Motivated Reasoning

Society is a large concept that is often hard to grasp and relate to, but it’s really just a group of people, and we all are members of many groups: the billing department at work, an extended family, a sports club, the south side of town, Jimmy’s birthday party, etc. And within each of those groups decisions always need to be made: what software should we use, which restaurant are we going to, where should we hold the family reunion this year. In these environments we all know how to spot motivated reasoning: someone makes an argument for a choice that clearly is in their self-interest, but they claim it’s actually the best for the group. But we’re immediately suspicious and look deeper – they tend to leave out facts that don’t support their cause, they over exaggerate the benefits of their choice, and don’t seem to realize other people might want something different than they do. Sure, uncle Bob suggests we hold the reunion in Kansas City because it’s the middle of the country so equal distance from everyone, but he happens to live there, most of the family is on the East Coast, and who really wants to go to Kansas City? Even if someone’s choice seems altruistic, we question their motivations until we’re satisfied their argument is not based on ulterior motives. Cousin Sue suggests Boston even though she lives in San Diego. But being the clever people that we are, we ask a few questions and find out that Sue’s company wants to send her to Boston for a conference so they’ll pay for her trip. Maybe Boston would work but maybe there’s a more neutral location that really serves the group as a whole better. It’s not that everyone is a selfish bastard, but it’s human nature to seek your own self-interest, and from there it’s only too easy to find some bit of logic to hang an argument on where what’s best for you is also best for all. The problem isn’t that motivated reasoning is completely unsound – it has enough logic to make it seem plausible – but it isn’t complete or accurate and rarely arrives at the best answer.

In these situations the thing to do is try to separate your reasoning from your personal gain. Imagine you were not a part of the group – what would a disinterested party recommend as the fair and equitable answer? Having the reunion on the East Coast is best for the greatest number, but perpetually disadvantages the West Coast minority, so maybe every third year it should move around the country, even to Kansas City once in a while. When we work in groups we need to reach consensus and we all should want the best solution for the group as a whole, but differences of opinion are inevitable, and while the strength of the argument should win it’s more often that the strength of the arguer is the deciding factor. We all challenge self-motivated reasoning in others and we should look for it in ourselves. We need to be more reasonable about our reasoning and willing to advocate for what’s right and fair even if it isn’t in our own self-interest. We need to be better than human nature.

Draw your analogies where you wish.  

The Arrogance of the Present

Through my study of physics I learned many fundamental concepts not just about how the universe works but how to figure out correct and consistent answers to important questions in life. Perhaps one of the most important lessons came when a professor, perhaps seeing in me an ego that needed to be checked, cautioned me to always be mindful of the arrogance of the present. He explained that throughout history every generation has looked upon the past as if it were separate from their time, as if the current state of knowledge so far surpassed what came before that the world was a different place – a better place – where all the mistakes had been corrected and perfection sat merely a hand’s-breadth away. When Copernicus showed that the earth revolved around the sun, all who accepted it shook their head at the ignorance and stupidity of those who had believed the opposite. When Newton came up with the Universal Law of Gravity, a new generation felt even more superior, certain they had achieved the final and complete answer to the question of the Heavens. Einstein came along and proved them nothing better than scryers casting stones for divination and the modern physicists sat back to enjoy the end of their field as all answers to every question must surely be forthcoming. But even Einstein didn’t see the complexity and accuracy of Quantum Chromo Dynamics which followed, only to be improved or replaced with Super Symmetry and String Theory. Every leap that has taken us forward has led no closer to the end of the matter and when we look back we see that it has all been a continuum of improvement. The present might be the latest rung, the highest point yet achieved, but it is no different in composition or quality than every other step below and will undoubtedly be surpassed before our very eyes. We are not removed from those who held such silly thoughts but are merely the future’s past, and any other thought is not only arrogant but harmful to the cause of advancement.

This same theme, the separation of the present from the past and overestimation of our current enlightenment, is equally prevalent, and perhaps more significant, in social realms as in scientific ones. While it is common to look to the past for lessons to learn or mistakes to avoid, the standard warning is to know history so not to repeat it. The truth is we are still living in that history – it hasn’t ended; we’re in the middle of most of those mistakes. The issue of race relations is a perfect example. We can all see now our country was in error when it laid its foundation on slavery, but the arrogance of the present says that was a past problem, not a current dilemma. We are different now. Better. Racism might still exist among the backwards folks who haven’t learned any better, but some people still think the sun revolves around the earth so what are you going to do. The real people, the ones who count, have moved beyond race.

But isn’t that what the thinkers thought after the Emancipation Proclamation? I’m sure they patted themselves on the back and rushed to put the shameful Civil War behind them. Jim Crow was a step forward and basically the end of the matter. It’s only too easy to see now it wasn’t so. And after the Civil Rights Act was passed I have no doubt the halls of Congress, the towers of academia, and the livings rooms of American all smiled warmly at their achievement, content in their superiority over their forebears. Perhaps justifiably, but the problem still lingered.

At every instance since, the message of the day has been that racism has ended for all practical purposes. In the 70’s black culture rode a wave of popularity while housing policies, hiring practices, and wage differentials maintained a de facto segregation and the Southern Strategy won the White House. In the 80’s our government felt assured we had made it past the worst and no longer needed affirmative action or corrective measures since racial animus no longer drove society, yet a new Southern Strategy and Welfare Queens brought more old white men into power. Surely by the 90’s we had turned a corner? But then came Rodney King and police scandals from Los Angeles to Chicago to New York. When the century turned, the country was once again filled with the surety that we had escaped the past – we even elected a black President! Then the birtherism started. He was accused of being an African Muslim. And now we’ve elected an old white man as President who ran on a platform of bigotry and racism (whose political aspirations started as a vocal proponent of the birther conspiracy). Yet everyone still wants to believe we are different, we are special, we are not the inheritors of the past’s indiscretions but a different group altogether who longer see race at all. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the wealth disparities, the criminal justice disparities, the statistical evidence and social science consensus proving racial divisions and resentment still exist, we cling to the idea that now is better than then. We are arrogant and we are wrong. Only through humility and acceptance of our own imperfections do we have the opportunity to rise above what we were and become better. Still not perfect, but a step above. We can only get there by climbing one rung at a time instead of pretending that we’ve completed a giant leap of faith to get where we are now. We are the future’s past – think carefully of how you want that future to remember you.

The Lunacy of Automatic Equivalence

It’s become an accepted fact that each side has retreated to its own corner, or bubble if you will, and no longer feels compelled to debate the ideas on their merits or with objective information and data. It doesn’t really matter which side we’re talking about or what field of inquiry – anywhere there is a roughly equal division of opinion you will hear the refrain: both sides are equally valid; you need to respect my point of view. Hogwash.

The notion that merely because two sides exist they are equally valid and reasonable and worthy of respect has never been the case. While equivalence is possible, perhaps even common, it takes a lot more to establish that and a quick look at history or even some of the more egregious examples of false equivalency thrown about today. Any opinion needs to be supported by its own logic and moral justification without claiming equivalency ‘just because’, and we do have plenty of precedent to guide us in evaluating correctness and validity. Let’s start with the historical/political:

At some point in the past, most every significant topic of politics has been divided into two opposing sides supported in roughly equal numbers. Slavery, women’s right to vote, gay marriage, Social Security, etc. At some point they were all hotly contested, but with the accuracy of hindsight and a hopefully more evolved and improved view of humanity, we now know that quite often one side was wrong, really and truly wrong. So, by a true equivalence, there is nothing foundationally different about the many topics of today: transgender rights, Black Lives Matter, Muslim bans. There is every reason to believe that future generations will clearly see that one side is right and the other is wrong, and while we can argue about which side is which, we cannot simply claim they are both equally valid or likely to win out in the long term. Respect is not automatically given, it must be earned through supporting evidence, sound reasoning, and moral justification.

A modern example is Evolutionary Theory versus Creationism. One is supported by decades of scientific study, literally tons of physical evidence, and built upon a logical structure vetted through the scientific method, while the other is based on the words of a religious text and relies upon the denial of any level of critical thinking or independent thought. So while 40% of the population may believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, the idea does not deserve respect or consideration – it simply is not equivalent in any sense of the word.

This isn’t to say that we are free to ignore any dissenting opinion. The point is that each argument must be judged on its own merits: raising the minimum wage has a slew of contradictory evidence and very reasonable arguments that it will either stimulate economic growth or crash the system through increased costs. Neither side can claim clear superiority though everyone can certainly decide which argument is most convincing. We have to take more time to listen to the facts presented, consider the connections being made, and compare that to our own beliefs and understanding of the world. It’s okay to take a side, and it’s necessary to listen to the other, but there is no need to admit equivalency where none exists.

Lessons from an Election

It’s been ten days since the election and there’s been a lot of talk and hand-wringing about the lessons to be learned from the result. What shows up most frequently in my feed is the idea that the elite coastal liberals are guilty of neglecting the rural working class, so they are to blame. Before we sink too comfortably into the narrative that blames those who fought against Trump for his victory, let’s review the facts.

First, when the final counting is done, Hillary will have won the popular vote by around two million. By a significant margin, more people in this country wanted to continue down the path we’re on under Obama than flip the applecart over. This isn’t to argue against the legitimacy of Trump’s win, but to point out this wasn’t a radical change in the nation as a whole as much as a shift at the margins and quirk of population distribution. It’s worth noting that those who make less than $50k went strongly towards Clinton while those in the next bracket up went slightly towards Trump and the rest were evenly divided. Trump won with the less educated and with whites, especially with the less educated white males. Clinton won with women and minorities of all persuasions.

But let’s get back to those neglected working-class whites, the ones in Middle America who feel abandoned by our government. They think the system is rigged against them, and maybe in some aspects it is, but our representative democracy is actually rigged FOR them: a vote in Wyoming carries four times the weight in the Electoral College as one in California; the two Senators from South Dakota have just as much influence as the two in New York. It’s this disproportionate representation that allowed Trump to win despite losing the overall vote. And if you look at the government these people say has neglected them, it’s primarily Republican. While our national government has been mostly split for the past couple decades, at the state level rural America is in Republican control. The majority of red-state voters have a Republican governor and a Republican legislature, and most rural counties have Republican leadership, so to blame the liberals for government’s failings requires looking away from the everyday reality of governance.

Compounding this error is the idea that we can re-cast this election as one of economic hardship and lack of empathy from the left. This is post hoc reasoning. We must remember that Trump entered politics pushing the racist birther conspiracy against our first black president. He launched his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists. The chants at the Republican convention and his many rallies were to ‘build the wall’ and ‘lock her up’, not ‘increase GDP’ or ‘stop TPP’. The only consistent theme in his campaign was hatred of the other. His economic policies, like his foreign policy and social issues, were inconsistent and incoherent. From saying wages are too high to agreeing to increase the minimum wage, to arguing against social security while promising not to touch it, to modifying his tax plan multiple times but still ending up with large tax cuts for the wealthy while INCREASING taxes on the middle class – the very people who supposedly voted for him on economic, not racist, grounds – Trump’s economics are a disaster for the poor and middle class. The very fact that we have to spell out it was the WHITE working-class who supported him, not the working-class as a whole, shows that this is about race no matter how much people want to talk about something else (anything else). I’m being asked to believe that these good, hard-working (white) Americans did not respond to the overtly bigoted rhetoric, but instead chose to believe a billionaire, one who inherited his wealth, with a documented career of screwing over the working-class, when he said that he would fight for them, despite stated policy that proves he will not. That seems far more insulting to their intelligence than simply calling them racist.

The truth is anything as large and complex as a Presidential election is going to have many stories, many intersecting issues that make reducing it down to one simple narrative incomplete and unsatisfactory. But we do it because it’s easier to comprehend. It’s somehow reassuring to say that our country chose Trump not because of its bigotry and moral failings, not because it was duped by a thinly veiled con-man who spouted easily disproved lies, but because our economy is not as good as it could be for white people in rural America. Yes, there is some truth in that, but if that’s your takeaway, if you hold that thought above all others from this episode, if you disregard the racism, sexism, and bigotry, if you ask for empathy for the middle-class white male while not demanding it for the oppressed minorities who suffer even greater indignities, there is something wrong here. Once again it’s White America calling for understanding and compassion towards white Americans while downplaying the concerns and considerations of those with darker skin. We have a lot to learn from this election, don’t let it be the wrong lesson.     

Don't Vote Your Conscience

Public request: Please don’t vote your conscience. Your conscience means nothing to the rest of the world. Your actions, and their consequences, are what matter. True morality is concerned with others, and results affect them, motivations do not.

I’m not telling anyone how to vote (or not), I’m just telling you why to vote (or not). You make your choice based up a realistic expectation of what you think will bring about the most good and the least harm for society as a whole (if you vote in your own self-interest you are being selfish, pretty much by definition). It takes a fair amount of understanding of the political system to do that. It takes a careful analysis of the past and real knowledge of not only what positions different candidates take, but what their possibilities of implementation are. There isn’t always a good answer. There definitely isn’t a quick and easy answer. If your only goal is to feel morally comfortable with your choice, chances are you’re not looking hard enough. Politics is ugly but it does make a difference in people’s lives – more so for those who have the least ability to influence it. Ask yourself some tough questions and be honest in the answers. 

If you want to send a message, will anyone hear it? Is it realistic to expect your message to make a change in the world? What's likely to happen in the meantime? A quick look at history suggests that any messages sent by ballot have gotten lost - the only thing people remember in an election is who won and who lost. 

The policy positions, the moral character, and the good intentions of the loser don't amount to anything. Voting for who you think will make the best President only matters if that person has a realistic chance to win. If you value voting for the best person, chances are we could all come up with someone we think is better than any candidate on the ballot, but we don't vote for our intelligent and kind cousin because even though she might make a perfect president, we know such a vote is wasted because she will not win. It's the moral equivalent of not voting, which simply lets others decide who gets to run things.

Does your vote support a party or group you want to benefit? Again, in our system, especially at the Presidential level, winning is the only benefit of an election. Voting for a candidate sure to lose does little to support their party. Donating money or time, voicing your support in public forums, expanding their reach and exposure all are good ways to help a party, but a throwaway vote does little.

If your goal in voting is to allow yourself to sleep well at night, to feel comfortable that you stayed above the fray and avoided the messy and imperfect choices that democracy delivers, you are being selfish. On the other hand, if you think your actions, however imperfect and regardless of the outcome, had a good chance at creating a better, more just world, then you did the right thing. Accepting reality is the first step in being able to improve it.

The Internal Inconsistency of Libertarianism

People at the extremes tend to believe their difference from the majority is proof of their correctness. Anything supported or believed by the masses is despoiled by its very popularity. It wouldn't be a great truth or world-changing idea if everyone knew it. While such reasoning may be reassuring to members of small groups who rail against the larger world, when you break down the logic it tends to more properly be a refutation of those ideas themselves. For example: Libertarianism.

The concept of Libertarianism is fairly straightforward: the government should not make choices for people; society will be better off if everyone makes their own decisions free of interference or guidance. It assumes that people are the best arbiters of what is in their own self-interest and will choose accordingly - the free market will save the day.

While you can argue about the efficency of the market, whether it is truly free, and get into an econometric debate that has no end, the real problem lies underneath those issues, because the vast majority of people, the vast, vast majority, are not Libertarians. The Libertarian Party has existed in the U.S. for over forty years and has accomplished nothing. It polls around 7% of the population (everyone's excited now because it might gather about 10% support this election). Those numbers show that when people make their choice, they do NOT choose Libertarianism.

So we must ask the question: why? Why are there so few Libertarians in this country? Why is there no great Libertarian country in the world? If people are truly rational, if their choices are in their own best interest and they reject Libertarianism, then it has to be because the idea itself is flawed.

Or - as most Libertarians will argue - people are wrong. Tthe only explanation for the lack of support is that people have not thought it through. They just don't understand. They aren't making the simple and logical choice that would lead to a betterment of their life. Of course, if that's true, if so many people over so many decades are simply incapable of making the correct choice, then the entire basis for Libertarian beliefs is flawed.

Whichever side you come down on, whichever flaw is in play, doesn't matter as much as the simple fact that Libertarianism's unpopularity proves it is impractical.

So why does anyone argue for it? Because it is in their self-interest. If you look at the demographics, it becomes clear. Libertarians are white. Mostly male. Mostly young males. They are the people who suffer the least amount of structural disadvantage in society. Not that they would admit that, but in our unequal society they have it the best. If life is a race, they are the group that has the head start, so it's not surprising they argue against any interferrence that might reset the race, any laws that would reduce obstacle for other people, or principles for organizing a society that involve redistributing the wealth acquired under unfair circumstances. Libertarians are true to their principles and have chosen a path that will benefit them the most, which is perfectly fine, but it's their argument or assumption that what is best for them is best for all that collapses under closer inspection. Society has rejected their logic and by so doing proved it false. For that, Libertarians have no answer. There is more wisdom in the masses than many individuals recognize.

A White Person’s Primer on Racism

I grew up a white boy in a white town. I never had to think about race. In school I learned about the history of racism - the horrors of slavery and the ultimate victory of the Civil Rights Movement - but I never was taught about the reality of today. Like most white Americans, I have mostly white friends, mostly white neighbors, and live in a mostly white community. Race just doesn't enter into my life.

As I got older I learned more about the world, started paying attention to viewpoints different than my own. When I heard a large group of people stating that racism was a current problem, not a relic in the past, I didn't see it directly. But as is my nature, I sought out information and facts to analyze their arguments; an attempt to find the truth for myself and come to my own conclusion. It took a lot of time and reading to get to the point where I feel comfortable that my opinions and judgment are based on reality and not merely a worldview limited by my necessarily small window onto society.

The other day I decided to write a post to collect many of the sources I found in my years of learning in the hopes that it would make such an endeavor easier for others and would encourage them to become more informed before passing any judgment. But in my research I came across someone who had already done the same. Instead of replicating his work, I want to direct people directly to his site and give him the credit for a clear and cogent summary focused on information. No preaching, no emotional appeals, just the facts:

[EDIT: Mr. Tucker's post is no longer available for some reason. Here are some alternative links instead:

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/05/06/institutional-racism-is-our-way-of-life

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/08/racial-disparities-in-the-criminal-justice-system-eight-charts-illustrating-how-its-stacked-against-blacks.html

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6002175/its-not-just-ferguson-americas-criminal-justice-system-is-racist ]

As Mr. Tucker lays it out, the data is hard to refute. Some people try - and he addresses most of the common arguments you'll hear in the comments. Before we can have a real discussion on the topic of race in America, it's especially important for those who don't have to experience it to understand what the rest of the country gets to see in their own lives. 

And for those who want to learn more, once again, I'll direct you to voices and information that has more legitimacy than my own, to people who know what they're talking about and deserve to be heard. It's a very small thing to ask that those of us who have been at the center of every narrative in our country to take the time to listen to a different perspective. Open up, show some empathy, and put in the effort to really learn.

If you don't want to put that much time into things, here's a fairly short article showing just the tip of the iceberg, but still enough to make the point: Institutional Racism is Our Way of Life.

Ta-Nahesi Coate's excellent summary of how we got to this state - know the past to understand the present. The Case For Reparations.

The seminal explanation of White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.

Or for those who don't want so many words, so much reading, try listening to this kid: Royce Mann slam poem.

Hopefully this will get you closer to understanding the modern civil rights movement known as Black Lives Matter. The best way to understand it is to listen to what they are fighting for. You'll find it's much harder to dismiss their demands when you know what they are: Campaign Zero.

And to go with that, though it shouldn't need to be said, here's why 'All Lives Matter' (or any claim that we are beyond racism) misses the point and does a disservice to humanity. 

And if you want even more knowledge, here's another list of great resources: Curriculum for White Americans.

As a white man in America, I've been able to go my whole life without ever having to deal with race. A lot of people want to continue in that manner. Until those of us who are in the majority consciously choose to listen to the minority, to force ourselves to face something which might discomfort us, the people of color who are oppressed will continue to face injustices without the option of looking away. It's inhumane to ignore them, it's arrogant to deny the truth, it's too easy to let the status quo stand when it leans in your favor. I've chosen to enlighten myself and I hope others will do the same.

Open Letter to My Fellow White Males

To My White Friend,

You insist that the system is not rigged. That America is the best country and we should all be thankful to live in a such a land of opportunity. We have a black President and our next one is likely to be a woman. You get tired of hearing people complain about the system - you know it's unfair but life isn't mean to be fair. If you work hard and make smart decisions you can find success regardless of where you started. That's amazing and special and worth celebrating. 

You're not entirely wrong - our country is a great one and our world is much better than it once was in terms of equality and opportunity - but you're missing the bigger picture. One black President, or one woman, does not prove equality. For all that we have achieved as a nation, much of it was built on the backs of those who never had a fair chance. To celebrate our victories without acknowledging our failures does a disservice to everyone who ever fought their way up through a structure of discrimination to contribute to our success. We owe it to them, to ourselves, to be honest.

You're my friend because I like you, and I like because you're a good person. You’re a fundamentally decent human being who treats others with respect. You’re smart and hard-working and have earned a certain level of success in this world. But you’re also advantaged by the unfair system, even if it’s through no fault of your own. Me too. I’m as privileged as they come. I don’t think that undermines the quality of the person I am in any way, but it does make it more important that I speak out for all the people who are disadvantaged.

I look at it this way: I’ve been given a head start in the race. I’m white, my parents were middle class. I received a decent public education and knew the police were there to protect me (not arrest me). I had tons of positive role models around and I was always expected to succeed. I didn’t ask for a head start. I didn’t need a head start – I’m a pretty fast runner – but I still got a head start. If I don’t acknowledge that and simply talk about what a great race I ran and how great the competition was it makes me kind of a dick towards all those other runners who had to start way behind me. They probably would have lost anyway, ‘cause I worked my ass off and ran as hard as I could. But still, I started with an unfair advantage. Even if there wasn’t any racism or sexism today, minorities and women would still be at a disadvantage because of the past – as an econ guy you should know that the effects of capital accumulation last for multiple generations, and I don't hear anyone denying that the past was definitely unfair.

But’s it’s not really fair today either – it’s not enough that African Americans started behind because of centuries of slavery, followed by Jim Crow laws and segregation, followed by racism and discrimination that left them woefully behind. There is a TON of data that shows racism is still prevalent and powerful today.

So my race course was level and open. Everyone cleared a path for the well-educated white guy to run through. I’ve never experienced any racism or sexism. But people of color face all kinds of obstacles – their health care is worse, their education is worse, they’re more likely to be viewed as responsible for their actions at a younger age and thus more likely to get suspended from schools and placed in juvenile detention. That’s before they even become adults. Then they have to deal with things like the fact that employers will more likely give an interview to a resume with a white sounding name than a minority one – even if it’s the exact same resume. They face a tougher time getting home loans – especially if they dare to live the American dream and move out of their poor black neighborhood into the suburbs. African Americans use drugs at about the same rate as whites but they’re three times more likely to be arrested for it. When the cops do show up, studies using simulations have shown that they are more likely to view black people as threats, they are quicker to use force, including lethal force, based on the color of their skin. Even if they do overcome those obstacles and make it to lucrative careers, they still get paid less. So, yeah, lots of obstacles that I haven’t had to face. Once again, if I talk about the race I’m winning, what a great runner I am and how fast my friends are, but ignore these differences, I’m only contributing to the problem.

Most people are decent people. Most of us who had a head start didn’t ask for it. Most of us are not actually putting up the obstacles in other people’s path, at least not consciously. We’ve got our heads down and we’re busy trying to run hard and get ahead fair and square. We’re good people. But is that really enough? If we refuse to acknowledge the unfairness in the system, if we brush off any complaints and point out that things are better than they used to be and they’re slowly getting better all the time, excuse me I’ve got to get back to running now - if that’s all we do then we’re complicit in letting unfairness perpetuate. The disadvantaged people don’t have a voice, at least it isn’t listened to as much as ours is, so I try to speak up for them. I don’t want to win at any cost. I have a really good life and I’m pretty far ahead. I can afford to wait to for them to catch up. Maybe even use my time to try to get a few of the obstacles out of their way. At the very least I can tone down my bragging about what a great race this is.

What you seem to consider negativity is what I consider being a gracious winner. Our country has done amazing things – but it was founded and built on slavery. We have innovated and revolutionized the world – but our tech industry would be much stronger if we actively engaged 50% of the population and allowed them to contribute fully.

Our system was created by a bunch of rich, white men. For centuries it was dominated and controlled by a bunch of rich, white men. If you look at the positions of power in industry and government today, the system is still run by an overwhelming majority of rich, white men. You may not want to use the word rigged, but it’s not coincidence. It’s not some cabal of evil super-villains sitting around a table deciding who gets ahead and who doesn’t; it’s thousands of tiny decisions influenced by those in power who are fighting for their own self-interest, just like they’re supposed to. It’s not the intention but the result that matters. The system is structured so some have a head start and face fewer obstacles and that disparity perpetuates itself so those who started ahead stay ahead and pass on their advantages to their children.

You and I are not rich and powerful, but we are certainly white men. We’re on that side of the system. If we say the system is fair enough, that it will get better without our help, that people shouldn’t be so negative, then we’re complicit in maintaining the status quo. We’re walking away with our gold medal and thanking the committee for putting on such a nice event. That's not right.

We might not agree on how best to fix the system. But I don’t think anyone who points out the problems – the factually true and well-evidenced problems – is being negative. Fighting for improvement, fighting for others who don’t have the privilege to be effective fighting for themselves is not negative, it’s the greatest tradition of this country. It’s why a bunch of rich, white men fought a revolution to create a system that would give more white men a chance to join in their prosperity. Continuing their struggle, expanding it to include women and people of color is not un-American but the very best part of what America is and can be. That’s why I ask you to reconsider your characterization of such comments as negative. I ask you to reconsider a blanket defense of the system as it currently exists. You’re a good person, probably a faster runner than I am, and I’m sure your voice will reach farther than mine. Take some time and consider what you want to say with it when you’re standing at the finish line.

Do Something. Speak up. #StopTrump

For most of my life I haven’t been a very political person, mostly because it doesn’t affect me personally to a large degree. But last night I couldn’t sleep. The reality of Donald Trump as a candidate for President disturbs me greatly to the point where I feel compelled to speak. Truthfully, I don’t see this as a political issue. It’s not a Democrat vs. Republican thing – Trump is neither. It’s not about partisan politics or gridlock, it’s not about fiscal conservatism vs. liberal activism, it’s not about economic advancement vs. social justice. It is, quite simply, about right vs. wrong.

Trump is not running a political campaign. He has no clear policy positions, only vague notions that change repeatedly, largely dictated by what he thinks the audience wants to hear. He is running on a much simpler message, one designed to tap directly into the emotions of the listener without engaging any thought. He reaches the crowds with an acknowledgement: I understand. I understand you are frustrated; that the world has not been fair and that your life is not as safe and bountiful as you feel it should be. In that he is correct. We all feel that way. It’s totally natural and human to need validation, to want to the world to be as good as we remember it, to expect the world to be better for our children. There are many difficulties in life and it feels good to have someone in power acknowledge that. But that’s only the start.

Once faced with that reality, with the recognition of hardship and the longing for something better, Trump appeals to a primitive and fundament aspect of human nature facing danger – it’s us vs. them. He calls to rally ‘us’ by pointing out the danger that the other represents. Whether it’s the Muslims who threaten us Christians (ignoring the millions of decent Muslim Americans and over a billion peaceful Muslims across the globe). It’s the Mexicans who threaten us real Americans (ignoring the tens of millions of decent Hispanic Americans), the immigrants who want to take our jobs (ignoring the fact that we are all immigrants except for the native Americans who don’t enter into the discussion). The Chinese, the Iranians, the women who dare to question our white male leaders – they all pose a threat. In the end ‘us’ represents a relatively small group of people, but each and every person can identify some group they belong to and some other group they can villainize. It’s natural and instinctive, but it’s wrong.

It’s the separating of groups that leads to repressing the rights of others. It’s lead to slavery, to genocide, but also to simple stratification of society. It dehumanizes minorities of any stripe and suggests that we can raise ourselves up by pushing others down, but in so doing it lowers the bar for all humanity.

For what accompanies Trump’s appeal to division is a call to violence. How often has he expressed a desire to punch out, a wistful longing for the days when we could prove our right through might. That manliness is represented by talking tough and insulting anyone who disagrees. It’s an immature response, the kind you see from a teenage boy complete with bragging about penis size, calling women ugly, and mocking the disabled. Again, it has nothing to do with political parties but everything to do with base human behavior.

While its appeal can be strong, and I understand how easy it is to give in and wish for that simple solution to all our very real problems, we owe it to ourselves and our future to be better than that. A small amount of reflection and cursory review of history shows us that such a path leads to chaos and disaster. No good has come from spewing hatred and sowing dissent.

I believe people are capable of compassion. If we reject that notion that ‘they’ are the problem and understand that we are all in this together - that if we turn away from violence and accept that peaceful solutions will require hard work, compromise, and a less than ideal solution - then we can make progress as we have over the past century and a half. Even if we return to the bitter stalemate of Republicans vs. Democrats, it will be better than a descent into the anger and frustration that fuels Trump’s movement.

I urge everyone to take a moment to be political because politics will affect you this time around. Take a moment to think about what kind of human being you want to be and what type of world you wish to live in. Consider how far you want to divide up ‘us’ and how many people will be standing next to you vs. on the other side of that wall.

I’m angry. I’m frustrated. Life isn’t fair and I deserve better and I see a world filled with people who are not like me – people who make different choices, worship a different god and have a different belief system. People who are angry and frustrated because life hasn’t been fair. In that I recognize my own humanity in them. I want better for myself and that means I want better for them. I want life to be fair for a straight white male like me, so I want it to be fair for all of those with darker skin, a different gender identity or sexual preference, or even a different political preference. I will not hate them. I will not accept violence as a solution. ‘Us’ includes only myself or it includes everyone. I’ve made my choice and I hope for all our sakes that enough of us will choose love over hate while a choice can still be made.

I Vote for Them

Many say they do not vote out of objection -objection to the ineptitude of candidates on the ballot, objection to the position of both of the major parties in this country, objection to our current political system as a whole, Others do not vote out of a simpler apathy. In the past, I did not vote because I knew the outcome, either way, would not affect me personally. I am a well-educated, middle-class white male. There's very little in our political landscape that truly threatens the comfort and privilege that genetics and tradition have afforded me. I can always find a job, I have a large network of support to help me out, I face no real discrimination, and my health and safety are as good as it gets. elections don't affect me.

But I do vote. I vote for those who will be hurt by one outcome and helped by the other. I vote so the poor and disadvantaged might be granted greater support in this world, so their job prospects increase and everyone who works hard will receive a wage sufficient to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. I vote to help minorities realize a world where they are not disproportionately targeted by the criminal justice system. I vote so women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, where they are given easy access to effective birth control, and are not taxed for having a different biology. While I realize that terrorism poses less threat to me than household furniture, I vote because others are not so lucky. I wish for an outcome that will limit the violence in the world, that won't lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the quest to discover if sand glows. I choose a world where the families of those who commit wrongs won't be tortured and killed in revenge, where neighborhoods won't be policed and secured because of the religion of those living there. I do not vote to make the world a better place for myself - it's a very good place for me already - I vote to help those who need it, those who have less access to the voting booth, those who have no option at all.

If you feel your vote will not affect anyone else, that abstaining will somehow make things better, or that things can't get any worse, then I respect your right to do so. But I urge you to look beyond yourself. Look beyond the simple political rhetoric that exists. Study a little history, accpet a little responsibility. Voting does matter, if not for you then for everyone else. Vote for them. 

Incident Management

I spend a lot of time in the outdoors, and as a responsible person I have taken several wilderness first aid classes from which I've learned some important general lessons for life. The basic concept behind wilderness first aid is that you have found yourself in a situation where you have limited resources, someone is hurt, and help from the outside is not going to get to you anytime soon. Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot like political life in this day and age. Maybe the proper use of a tourniquet won't solve all our problems (or maybe it would?), but some of the concepts of problem solving I've learned can be directly applied.

One important idea that has served me well in many situations beyond life-or-death emergencies is the realization that a good solution started quickly is much better than the perfect solution applied too late. Perfect is a high bar. It takes a lot of time to come up with perfect, and it's also very hard to get agreement on what perfect is. If perfect is your goal and you hold out for it, you will probably never get there, and in the mean time lots of bad stuff is likely to get worse. If you settle for something that is pretty good and you spend your time putting it into practice and working to improve your plan as you go, you'll probably end up with good results.

There are normally multiple workable solutions. They'll all have their positives and negatives, but there isn't only one way to accomplish what you need. A solution that worked one time in one situation might not be applicable in another situation where the resourses or the environment are different. If you get too caught up in the details and too rigid in your thinking, you will miss out on the bigger picture and be unable to adapt to changes in the world around you. An open mind and a group working together, even if the plan is imperfect, will accomplish far more than endless bickering over inflexible ideas.

The flip side of that is: there are bad ideas. Not every approach is a good one. Some are very clearly wrong. Not everyone and every voice will contribute to finding a good solution and you have to be ready and willing to speak up, to point out specific flaws and limitations, when someone makes a bad suggestion. It's still important to listen. You can't dismiss things because you didn't think of them, or because of the person who did. Ideas need to get weighed on their own merits, experience is often the best evaluator, and common sense plays a vital role. Input and communication are good because the collective intelligence of the group is always greater than any one individual's contribution, but not every idea merits inclusion.

Along those lines, a stressful incident is best handled by a calm and capable incident commander. Decisions are reached quicker and plans are executed more smoothly if one voice is directing the group. If each person is doing their own thing, even if that thing is a good thing, but they aren't working off the same playbook, then chaos results. The incident commander doesn't have to come up with the plan - a good one will take input from everyone and synthesize it into a cohesive plan with simple instructions for each person to follow. They will also be ready to adapt the plan, not only as the situation changes but as new ideas are brought forward. What sounded good to everyone at the start (mandatory prison sentencing) might turn out to be a bad idea. The incident commander's job is to stay above the details, not to get caught up in the nitty-gritty but remain on watch for changes in the big picture and guiding the group accordingly. They can't afford to put their head down and trudge forward - though that is what most folks need to do to keep the group moving.

Sometimes you need to be the worker bee. It's good for everyone to have input into the plan. It's also good to recognize areas where others might be more knowledgeable, where their experience is more useful, and to accept that you will lose some arguments. Even if you know in your heart of heart that your plan would be better, there comes a time when you need to go with the group decision and stop fighting a solution that will work, even if not as well as your own would. Once again, a group accomplished much more working together on a mediocre plan than when each person holds out for their perfect solution.

I've learned these lessons in class, but I've seen them in action in real life. Concussions in remote river canyons, dislocated shoulders far from an ambulance, a broken kayak in the middle of the ocean. Consistently what happens is a moment of disbelief and panic. It takes everyone a moment or two to comprehend what is happening. Normally followed by half the group shouting out instructions and the other half frozen through indecision or lack of purpose. But when one voice speaks clearly, calm and certain, with simple directions and a willingness to listen, people start to fall in line. Those who know better choose to go with the flow as long as it's aimed in the right direction; those with no clue decide to trust someone else with the responsibility. Leadership is what carries the day, and leadership works best when it's reasonable and inclusive, patient yet purposeful, poised and practical. What we could all use is a little more leadership in the world, and a little more accepting of our own limitations and lack of experience. Life is one big incident - manage it well.

Choose Your Friends Wisely

Let's start with an assumption, supported by my personal experience, that many Republicans claim to belong to the party for their economic ideology and not for its social positions. In other words, they are good and decent people who believe in capitalism and free market enterprise, and they vote Republican out of economic self-interest and the belief that growing the pie will improve everyone's life (I'll deal with the cognitive dissonance embedded in there later). They are not racist, they are not ignorant, and they have a political opinion that is as valid and morally solid as any other. Like I said, let's assume that is true.

But let's look at the Republican Party. Not Conservatives. Not those who might vote Republican. Let's look at the card-carrying folks and the positions of the Party itself. First off, Republicans are pretty much white. Depending on the poll, 40-50% of Republicans believe President Obama is Muslim. That's racist. About 20% of Republicans believe inter-racial dating is wrong. Racist. Voter ID laws, gerrymandering, religious liberty protections - all based on bigotry and prejudice (bible-based discrimination is still discrimination). Voting Donald Trump your candidate for President - well, that puts all the hatred for anything 'other' right out in the open. The policies, principles, and rhetoric of the Republican Party is racist.

Once again, that doesn't mean that every member is racist. But very clearly a large percentage of Republicans are. A significant amount of their platform is based on ideas that discriminate or unequally disadvantage minorities. The very fact they claim this is not so, that they blame the first black President of being the cause of divisiveness, that they ignore the racial disparity that exists in our society and our criminal justice system in particular, all only proves their racism.

So I can accept that you are a non-racist Republican. That you don't feel cutting aid programs that disproportionately help minorities is wrong. That you don't buy into the false narrative that immigrants are more likely to be criminals and that black people would be better off in 'slower-track' schools. Maybe that's not you. But I question the priorities and moral judgment of anyone who chooses to be part of an organization that is so clearly bigoted and prejudiced. If you claim the name Republican, you claim it's racist underpinnings. That I cannot respect.

It's not You, it's Everyone Else

It is completely natural for human beings to see the world from their personal perspective. We make judgments based on our own experiences, we validate truths in reference to our own knowledge base, we approve morality based on our upbringing and beliefs. We take everything personally because our fundamental instinct is one of personal preservation. It's natural and normal, but it's limiting when discussing the broad concepts involved in a large and complex society.

When we talk about gun safety in this country the first response of most gun owners is the insistence of their responsibility and rights. If we discuss race issues, everyone has to establish that they aren't racist. If you talk to someone on the other side of the aisle about their party's position the response is 'that doesn't apply to me'. No matter the topic or the side, any attempt to analyze group behavior gets redacted to a personal experience. Which misses the whole point.

Of course there are responsible gun owners. There are non-racist white people, hard working and honest Mexicans, kind Republicans, generous millionaires, and efficient public and private entities. But there are also racist jerks in this world, criminal immigrants, slothful workers of all colors, and wasteful government programs. The point isn't the existence of a thing, but the prevalence of it.

In order to have a discussion of societal issues - what's wrong with our country, how do we improve it - it's necessary to look at statistics, actual hard data, in order to see the truth beyond our individual experiences. I'm a middle class white male. I don't really experience racism. Or sexism. Food stamps don't play a role in my life and the insurance that I have (through my wife's work) is pretty good. If I look through my own lens, life is good and doesn't need much change. I can understand how those in similar circumstances resist the suggestion to 'improve' things by taking from us to redistribute to others. But I can also understand how people in a different position face a much different reality. It's the empathy for the other that is ultimately the most important aspect of rationally assessing the world and recognizing unfairness where it exists and devising solutions that represent the greatest good for the largest numbers.

So if someone talks about an issue and your response is personal - not me; I don't see that; I don't think that's true; not among my friends - you've already given up any grounds for a productive discussion. It's hard but absolutely essential to try to remove ourselves from the equation and acknowledge everyone else in the world. No one does it completely. We all have our biases. But if we start from the personal perspective there's no hope of arriving at the general answer.

The Anecdote as Evidence

In today's social media world, debate is often broken down to the sharing of a meme or a single tweet of information, often in the form of an anecdote meant to represent one side's argument. And while it is true that the plural of anecdote is not evidence, there is actually some validity to the use of a single example to represent a viewpoint - but it DOES matter what that viewpoint is. The nature of the argument itself is what determines the validity of anecdote. Not all examples are equal.

I will illustrate this with a specific specimen (thereby also demonstrating my point - a single illustrative example can act as the only evidence needed to proof a theory). In the discussion over problems with the criminal justice system, and in particular the treatment of black youths by law enforcement, both sides like to use a specific instance, perhaps even a person's name (Tamir Rice) to represent the idea that black people are not treated fairly. The response of those who call this an attack on all law enforcement often comes in the form of a related a specific instance where the police did their job correctly. On the surface it's a stalemate - each side has their anecdote and they feel totally vindicated in their correctness. The problem is that the arguments are not the same, so the evidence backs up one but not the other. Observe.

A current 'viral' facebook post talks about a police officer shot to death after trying to taze a suspect. Another one describes a black man who was pulled over for speeding where the officer treated him professionally, he responded with politeness and cooperation, and the officer let him off with a warning. In both cases the underlying argument is that the police did good. Therefore, if the police did good in one instance it proves that all police always do good. But that's not how logic works.

On the other side, they'll point out how a South Carolina police officer shot an unarmed black man in the back, all captured on video. Or simply mention Tamir Rice. At it's core, these anecdotes are saying that police did bad. In broader scope, they're saying some police officers sometimes do bad things. It's that difference between absolutes and exceptions that matters.

You can list a million examples of something happening (cops do good, gun owners are responsible, Republicans aren't racist) and it will never prove the universality of that fact. Because you simple need to post a single opposite occurrence (cops do bad, good guy with gun shoots innocent people, a majority of Republicans think Obama is Muslim) and you've proven that there is no such thing as 100% perfection.

And it's after we accept the fact that things aren't perfect we can start to discuss how to improve them. Not all cops are good, not all cops are bad, but if some cops are bad then we should accept that a single bad cop is a problem worth addressing when their mistakes can lead to the death of innocent people (and there is plenty of statistical evidence that the criminal justice system is biased against blacks, so we don't need to rely on anecdotes for that).

You can argue against the evidence, you're free to say that the percentage is so small it's not worth worrying about, you can say that one specific situation doesn't prove a widespread problem. But you can't use your anecdote to argue for universality. You can't dismiss the counter-argument with more of the same. There's a difference between saying all and some. To deny the some doesn't exist is delusional and it doesn't advance the discussion in any way. Logic exists, whether you want to face it or not, and you can't tweet your way around it.

The Difference in the Similarities

Everything is polarized these days: Liberals vs. Conservatives, Republicans vs. Democrats, Black vs. White. We are so busy dividing ourselves into Us vs. Them that we miss out on the many commonalities we share. The truth is, most of us have similar beliefs. We share a similar morality and generally want the same things out of life. We even go about achieving our goals the same way - we get a job, work hard, make friends, fall in love, raise a family, do right by those in our lives. People are more similar than they are different.

But those differences, sometimes just little things, DO matter. Drawing them out can be of utmost importance for a society and the arc of its evolution. Make no mistake, differences matter, but how we talk about them and what we ignore or focus upon guides so much of our conversation.

A case in point: I recently read an interesting article from a self-described pro-life feminist. The thrust of the article was how reasonable and sympathetic she was. That her goals are fundamentally the same as many of the pro-choice camp. In fact, the suggestion was her's were more female-friendly: she wanted to reduce the need for abortion, she recognized that abortions disproportionately affect women of color and therefore are discriminatory. She wanted to help women, and when she explained that to the angry pro-choice protestors she met they were won over by her rationality and given a new understanding of how pro-woman her position really is.

Except it's not. The similarities are there. I agree that abortion is not a good thing. If we can help women avoid facing that incredibly difficult choice then they are likely to be better off, especially the disadvantaged who are most likely to face negative repercussions regardless of the decision they make. We should have a better support system where having a child when you're single, poor, or in other bad circumstances doesn't ruin your chances for a bright future.

But we should also have a support system for those who recognize the reality of the hardships that they will face if they keep their child, for those who know they are not up to the task of carrying a baby to term, much less the years of demanding motherhood to follow. We should have more readily available options for birth control, especially for women, to avoid the situation in the first place. Some anti-abortion proponents might agree with these ideas, but many do not. Many seek to tackle the problem of abortion by making it more of a problem. They want to make it more difficult to get (which means more difficult for the poor - the rich always have options). They want to make it more of a stigma, making the choice more difficult and damning for the woman. They often want to withdraw the support system we have, reduce availability of birth control, and refuse to educate women on their options and responsibilities in general. We all want to reduce abortions, but how we accomplish that is a defining characteristic of who we are as a people.

In her own words, the author of the article slipped in the truth. Alongside all her talk of being pro-woman, all her reasonableness and support for women and understanding of the discriminatory nature of the questions, in one quick aside she laid bared the heart of the difference between those who call themselves pro-life and those who truly support the lives and choices that women are faced with. She said 'The pro-life movement is trying to make legal abortion less available, sure, but ...'. The but doesn't matter. All the talk about all the other good stuff doesn't matter. At its heart, the pro-life movement is trying to limit the legal right of women to choose for themselves, knowing full well who those limitations will hurt the most.

Maybe we should focus more on the agreement - it would be great if pro-lifers supported programs that reduced unwanted pregnancies (like cheap access to effective birth control which Planned Parenthood provides), fought for greater paid leave for new parents, were willing to pay for a better education system that would increase the options for the poorest among us and create a stronger safety net for all women at every level. But the fundamental difference exists, and if you condemn those who do not believe what you believe and deny them the right to act upon it, if you admit that right yet fight against it, you undermine everything you say you stand for. Stop trying to tell the other side what to believe and spend more time actually supporting women in a way that makes sense, and I bet you'd find the difference is still there, but far less potent than it currently is.

Biting the Hand that Feeds

It's a common theme amount salt-of-the-earth types that the people who work the land for their livelihood would all be just fine if the government would only get out of their way, stop persecuting them, and leave them to their own devices. They'd be able to support themselves and their family and at the same time would be the best stewards of the environment. The evil government has ruined their world and the only solution is to remove it entirely. It's pure bullshit.

The truth is that the government is the only thing that allows them to exist. If not for government subsidies on water, disaster relief for severe weather phenomena, and price supports built in to agriculture, the small family farm wouldn't have a chance. And the truth is that society doesn't really want it - what we want is cheap and plentiful food, and the way to get that is through factory farming. There's a reason there aren't many blacksmiths or ferriers making a good living these days. Times change, normally for the better, and some jobs and industries get left behind as we advance. That's as it should be.

And more truth: the past wasn't any easier. I don't believe there has ever been a time when earning a living by raising animals or growing crops was an easy and bountiful option. That's not because of the government, it's simple economics. When land was cheap, those who found ways to own lots of it and farm out the labor to others are the ones who got rich. Before our current era of corporate farms we had land barons, and the average family suffered under their control just as surely and likely more cruelly than anything the government has done since. If you remove the government from the equation - take away the cheap grazing land the BLM provides, the huge expense of water storage and irrigation supported through public works - and the family farm would be ruthlessly eliminated as an inefficient player in the market. That's how it was in the past.

So the government, in spite of its fallible nature, in spite of its burdensome regulations and overzealous pursuit of disparate goals, is the famliy farm's best benefactor. But it isn't their friend. It shouldn't be. The government's role is not to prop up a small group of people's economic interest. The government is there to manage public resources in a way that best serves the nation as a whole, and while that may include making sure that food is inexpensive and reliable for the masses, it also includes making sure that those resources are not used up, destroyed, or contaminated. It requires we preserve some wilderness for future generations and protect the environment in a way that might not prioritize immediate economics of the local over long-term benefit to the many. The government is how we as a people allocate our resources and if they dont' like it there's a process for making change - it's called voting.

I put family cattle ranchers in the same boat as coal miners. They seem like good people. I'm sure they work very hard to eek a living off the earth and it's probably all they know, all they want to do. I understand their fear and anger that their way of life is disappearing and I feel sorry for them. But I also realize that we as a society are better off without such jobs. That working people hard to pull carbon from the ground or raise an inefficient food source like beef, which requires so much water and land to deliver a not-particularly healthy food source, is not in our best interest. The effort and ethic they put into their work is indeed noble; the work itself is not. There are better ways to use our resources, including the labor of such fine folk, and while they may not want to make that change, it is in all of our best interest if they do.