Coronavirus as an Opportunity to be Racist

Coronavirus is not an excuse to be racist. We all know that. Nonetheless, as we struggle to deal with the Coronavirus crisis, significant numbers of Americans are dusting off their favorite go-to tactic, racism, and aiming it toward the Far East. This time, it’s racism against Chinese people. For many examples, see the attached clip from Samantha Bee’s show (begin at 3:05 min for many examples where Fox Commentators follow Donald Trump’s xenophobic lead).

I struggle to find words to express my disappointment at this celebration of bigotry, and it’s not simply because I have many acquaintances and friends who are Chinese. It’s not simply because my daughters are Chinese. It’s because engaging in bigotry is a cruel thing to do to any another human being. We need to stop painting hundreds of millions of people with this broad brush. Have we learned NOTHING from the civil rights movement? For those who are tempted to push back at me and continue to blame “the Chinese” for our current struggle, which particular people are you angry at? You know it’s not all the Chinese people. You know that viruses don’t respect national borders. If you know anything about the evolution of viruses, you know that the next pandemic might originate in your own hometown.

Making this even more irritating for me, many of these racists claim to be Christians. Here’s my advice for those of you who are working hard to rename Coronavirus as “Chinese Coronavirus” or “Chinese Virus”: Take a deep breath, look in the mirror, take seriously your own commandment to love your enemy and put your fucking dog whistles away.

PS. This entire episode in hyper-nationalism is predictable by “Terror Management Theory.” (TMT). It’s well documented that people do this kind of shit when they are scared. See, here and here. Also see "The Worm at the Core," an excellent book on TMT by Sheldon Solomon.

That said, we can work harder to become better versions of ourselves in this crisis. We need to do a better job of keeping the focus on saving lives.

Continue ReadingCoronavirus as an Opportunity to be Racist

Irresolvable Negotiable Differences of our Culture Wars

Marriage/relationship researcher John Gottman has provided us with a stunning statistic:

"69% of relationship conflict is about perpetual problems. All couples have them — these problems are grounded in the fundamental differences that any two people face. They are either fundamental differences in your personalities that repeatedly create conflict, or fundamental differences in your lifestyle needs.In our research, we concluded that instead of solving their perpetual problems, what seems to be important is whether or not a couple can establish a dialogue about them."

Gottman's research reminds me of the our nation's cultural divide; apparently, we can no longer talk with those we perceive to be different. I don't think we differ from each other nearly as much as the mass media suggests. That said, it seems to me that Gottman's suggested strategies for keeping individual relationships happy and functional are relevant to what we need to do on a national level.

We have forgotten how to talk respectfully to one another, avoiding Gottman's "four horsemen," criticism, contempt, stonewalling, and defensiveness. We have forgotten that being in any functional relationship takes hard work and compromise. I believe that this difficult work has become logarithmically more difficult for two basic reasons: A) tribal ideologies running rampant and B) corporate money gushing through the political system. These two things distort the issues, cause us to create crude cartoons of one another, and permeate the national conversation with fear and loathing of each other.

Barking at each other never brings us any progress. We've seen that for years already. It will take lot of work, soul searching, and looking in the mirror to become more functional on a national level. It will take an act of faith that we can get along if only we worked harder to be civil. This is perhaps too much to ask in an age of widespread magic thinking and diminished attention spans.

Continue ReadingIrresolvable Negotiable Differences of our Culture Wars

The Immorality of Fully Embracing Homo Economicus

Nick Hanauer gave a speech on the lies on which neoliberalism is built. He characterizes neoliberalism as "dependably orthogonal to the last 50,000 years of moral norms and traditions." Hanauer then turns the focus toward the foundation for neoliberalism, "homo economicus," the belief that human beings are "perfectly selfish, perfectly rational, and relentlessly self-maximizing." This unbecoming portrait of human animals dovetails with other unsubstantiated ideologies. For instance, you will often read that natural selection created a horrific dog-eat-dog world and that we are nothing more than these sorts of insatiable philistine dogs, which is nonsense, as discussed by primatologist Frans De Waal. De Waal’s main message is that we are NOT condemned by nature to treat each other badly. Though competition is part of the picture, we have evolved to be predominantly groupish and peace-loving beings who are well-tuned to look out for each other.

Now back to homo economicus. Here is an excerpt from Nick Hanauer's speech:

And how did we get to a so-called “ethics” of business that insists that the only affirmative responsibility of a corporate executive is to maximize value for shareholders?

I believe that these corrosive moral claims derive from a fundamentally flawed understanding of how market capitalism works, grounded in the dubious assumption that human beings are “homo economicus”: perfectly selfish, perfectly rational, and relentlessly self-maximizing. It is this behavioral model upon which all the other models of orthodox economics are built. And it is nonsense.

The last 40 years of research across multiple scientific disciplines has proven, with certainty, that homo economicus does not exist. Outside of economic models, this is simply not how real humans behave. Rather, Homo sapiens have evolved to be other-regarding, reciprocal, heuristic, and intuitive moral creatures. We can be selfish, yes—even cruel. But it is our highly evolved prosocial nature—our innate facility for cooperation, not competition—that has enabled our species to dominate the planet, and to build such an extraordinary—and extraordinarily complex—quality of life. Pro-sociality is our economic super power.

Hanauer sees homo economicus as a salve we invented to give ourselves permission to do terrible things;  "It is also a story we tell ourselves about ourselves that gives both permission and encouragement to some of the worst excesses of modern capitalism, and of contemporary moral and social life."

But what about capitalism? Isn't that would puts our food on our shelves. Isn't capitalism the explanation for why we strut around with our miraculous smart phones? Hanauer explains:

Capitalism is the greatest problem-solving social technology ever invented. But knowing that capitalism works is different than knowing why it works. And contrary to economic orthodoxy, it is reciprocity, not selfishness that guides it—indeed—as if by an invisible hand. It is social reciprocity that builds the high levels of trust necessary for large networks of people to cooperate at scale. And it is only through these networks of highly-cooperative specialists that the complexity that defines our modern economy can emerge.
Capitalism is good and useful, but only to an extent. More is needed for a just and prosperous society. Hanauer offers these four rules:

  • Capitalism is self-organizing, but not self-regulating. Government regulation is necessary.
  • True capitalism is not shareholder capitalism.
  • Capitalism is effective, but not efficient. Capitalism can raise our "aggregate standard of living, but it can also be extraordinarily wasteful, cruel, and unequal."
  • True capitalists are moral capitalists. "Being rapacious doesn’t make you a capitalist. It makes you an asshole and a sociopath."

For now, I'll close on this topic, but I've written often on the purported virtues of the unfettered free market, which is an ideology that I have sometimes termed the "Fourth Person in the Holy Quartet."  No doubt I'll return to this topic as homo economicus continues to destroy most of the institutions that had made the U.S. an exemplary place to live.

Continue ReadingThe Immorality of Fully Embracing Homo Economicus

George Conway Believes the President

George Conway has nailed it with this pledge to the President, including gems like these:

I believe the president wants to release his taxes but has not because he’s under audit, which is why he has fought all the way to the Supreme Court not to disclose them.

. . .

I believe former national security adviser John Bolton has no relevant testimony because he didn’t leave the White House on good terms.

Continue ReadingGeorge Conway Believes the President

An Impeachment Trial Where the Rule of Law Got the Death Penalty

With this single question, Elizabeth Warren has precisely voiced the deep concerns of every honest and proficient trial lawyer in the United States:

At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?

I applaud Elizabeth Warren because this question (which is really a searing accusation) needed to be asked directly and publicly. The Emperor has no clothes. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is sitting on his hands in the front row seat while the Rule of Law rots. The bare-majority raucous crowd is getting its way with this modern day Pontius Pilate.

Continue ReadingAn Impeachment Trial Where the Rule of Law Got the Death Penalty