I’ve made and to consider what you might choose to do to contribute to meaningful and constructive social-media-mediated relationships that support the health of our society.

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.