Symbols of Division

“For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

When I first heard Michelle Obama say these words in February 2008, I was taken aback.  If I’m being completely honest, I was a little angry about it.  I didn’t realize at the time that my privilege was being confronted.  I knew that this nation was far from perfect, but the idea that someone could find nothing to be proud about was something I was not equipped to hear at the time.  I’m a work in progress.

Nine years later, I’ve learned a lot about the different lenses through which we all view the American experience.  I’ve learned that, for many, those lenses genuinely make it hard to be proud of the state of our Union.  And, because of that, the same symbols a hetero white male like myself see as unifying (or at least innocuous) take on a much darker meaning to those for whom our imperfect nation has been neither kind nor just.

From confederate monuments to sports mascots to the national anthem, symbols have been much on our mind of late.  And I think its worth a moment for us all to consider just what symbolism is.  In my very best 3rd grade English, it’s “using a thing to represent an idea”.  But who owns the idea and who infuses it into the thing?  And how does that change over time?

Take the swastika, the most recognizable and notorious symbol of the 20th century.  Do you think the Nazis invented it?  Ancient civilizations from India to Greece used the swastika as a symbol of strength and divinity.  Today, we view it in the context of the Third Reich and the Holocaust.  Many pagan symbols were co-opted by the early Christian church as a way to absorb those cultures under an expanding Roman empire.  The bottom line is, things change.  No symbolic meaning is immutable.  The good can be corrupted and the corrupt can be redeemed by events large and small.  

The passage of time isn’t the only reason for differing perspectives on the meaning of a symbol.  Life experience in the shadow of a symbol can impart wholly different meanings on the same icon.  Imagine every morning a big red truck drove down your street.  If you lived on the right side of the street, people came out of the truck and hosed you down and beat you.  If you lived on the left side, different people came out and handed you food.  I imagine the symbolism of a red truck would inspire both hope and fear, depending on what side you were on.  

We can have opposite and equally valid reactions to a symbol.  And allowing you your reaction does not detract from mine (because the thing is not the idea).  A reaction that you didn’t expect or consider is an opportunity to learn and see things from a different lens and become an ally.  To grow.

So if you can accept the idea that symbolism changes over time and can be drastically different, based on your own experience, then there is no sacrilege in asking “what is it you are trying to promote here?” and “would another symbol promote the same thing without the mixed messages?”  Our values, our truth, come from inside.  We can love our nation and still face its faults.  We can hold something dear and still respect someone else who sees it differently.  We can be proud and still understand why someone else finds it extremely hard to be.  Ideas matter more than things and people matter more than ideas.  Choose people.  We have to get past the flash point of our personal outrage and get to the conversation that matters.  

Is the President a Racist?

SPOILER ALERT:  No, I truly don't think so.  But that shouldn't make you feel any better.

I'll get more to the president in a moment.  But first, let's lay a few things out there.

First, there's a big difference between the political spectrum of ideologies and actual legitimate political parties.  Let's have the sophistication to separate the two.  Not all ultra-conservative (reactionary) ideologies are related to (or welcome in) the Republican Party, just as not all ultra left-wing ideologies are related to (or welcome in) the Democrat party.  Sovereign Citizens, anarchists, eco-terrorists, Marxists, and other fringe ideologies do not have a foothold in either party.  Just because someone is classified as "far left" or "far right" in ideology doesn't merit legitimate actors and parties being pasted and smeared with their acts or words (Anybody who does is lying to and manipulating you and should not be trusted.)

Extremists on either end of the political spectrum are fundamentalists, with binary values (I'm right, and everyone else is wrong), and prone to violent expression (whether physical or just in rhetoric).  The "conventional" political spectrum, in which the Republican and Democrat parties operate are, in effect, the moderate middle (I know that's hard to believe).  Because, no matter how much we disagree, we all believe that participation in the processes and institutions of our Constitutional Democracy is the way to effect change.

Second, you either operate within the political apparatus (parties, PACs, votes) or outside of it.  There are people who have extreme ideologies who operate inside the apparatus, and those people tarnish anybody or any organization that suffers them.  David Duke espouses ideologies (white supremacy) that are FAR outside any party platform, but is tolerated within Republican circles.  That brings into legitimate question how tolerant the Republican Party is of such attitudes.  Conversely, there are moderate groups with mainstream ideology and sentiments that are not directly involved in party politics.  Non-profits, advocacy groups, churches: these are all examples of institutions that share certain ideologies but don't operate primarily in the political machine.

Recapping:  You can be an extremist insider or a moderate outsider or any combination of them.  It's important to understand where players are on the spectrum.

Third, let's be clear about the difference between violent political ideologies and incidents of opportunistic violence.  A march by the non-violent and social justice #BlackLivesMatter movement that is co-opted by hooligans and thugs is not the equivalent of anarchists or white supremacists harming people and property as a vehicle for their ideology.

Thanks for your patience.  Now to the matter at hand.

I do not believe the president is a racist.  That's no vindication; I actually believe that his inability to empathize with other human beings makes racism basically irrelevant to understanding him.  But he's the president, and he's accountable for the environment and people around him.  And that's where we get to the root of the current situation.  I said before that fringe groups are basically binary; so is the president (albeit for different reasons).  And therein lie the inescapable parallels and attraction between the two.

The president has inarguably surrounded himself with racists and advocates of racist (and generally hostile toward all marginalized groups) policies.  Bannon, Miller, Gorka, and Sessions have clear records and agendas.  No sugar coating it: they're straight-up racists.  There haven't been so many race-hostile people in the executive branch in decades, and that makes a clear statement.  He can't possibly distance himself from racism philosophically when he can't distance himself physically.

And then there's the president's policy agenda, starting, most significantly with his absolute determination to erase everything about this nation's first black president.  There is nothing that white nationalists want more than to eradicate Barack Obama's legacy from the annals of American history.  It's easily thrown off as pettiness (and to him it probably is), but make no mistake, this is a bright neon sign to those fringe so-called "alt-right" elements.  His "victims of Obamacare" charade is like a guestbook of aggrieved whiteness.

Simultaneously, in his "win or lose" brain, the president has bought in to key elements of the white nationalist "America under attack" mantra.  That is, immigrants from Central and South America, and Middle Eastern Muslims.  And he has laid down aggressive policy agendas to "fight back" against these false threats.  Again, he's gone so far as to create "victims lists" and "undesirable" lists and published them.  These policies are precisely the sort of "victories" that politically-minded fringes are looking for.

So, if he's not a racist (according to me, anyway) why won't he denounce, by name, the white supremacists who support him?

Those who have examined the president most closely describe him has having an insatiable need to be adored.  That's why he loves the rallies so much.  It's why he also constantly speaks in superlatives.  That hole will never be filled, no matter how much money he makes, how many buildings bear his name, or how many votes he gets.  It will never be enough.  Many have posited that the president might be a "useful idiot" to Putin.  That has yet to be proven.  But, undoubtedly, he is being used as a vehicle for white nationalist/supremacist ideologues, in return for their adoration.

The president is binary, win/lose.  And right now, he's losing.  His popularity is historically, stunningly low.  Who's sticking with him, though?  The nationalists.  He can't let go; that would be admitting defeat.  He's trapped, both by his own psychosis and the team he put around him.  But those nationalists are also operating freely and openly through the edges (but definitely inside) of the Republican political apparatus (see Iowa Congressman, Steve King, for example).  They've been quietly, distastefully tolerated, because they bring votes and money.  They have a seat at the table, even though nobody will admit they invited them.  And that's the ugly elephant in the room for Republicans (no pun intended).

Bottom Line:

There is no place for hate or violence in America in 2017.  The First Amendment gives you the right to spew this garbage, fine.  I served to defend that right.  But let's not kid ourselves.  It doesn't belong here.  And nobody who espouses hate or violence, for any reason in any form, should have a welcome seat in any mainstream political group.

Any reasonable, semi-informed person (let alone seasoned political operative) should be able to distinguish between extremist and mainstream ideology.  Likewise everyone should be able to distinguish between politically-motivated violence and opportunistic rage.  And if you can recognize it, you can tell the difference between righteous condemnation and ridiculous smear tactics.

It should be easy, therefore, to reject and condemn extremism and violence, no matter what your party affiliation or ideology.  Nobody should think for a moment that rejecting white supremacists should have any political implication.  But when the rats are in your midst, it gets a lot harder to deal with the traps.

Why Did Liberals Lose the Working Class?

Of all of the narratives perpetuated by the conservative media machine, the most damaging (and mystifying) has got to be that liberals and Democrats don't care about the "little guy," the working class.  When it comes to policy record, it couldn't be clearer that massive corporate interests are in the driver's seat in conservative circles, yet somehow the working class narrative sticks.  How did we get here?  How do we set the record straight?  I have a few ideas.

1. The "Spectator-ization" of the American Electorate
There are a lot of different ways to be involved in policy-making.  Running for office is just one (and the most specialized) way.  During the 20th century, being a union member was the best way for individual Americans to be directly involved in influencing policy that affected them.  It was real, it was concrete to observe conditions in the workplace, hiring and firing practices, and, of course, wages, and to say "this isn't right."  Unions provided a direct conduit to corporate leaders and, importantly, the political structure, to address grievances and improve conditions.  More often than not, unions found friends in the Democrat party.

But things have changed.  Union memberships are down significantly (about 33%) across the country.  And, in their decline, corporate interests have been able to pass right-to-work laws across 28 states.  Not surprisingly, these are "Red states" where the pro-business Republicans were only too happy to ingratiate themselves to their benefactors.

The result of this trend has been to make politics and policy less relevant to individual Americans.  They have become spectators to a process they used to help shape. And, with that, has come the hollowing out of the core participating base of the Democrat party.

Enter: Citizens United.  Corporate interests didn't stop by disenfranchising tens of millions of voters from direct participation in the democratic process (not elections - the democratic process of governing).  They wanted even more influence.  And that means buying it.  Election after election, the spending totals spiral more and more out of reach of ordinary Americans.

We now consume politics through cable news, rather than our daily life.  We are spectators, watching so-called "elites" take all the power and money and making all the decisions.  And, with each iteration of the cycle, the Republican/Corporate machine sinks its claws in deeper.  And, likewise, wage inequality gets worse and worse.

2. The False Conservative Narrative
If conditions have materially worsened during the progress of the Corporate-Republican march, how is it that the average American hasn't turned away?  Well, once direct participation through union membership waned, they were able to re-shape the narrative and, in so doing, invent new narratives to keep people focused on other villains.  And their villains of choice?  Globalization and Immigration.  It's worked beautifully.  Ask almost any conservative voter and they will tell you the reason their pay and benefits stink are because of one or both of those two factors.  Heck, ask many liberal voters and you'll probably hear something similar.  "Those people" are taking our jobs and doing it for cheap.  And who is going to tell you any different?  Who has direct, first-hand knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors?  Too few.

3. Very Real Change 
As powerful as the decline of unions and a strong narrative have been, the Corporate/Republican machine didn't orchestrate the whole thing.  The last twenty years have powerfully and irreversibly transformed the drivers of our economy at a scale that hasn't been seen since the Industrial Revolution.  And we haven't kept up.  20th century institutions that built this nation (like coal and internal combustion vehicles) are waning.  And, like a drowning man, they are determined to grab onto anything or anyone, no matter the consequences, to stay afloat.  The real victims in all of that climate of denial have been the men and women employed by those industries.  With no advocates to ensure a transition, people are left to fend for themselves.  I don't care how you vote, that kind of existential threat to your ability to feed your family is scary as hell.  And that kind of desperation has led to extreme factions on the left and right.

A New Promise
The DNC has unveiled their new message.  They call it "A Better Deal."  Nobody asked me or I would have told them that "Promise 21" would have been better branding, but I digress.  The point is, it's time to acknowledge the set of factors that got us here, what we are facing, and remind people who actually is trying to put policy and protection in place that serves and protects the American Worker.

I don't know if labor unions will bounce back.  I don't know if they should in this new landscape.  But whether they do or not, people need to come back to politics.  They need to show up at party meetings and shape the conversation.  They need to see that they have a voice in the process and an advocate in the Democrat Party.  Because getting improved conditions, wages, and support for every American worker is not a spectator sport.  It doesn't filter down from the "elites" at the top.  It starts at the bottom.  And, as we look to the next wave of prosperity leading us into a new and transformed American economy, we need to make sure that working people have a voice and a seat at the table.

Because, at the end of the day, do you want someone representing you who took tens of thousands of dollars from companies with an axe to grind, or do you want that person to be accountable to you?

ICYMI: Sliding Toward Authoritarianism

I try to be a measured observer.  Even when I agree with people, philosophically, I tend to veer away from alarmist rhetoric.  The sky, most of the time, isn't actually falling.

But I find myself genuinely and unshakably alarmed.  Amidst the salacious and shiny personal scandals that seem to arise almost daily, a number of stories have continued to trickle out that, frankly, make my spider senses tingle.  You probably lost them in all the noise.

There's an ongoing debate about whether our president is an Authoritarian.  People often point to his tendency to praise foreign dictators.  Is it his personality (or its deficiencies), his governing philosophy, or perhaps his core beliefs?  Some combination of the three? In my judgement, it doesn't matter all that much what's driving it; it's the outcomes that matter.  And those outcomes, increasingly and in accumulation, point to an alarming trend of, brick by brick, the construction of an authoritarian state.

As always, I leave it to you, the reader, to form your own assessment.  Here's what I see.

The consolidation of power to a concentrated few (with leverage)
The failure of the Trump administration to appoint dozens of sub-cabinet leadership positions has been the subject of much reporting (so I won't link).  Above that, they have dismissed career officials (dubbed the deep state) across the executive branch without replacing them.  Those he has appointed, to a one, have deep conflicts of interest with the programs over which they preside. Many have significant allegations of corrupt action in their past, often in direct relation with those programs.  This makes these select few especially beholden to their chief executive.

A concentrated effort to obscure
From removing website content, to gag orders on federal employees, to withholding visitor logs, to omitting contacts with foreign officials and their representatives, to blatantly, repeatedly, and intentionally lying to the public, this administration has clearly articulated its position that it is not answerable to the American people.  Its obsession with so-called "leaks" belies its belief that secrecy FROM the constituents it represents is a top priority.

The establishment of a propaganda arm
When the former Communications Director, Boris Epshteyn, joined a largely-unknown Sinclair Media, it was a "shrug moment."  Since then, however, Sinclair, it's broadcast affiliates, and it's digital arm, Circa, have steadily pumped out a pure, synchronized Trumpian narrative.  It's basically the Sputnik/Pravda/RT for the Trump White House.  All the while, they hammer away at the "fake news media," despite the fact that, over and over again, their reporting holds up under pressure.   It is one thing to disagree on the interpretation of common facts.  It is quite another to reject objective reality and substitute it with a political fiction.

An attempt to co-opt law enforcement
In a recent interview with the New York Times, the president admitted he believes the FBI director should report directly to him.  Imagine the resources of a nationwide internal security force placed at the direct whim of a man who has a long-documented pattern of settling scores with his "enemies."  The demand for the dramatic expansion of DHS agents under Customs and Border Patrol, as well as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), already feels like the beginnings of a police state.  It should be noted that, in authoritarian regimes across the world, internal security and secret police forces are the most feared, responsible for hunting down and jailing political opponents and dissidents.

The abridgment of due process
In the name of action toward illegal immigrants, this administration has set up so-called "rapid reaction forces" and "streamlined procedures" for ICE.  These terms are shorthand for circumventing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  In this country, EVERYONE operates under the presumption of innocence and is entitled to all aspects of due process.  These "streamlined" actions, however, instead presume guilt and strip people of their rights to representation and trial.  The Muslim Ban on travel and immigration also presumed guilt of those already lawfully admitted to the country and deprived them of due process (as pointed out by the federal courts).
 
Defining an "undesirable class" (or several)
Through rhetoric and policy, this administration has plainly set its sights on a number of non-white groups.  By intertwining undocumented immigrants (and sometimes not even bothering with the 'undocumented' distinction) with rapists, murderers, and gang members, the President is openly asking white Americans to look with suspicion at anyone with brown skin.  By conflating the TINY number of jihadi mujaheddin with the remainder of a BILLION muslims across the world, the president has encouraged white Americans to fear anybody with a beard or head scarf.  He WANTS you to be suspicious and afraid of these "undesirables" and to beg him to help save you from their unsavory appetites.  Every dictator needs a clearly defined enemy.  Add to that the series of decisions that strip equal status and protection for LGBTQ Americans.

Attacking the Democratic Process Itself
The president's claim of three to five million illegal and fraudulent votes post-election seemed like a laughable ego trip.  But the establishment of a Presidential Commission has upped the ante significantly.  Staffing it with conspiracy-promoting fringe types and granting it data-gathering power over the entire electorate is a breathtaking move.  If you operate from the presumption that there are a large number of people on the roles who don't deserve to be and put the force of the DOJ behind it, you can reshape the electorate in any way you like and make Putin-like proclamations about the "real" level of support of opposition to any candidate or official.  You can also proactively focus your money, agenda, and narrative against anyone who emerges that appears to threaten your regime.

And, finally, an attempt to circumvent the constitutional military order through the establishment of a private mercenary army.
In the turmoil of the daily circus that has become the news cycle, an incredible story emerged and was quickly lost in the froth.  In July, Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist to the president, took a proposal to the Secretary of Defense suggesting that a private army made up of mercenaries from around the world should be established to carry out military action in Afghanistan.  The fact that this proposal was rejected by Secretary Mattis is hardly comforting.  It is unlikely in the extreme that Bannon would have made this step without consulting (and getting at least tacit approval from) the president.  A private corporate army, unconstrained by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Law of Armed Conflict, and presumably outside the control of the military establishment, should chill the blood of every single American man and woman.  The only other paramilitary forces that operate this way: ISIS and Al Qaeda.

It's possible, even likely, that you'll read this and go "Mike, you're just overreacting.  Cut back on the caffeine."  It's possible.  I hope you're right.  But what if you're not?  Is it worth the cost to wait and see?  Or is it time to put specific, focused, and unending pressure on Congress to see this for what it is and do everything in their power to curtail it?

Slowing our Roll on Healthcare Reform

Last week, three Republican Senators joined the 48 Senate Democrats and struck down a horrific bill that would have kicked 22 million Americans off of healthcare.  After six months of assault, this was a huge relief to members of the resistance who, literally worked day and night to lobby members of Congress to put a halt to it.  It was a good day.

It's only natural in the aftermath to start talking about a path forward.  Where do we go from here?  For those who would say "single payer now," I say: slow your roll.  Here's why:

If you've ever had a child come to you with gum stuck in her hair, that's a pretty good analogy for the American healthcare system.  It's sticky, it's messy, and it's sort of worked into all sorts of things.  Also similar, everyone's got their home remedies, all of which work to varying degrees, but nothing is a perfect solution.  And just yanking at it only makes things worse.

One oft-cited statistic about healthcare is that it represents 1/6th of the American economy.  That should be enough to give anyone pause.  While you may not feel any particular sympathy for the 'big bad insurance companies,' that number represents hundreds of billions of dollars, millions of jobs, and - oh yes - a bunch of publicly traded companies that find themselves comfortably nestled in our retirement accounts.  You simply can't turn an entire enormous industry on its head overnight without some serious consequences rippling across broad sectors of our nation.

So let's just put single payer back in the box for a while.  So, what's left?

It's important to think just a moment about what health insurance as a product does.  Because it's not actually for the patient.  Health insurance actually protects hospitals, ensuring they will get paid for services, ensuring they have the cash flow needed to continue operating.  Health insurers don't really provide the patient anything today.  They are an administrative layer, complete with the added costs of overhead and executive compensation, all conveniently added to the expense that the hospital already charges for care.  What's more, they charge you based on what they "guess" your eventual medical costs will be, whether or not they ever materialize.  This may sound like an indictment, but it's really the beginning of root causes.  If we break it down, we see problems that need to be solved.

• How do we ensure hospitals are protected from going out of business?
• How do we ensure health insurance companies profit from improved health, a benefit to the patient and reduced load on the system?
• How do we ensure people are really paying their 'fair share'?

And, most importantly:

• How do we ensure everyone gets the care they need without fear of going bankrupt?

There are a LOT of potential answers to each of these questions.  Do we declare hospitals "critical infrastructure" and provide them direct government subsidies (the way we do farms) to offset their shortfalls?  Maybe.  Do we transform the health insurance industry into a health management industry, where people pay for the access to non-medical and screening services that help improve the customer's health profile and limit doctor visits?  Possibly.  Do we transform "insurance" into "membership," where your actual accrued balance is what is used to pay directly for medical services when needed?  Who knows?  The point is, now you've got new, tangible problems to solve.  

And yes, would single payer address those things?  Of course.  But, again, we'd tank an entire industry overnight, throw a bunch of people out of work, sink your retirement account, and probably a mini-recession to go with it.  So let's move forward, but tread lightly.  

Untargeted: Why We're Wrong About Everyone

As part of an ongoing series exploring privilege and my journey to shedding it, I offer this first installment, a baseline if you will for taking a step toward understanding. Ironically, I see this first step as acknowledging that it's impossible.  And, oddly, how that's a very good thing. 

Of course, all this is merely a wandering exploration of my own understanding.  Renowned sociologists will probably pick me apart.  But that's okay.  

Humans are the strangest of creatures.  We are studies in contradiction.  We draw much of our identity from the groups we inhabit: cultural, professional, societal, and familial, among others.  And, as members of a group, if part of its collective identity is attacked, we cleave to it more strongly to protect our own.  Even "anti-groups" like the Punk Rock movement drew and aligned their identity to the collective.  Having an "us" is the ultimate survival mechanism.  

However, flip that scenario and assume that I, as a member of a group, am DEFINED by the group, and I will, almost reflexively, reject that assumption.  "You don't know me!" I'll say.  And it's true.  Although I'm a (proud) veteran, assuming that I hold certain attitudes or beliefs based on that one fact will provoke a reaction.  Nobody likes to be pigeon-holed.  

Rashida Jones

My statistics teacher taught me something that always stuck with me.  He said "all models are wrong; some are useful."  As a tool for achieving insight, models are incredibly valuable when looking at large groups.  But modelers know that their product is "precisely wrong."  We know that our population lies within +/- 3% of whatever we are stating.  But nobody is an "exact fit."  Now, as I constantly work to unravel my preconceived filters and biases, I realize that this rule is true in a hundred different ways at the same time.  None of us are exactly anything, but simultaneously ALMOST dozens of things.  Which of them is in the proverbial driver's seat at any given time is subject to change, and often a product of our environment.  

So, no matter how much we study, no matter how much we learn, we'll never be right about anyone.  Some see this as a reason to throw their hands up.  But I think it's the basis for a really profound understanding.  We are many things. We are OF many things.  We draw on those histories and traditions as a source of strength (and, sometimes shame).  But, even though I am all of those, in the end, I am uniquely ME, an individual that draws from the collective, but is not defined by it.  And, my friend, so are you.  

So the next time you catch yourself asking "how could a (woman/person of color/LGBTQ person) support her or him or THAT?" check your filters.  And so will I.  It's a start. 

Broken: What James Comey taught us about us

If you watch television, any television, pretty much the only thing that has happened this week appears to be the congressional testimony of ex-FBI Director James Comey.  Depending on your political leanings, it was either a scathing indictment or a tempest in a teacup.  But as I watched the testimony and the coverage, I came away with another conclusion.  We. Are. Broken.

Here are the lessons I learned from this week.  And I wish more people would talk about them, because I believe they say a lot more about us than anybody on camera.

We have completely given up on transparency in government.
I'm stunned by the constant characterization of Comey's actions as "leaks."  The director of a "three letter" agency, a career public servant, released a complete and unabridged first-hand account, with full personal attribution of matters that he believed to be in the public interest.  When did we become so cynical that an act of transparency is viewed with suspicion?  We have the Freedom of Information Act, which FORCES government agencies to release information just like this.  And, when a judge enforces it, we celebrate it as a coup.  Even sympathetic coverage is using the "l-word".

What Comey did that was so stunning, that shook us to the point of suspicion, was to break ranks, to drop the "party line" and put disclosure of government activities ahead of, quite literally, his job.  It's sad to see that such a simple act would come as a surprise.

We are living in a sort of "truth inversion"
In weather terms, an inversion is when a layer of air is trapped beneath another layer, preventing natural circulation and pollutants from getting out.  In social terms, the truth has been trapped beneath a layer cynical and self-serving spin for so long that we no longer accept the truth, on its face, as good enough.  Instead we expect proof, beyond an unreasonable doubt, that the speaker isn't lying.

If our court system worked that way, no witness would ever be considered credible.  Yet, in today's politics, we can dismiss the word of a career law enforcement professional, placed in positions of the highest public trust again and again, simply on the basis that nobody can prove he isn't lying.  There is no longer an assumption of truthfulness, from government, from media sources, or any other speaker.  And that - if you think about it - puts our entire reality into subjective doubt.

We are almost pathologically protective of our reality bubble.
This is nothing new.  Many studies and scholarly papers have been written about the tendency of people to reject new information, even if it is better or more likely to lead to success, in favor of known, flawed information with which we are comfortable.  But we have turned this tendency, through social media and selective, tribal consumption of information into something fundamentally destructive.  We have managed to build massive, mutually exclusive information bubbles that are self-feeding, self-reinforcing, and becoming increasingly removed from objective reality (there is actually such a thing).

People supportive of the president came away dismissing Comey's testimony (and his motives).  People opposed to the president took everything he said as gospel truth.  It can't be both, yet both narratives are carrying equal weight in the aftermath.

The most disappointing conversations I've had lately have been with fellow liberals who are literally angry about the inclusion of "conservative" hosts "taking over" the liberal-leaning channel MSNBC.  We have been railing together against "fake news" for the better part of a year.  But all of a sudden, a network whose editorial and production values have been considered trustworthy by these friends is now suspect, solely because a person is sitting in front of a camera who may have a differing philosophy of government.  As if this sole fact makes a person less capable of informing the public.  We've got to stop this.

Comey's testimony may or may not, in your view, be game-changing.  But we need to pause and look critically at WHY we are coming to one conclusion or another.  We deserve a transparent, honest, and objective government and public officials.  But we will only get those things if we demand them.  And, frankly, we need to learn again how to recognize it when we see it. 

Is it okay to make fun of Donald Trump?

This week, comedian Kathy Griffin raised a huge uproar with a photo prank that fell more than flat on its face.  And it got me to thinking: where's the line?  What's the right approach in this climate?

Without a doubt, political speech is the most broadly protected form of expression in America.  And satire has a unique way of making points that straight-laced commentary can struggle to achieve.    So, yes, it's "okay" to make fun of this or any president.

But is it effective?

Truthfully, this is a larger question than satire or comedy or even snark.  Since election day, the country has been ratcheted up like everyone has been crushing Monster drinks and caffeine pills.  Town halls are raucous and borderline hostile.  I'm as frustrated as anybody, and this is our right.  But, at the end of the day, messages are meant to be received.  And from where I'm sitting, nobody's listening.  In fact, social media blocking of angry constituents is just the latest wave in a concerted effort to ignore those demanding answers.

Is it time to change tactics?

If we are simply looking for catharsis, then nothing feels better than a good, full-blown, fist-shaking vent.  Doubly good if it's laced with some pithy sarcasm.  But if we are looking to be taken seriously and to effect serious change, perhaps it's time to set a different tone.

Conservative media and cynical Republican officials are looking for ANY excuse to discount what we have to say.  And they will take any incident, no matter how isolated, and paint us all with that same brush.  As resisters, we have an obligation to represent each other and the movement in a positive light.  Because only by holding the highest standards as individuals will we be able to lift up the rest of the movement and add our credibility to theirs.

We have serious issues to address.  Social justice, battling corruption, protecting and supporting minorities and marginalized groups, a healthy and educated population for the future.  These issues demand serious people, smart on the facts, making an unassailable case.  These issues demand a resistance movement that cannot be ignored.  As Thomas Jefferson said about the purpose of the Declaration of Independence, "to put the matter before the world, in terms so plain and firm, as to command their assent."

Keep resisting, my friends; command their assent!

The "Big Checkout" - How We Justify Disengagement

In modern American discourse, the word "Big" has become a pejorative.  "Big Pharma" "Big Banks" "Big Business" "Big Media" and let's not forget "Big Government".  America is the most affluent and powerful nation in human history; but is the down-side that everything is so bigly big that individuals feel hopelessly powerless?  And, if so, what do we do about it?

These big institutions are the culminations of decades of success, built brick by brick and year after year, on the principle that growth is always good and more is always better.  Bigness have given us more choice and more availability of practically anything we could want or need at any time, day or night.  And that's a good thing.  But...

"Bigness" creates a unique dynamic between the "big thing" and those under its influence, and it can be most easily observed in the world of cable TV providers.  Nobody really likes them.  Nobody's very satisfied with their costs, options, or service level.  Yet most of us remain customers, because there really is no comparable option or alternative.  Customers are trapped.  So, even though the cable companies continue to have huge customer bases (and profits), the relationship is not a cheerful one.  As a result, customers just hold their nose and disengage, always watching for some alternative.

Examples of this are literally everywhere around us.  In retail, the airlines, in media, and - yes - in politics.  And this ever-present passive-aggressive semi-surrender mindset of the average person in daily interactions, that are are needed but wholly unsatisfactory, is something that has polluted our attitudes toward political engagement in an extremely damaging way.

I view it as a cycle.  It's hard to figure out exactly where it starts, because it feeds on itself.

• Politicians lie
• People are cynical about politicians
• People disregard what they are saying and doing
• Politicians get to do things without the voters paying attention
• Companies and interests get to influence politics without accountability
• Things get worse for individuals, better for the interests
• We don't have context to understand anymore, so we have to rely on the politicians to explain it
• Politicians need to get re-elected
• Repeat...

It's this cycle of dissatisfaction and codependency that repeats until we find ourselves completely detached from the process we actually own.  And just like the cable company, we hold our noses and disengage, always watching for some alternative.  We rant about it, but don't take any accountability.  We forget that governing doesn't just happen in an election year.  We've reduced our role in the democratic process to a single act on a single day.  And when we DO engage, we are either low information voters or we're just too disgusted to vote at all.  

There are only two ways to deal with an unspeakable mess: you can light it on fire and walk away (tempting), or put on a mask and grab a shovel (unpleasant and exhausting).  I get why a lot of people, frustrated by the unspeakable mess of "big government," would rather choose the first option. In fact, I think that really describes what this last election was about for many.  But, while it may have felt gratifying, it doesn't fix anything.  We've got to grab our shovels.  We've got to wade into the mess we helped create and clean it up.  And we've got to stick with it to keep it clean.  We can't merely leave it for once every four years.  

If you want to take on the "Bigs" of this world, you've got to start small.  Ask questions, talk to local officials, attend a city council meeting or a school board meeting, attend a party meeting in your local district.  Find out what the reality is on the ground right around you.  Then get your shovel.    If you're already engaged, then it's your job to show people that small things and small steps make a difference.  There are a lot more of us than there are of them.

How Insurance Works

With the House's recent passage of the American Healthcare Act, drastically revising the provisions and protections of the Affordable Care Act, everybody, of all political persuasions is talking about health insurance.  The cost of it, subsidies, "high risk pools", and so on.  But what is insurance and how does it work?  How is health coverage different from other forms of insurance?  Let's take the politics out of it for a moment and just look at the mechanics.

On Risk:
Insurance - all insurance - is based on the principle of risk.  It is basically paying a smaller, known cost in exchange for the promise to offset the risk of an unexpected larger one.  Insurance companies employ specially trained math geeks, called Actuaries, to predict the level of risk their customers present and calculate the cost.  As long as a company correctly predicts that risk and prices accordingly, they can stay in business.

It's important to pause here.  If the risk of something is 100% certain (like a 100 year old man buying a life insurance policy), that doesn't work in an insurance model.  Insurance, above all, is basically betting that you won't need it for more than you pay in.  It's the peace of mind that a fixed predictable cost is better than getting hit with a big unexpected expense, but the company is betting that it won't come to that.

On Claims:
Insurance companies, using their actuaries, predict the likelihood and cost of people they insure filing claims under their policy.  Companies never expect to pay EVERYTHING on every policy for every policyholder all at once.  There's a fairly predictable volume.  Companies have to have the cash resources on hand to pay those claims as they come in.  But they also have to reserve cash in some form for a catastrophic event.  So, part of the money that comes in from premiums goes back out the door right away, and part of it goes to "loss reserving".  Think of 100-year storms or massive flu outbreaks.  You can't predict them specifically, but you know, eventually, you'll have to endure one.

On Pricing:
Here's where it gets interesting.  If you have a pretty good idea of the level of risk and the amount of claims you need to cover, then you've got the broad strokes of how much you need to charge.  If you wanted to, you could just take all of projected costs and divide them evenly across all customers.  But that would mean some people - the people with the lowest risk - would be paying more than their "fair share".

If you charge your best customers more than you have to, they're going to go somewhere else.  So, companies use "tiering" to break up rates into blocks, based on their risk profile.  For each individual person, the price is wrong, but as a group, the math works out.  The flip side is that there are some customers that will never pay enough in premium to cover their probable costs to the company, and tiered pricing has the double impact of keeping costs low to the "good" customers and financially encouraging "bad" customers to do business elsewhere.

This may sound a little heartless, but the quickest way for an insurance company to become financially unstable is to take on too many high-risk policies or to lose its low-risk customer base.  And a company that is financially unstable can't pay its claims anymore.  So, it's very important for companies to maintain a healthy and balanced total book of business.  If they don't, they can't keep their promises to the customers they have.  Each company  has to compete for those same precious low-risk customers, so price competitiveness is extremely important.

Cost-savings Tools:
Insurance companies have a few other means at their disposal to help balance the books.  The details are pretty complex, but they fit into three basic buckets:  controlling what's covered, controlling how much is coverable, and controlling who is covered.

• What's covered:  most policies specify exactly the sorts of things they will pay out for.  We call these "named perils".  This makes it easier to predict the total likely claims.  Companies can also offer "cafeteria style" policies, where you just pick the coverages most important to you.
• How much is covered:  There are two mechanisms here, caps and deductibles.  Caps limit the total amount paid out for a type of claim or over the life of the policy.  Deductibles, on the other hand, let policyholders take on some level of the risk in exchange for lower costs.  Deductibles are really useful for limiting the kinds of small claims that can nickel and dime a company to bankruptcy and are much harder to predict.
• Who is covered:  Like I said earlier, selling a 100-year old man a life insurance policy is a sure loser.  The policyholder is never going to pay enough in premium to offset the benefit, and that means other policyholders will have to make up the difference.  

These tools are used carefully and continuously to ensure the health of the book of business is balanced and that there is enough coming in to cover the claims as promised.

On High Risk Pools:
High risk customers are nothing new to insurance and not unique to healthcare.  People who have been convicted of a DUI, but still have a license to drive are a special risk.  People who live in coastal Florida are a whole lot more likely to have their rooftop ripped off than people living in Arizona or even 50 miles inland.  These bands of extreme risk are things that insurance companies would rather not deal with, but states usually require companies who want to do business to take on at least a portion of these customers as a condition of their license.  They usually also have to pay into a central pool of money, managed by the state, called reinsurance, to cover the general cost of exposure to all companies taking on these special risks.  In the worst cases, state-run agencies can be the last resort for coverage, because private companies simply can't make responsible choices in these scenarios without jeopardizing their ability to pay their mainstream customers' claims.

On Gimmicks:
A lot of lip service has been given to a few shiny objects that will supposedly make things better.  Two of them are "selling across state lines" and tort reform.  These could get a whole post of their own, but here is a short version of why they won't actually help.

Most insurers already operate in multiple states, many nation-wide.  They already balance profit and loss across their whole portfolio.  There is nothing that says a company has to isolate each risk pool and balance the books at a state level.  And, even if that was the case, it would only make a difference if the "other" state was a lot healthier than "your" state.  That doesn't really happen.  And then, the people picking up your share of the costs would be very unhappy.  So that's not a thing.

A "tort" is a liability lawsuit.  Lawyers don't sue people, they sue companies, because companies have a lot more money.  A judge could award a million dollar fine against me and it would do the plaintiff no good, because I simply don't have the money to pay it.  Lawyers sue companies.  Tort reform is about limiting the amount a company can be sued for.  That sounds great for companies, but if you're the plaintiff suing for damages, you probably don't want that to happen.  But this is why insurance companies put limits on their policies.  Those limits don't protect you, they protect the insurance companies from tort lawyers.  So, again, tort reform isn't going to make a meaningful difference in the cost of insurance.

Health Insurance, Specifically:
If you take a moment to consider my previous points, it quickly becomes obvious that health care is a special animal.  First of all, healthcare, unlike a car accident or a house fire, is something you WANT to happen.  It's not just a matter of predicting whether or not you will get sick or injured.  Routine care is both expected and necessary.  So, that challenges risk models right away.  Secondly, health crises, unlike a house fire, are normally long-term events, requiring progressively more expensive care as time goes on.  Third, lower income is a key predictable risk factor of poorer health.  There is a clear correlation between income and conditions and risk factors for chronic disease.  So the people who are least able to afford it are most likely to be a higher risk and require a higher premium.  And, fourth, those all-important low-risk customers that are the anchor of financial stability for any insurance company are the least likely to see the need to pay for coverage, making it very difficult to re-balance costs.

All of these factors make healthcare as an insurance model especially challenging.  It's also why the individual mandate imposed by the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was so important.  The health of the whole portfolio is guaranteed by ensuring low-risk customers are built into the model.

Let's do the math:
Say the total cost of health care for Arizona is $10 Billion a year (I'm making this up).  With six million Arizonans, that's about $1,650 per person, per year in risk / cost.  Using tiering, 80% of your risk is in the top 20% of your pool.  Their "fair share" is $66,000.  That's 133% of the median Arizonan household income.  Hello bankruptcy!  Do we just write off coverage 20% of the population?  Or put them into high risk pools?  Either way, the money has to come from somewhere.  Hospitals and insurance companies will continue to incur the costs.  And you can be sure they will be passed back on to you, either in the form of premiums or, if through government subsidies, taxes.

But even in the lower risk tiers, at the lower income levels, the costs become prohibitive.  $2,500 a year may not feel like much to someone making $80-$100k in salary.  But to a person making minimum wage, that's 13% of their income.

As with anything, the devil is in the details.  And our personal health and that of our loved ones is an emotional strain as much as a financial one.  Still, these principles of insurance hold true, regardless.

Lessons from Moscow: Obliterating Terrorism

One of this president's top priorities and promises has been to "obliterate ISIS."  Since 9/11, the shadow of terrorist attacks from extreme Islamist elements has certainly loomed large over our nation.  But how do you kill an ideology?  Is it even possible?

One could argue that the reason we have not been successful in "obliterating" terrorism is that we haven't been aggressive enough in prosecuting the war.  Our foreign policy has certainly wavered under both of the previous administrations at different points.

Fortunately, we have other examples to learn from.  One big one is Russia's efforts to stamp out their own Islamist extremist group in Chechnya.

Now, nobody could accuse Russia of being reluctant to prosecute this war.  Over the course of the last 17 years (pre- 9/11), over 50,000 people have been killed on both sides, many of them civilians.  Exactly how many and on which sides varies based on who you ask, but all estimates are well north of 50,000.  That is a level of commitment that America hasn't come close to delivering in 45 years.  The Russians are serious.

So what have they gotten for their efforts (besides killing 50,000 people)?  Here's just a brief list of things:

• Chechen fighters have become some of the most hardened mujahedin in the world
• Fighters from other nations, including Afghanistan and Syria, have come in to fight alongside their brothers, bringing networks and knowledge with them (and taking them home again).
• Chechen fighters have gone to Syria and Afghanistan during surge periods to shore up their ranks
• Grozny, the capital city of the Chechen Republic, is essentially a pile of rubble
• And, they're still fighting.  In fact, indications are, as the Syrian conflict takes a turn, many fighters are returning to Chechnya to fight another day

Long story short, a full-fledged aggressive military campaign has not successfully eliminated the threat from these extremist elements.  And that says a lot about how mujahedin operate around the world.  They are the ultimate opportunists, seeking (and sometimes cultivating) conflict in areas where they can lend their lives to the cause.  The conflicts don't normally start out with jihadis, but they wind up with them.  They form, scatter, and re-form wherever strife exists.  They come in like Robin Hood's band of Merry Men, distributing money and support, recruiting new fighters, and tipping the scales.  All the while, they promote the most extreme version (or perversion) of basically 14th century Islam.  

But these aren't the only examples.  Consider the revolution in Northern Ireland or the battle with the communist FARC in Colombia.  These conflicts, too, lasted for years upon years, and ultimately were unsuccessful, militarily speaking.  You simply can't kill an idea.  

Does that mean that there is no place for military force?  No, it doesn't.  Von Clausewitz said "war is diplomacy by other means."  He was a smart guy.  He realized that the ultimate end is always diplomatic, and that military force is applied for the purpose of making the alternative unacceptably costly.  But it starts and ends with the tools of State.  

An all-out war on ISIS will certainly kill a lot of those fighting today.  But it will also kill tens of thousands of civilians in its path.  And will certainly cement the idea for yet another generation that America is an enemy worth hating and worthy of jihad.  And, like past ones, this new generation will come from all corners of the earth to join the fight.  Fear-driven warfare is not the solution.  It is the recipe for an entirely new round of conflict that will consume the best years of our millennial generation.  

Change, Fear, and the Myth of the Zero Sum

The conservative machine loves to call liberals "snowflakes" and "cry babies".  For some reason the belief is that we are scared of our own shadows, likely to melt in the sun.  But if you look at the politics of the left as compared to the right, it sure seems to me that the opposite is more likely the truth.  Based on the policies they are championing: CONSERVATIVES. ARE. TERRIFIED.  So-called "extreme vetting," a 2,000 mile wall, getting rid of all the "bad hombres," not to mention the inexplicable fervor to send our sons and daughters back into the furnace of war to obliterate an enemy that nobody else seems to want to deal with.  Everywhere you turn, the conservative media outlets are pushing a "boogey man" narrative that keeps voters coming back.

But our country IS changing.  Probably at a level not seen since the industrial revolution.  Our economy is transforming into the beginnings of what it will be over the next 100 years.  Old industries that were once the staple of our economy are decaying.  New industries are still finding their way into the mainstream economy needed to support them.  All the while, our demographics are evolving with them.  Baby boomers are retiring (or should be if they were able to save enough).  And as that generation slowly makes its way off the stage, a multi-racial, more diverse and socially liberal generation is on the ascent.  In short, the way we work, live, interact, love, and thrive is quickly changing in fundamental ways, never to return.

And, for many, those less equipped to join the new economy, to relate in a browner, more accepting nation, that's scary as hell.  It feels like the country is slipping away from them.  Then, add on the conservative media's constant whipping up of fear about terrorism and immigrants.  You're losing your job, your neighborhood is changing, AND they're all coming to kill you??!!  No wonder people run to the strong protective embrace of the right.

The narrative is a sham.  Seeing new trends and new faces emerging around you doesn't lessen your ability to thrive or pursue your own life and dreams in the same way you always have.  It just means people that choose to do so differently are likely to be doing their own thing in neighborhoods like yours. And terrorism?  Look, I grew up in Germany in the 70s and 80s.  Lybians, the Red Army Faction, and others were setting off bombs in discotheques and on airliners.  We didn't cringe in fear then; we faced them down with vigilance and determination.  That was the proper response to terror.

The underlying belief making all of this change especially frightening is the idea that prosperity and fulfillment in America is a zero sum game.  That, in order for some people to win, others have to lose.  That's simply not the case.  Sure, sometimes things play out that way.  But most times, in America, there's enough prosperity to go around.  We can celebrate Kwanzaa without taking away one single Christmas tree or piece of tinsel.  We can recognize the right of all people to marry without lessening the value of your marriage or anyone else's.  One person can make a pile of money and their next door neighbor can go out and make a different pile in a completely different way.  We are not a "zero sum" nation.

The narrative of fear is not going away.  It's too easy and too tempting to tap into.  Watch the coverage coming out of conservative outlets and you'll see these themes play out over and over again.  You can't reason with fear.  You have to reject it.  Face it head-on and reject the fear-baiting. And don't let anybody tell you that standing up for your beliefs (and the rights of others to live according to theirs) makes you weak.

Can Liberals Become the Voice of Reason?

People are fired up.  Since the day after the inauguration, people have taken to the streets and social media, creating a wave of civil dissidence across the nation.  Now that we are into Town Hall season, the evening news is filled with clips of chippy constituents pointing fingers and booing their elected officials.  In Arizona, they are actually working right now to pass legislation to prosecute "rioters" under the RICO act, basically equating protest to organized crime.

While I get the frustration (and share it), are we in danger of this wave of energy backfiring in our faces?  I don't pretend to have the answers.  But I do know one thing: the decline of civil discourse didn't begin in 2016.  In fact, we've all been watching it first-hand for several years now.

During George W. Bush's administration, there were protests about his electoral win and then sustained protests against the invasion of Iraq.  When the Tea Party movement began in 2009, there were several allegations of racist and homophobic themes, remarks, and verbal assaults at a number of their events.  Occupy Wall Street, in 2011 and 2012, though successfully peaceful, created enough concern that the Department of Homeland Security issued memos about the potential for violence.  Black Lives Matter, beginning in 2014, have inspired protests across the nation in response to police violence against African Americans.  Several of those have been co-opted and corrupted by elements that just wanted to rage.  Whatever you think about any of these movements, their objectives, or their tactics, it's important to note the larger pattern:  we've been in a recurring cycle of social unrest across the political spectrum for the last seventeen years.  It has become the norm and it doesn't show any signs of slowing.

Closer to home, I've been actively engaged in utility policy matters for the last several years.  Now you can't imagine anything less exciting than utility rate design, trust me.  But in town halls across the city (I personally attended at least six of those), the same lack of civility dominated the events.  People felt perfectly within their rights to shout, point, defame, and just generally spout verifiably untrue things because it made them feel good.  It was universal. And it was embarrassing.  Is this who we are now?

The political divide is sharper and nastier now, as our current President has taken the rhetoric to new lows.  And, this time, we don't have a Dr King or Mahatma  Gandhi to galvanize a morally-based civil disobedience movement.  But we still have their lessons.  The question is, are we up to it?  Can we elevate ourselves, not to simply be the loyal opposition, but the dignified opposition?  In today's climate, would that even work?

I'm an idealist.  I never stop striving to put things in their best possible state.  But I'm not an optimist. It has been my experience that ignorance and incompetence are far more common qualities than reason and excellence.  Which will win, I wonder?

Taking Back the Kitchen Table

By now, you've heard me assert in more than one way that old saw, "all politics is local."  And in previous articles, I've discussed how the Democrat Party has abandoned local politics for the national stage.  That's caused us to lose sight of the reality on the ground.

Conservative media paints a much darker picture than reality, deftly coupling financial concerns with fear-baiting tactics aimed at immigrants and terrorism, and that's energized their base in some ways that don't necessarily fit the facts.  But it ain't all rosy either.

In a nutshell: liberals need to get back to the kitchen table, the heart of American life.  It's ground zero for financial issues, healthcare issues, education issues, and the all-around quality of life that families are dealing with.  It's where things get discussed and decided.  And it looks nothing at all like the DCCC's national platform.  Let's look at the lay of the land.

46% of Americans say that a $500 hit to their monthly budget would be financially disastrous.  Over 70% of Americans have less than $1000 in the bank.  The average American has over $130k in debt, $16,000 of it in credit cards and $28,000 in a vehicle loan.  They are upside-down on their cars and homes, and perpetuating it through refinancing and extended-term loans that keep them there.  (Ask me later about the damage that decades of unrestrained lifestyle marketing has done to our society.)

Meanwhile, the average American between 55-64 years old has just $100k in retirement savings (about a third have NO retirement account at all).  In a post-pension economy, people haven't adapted their spending and savings practices to prepare for retirement.  As a result, people have to just keep on working longer and longer.  Besides being a personal strain, that stagnates the job market, too.

Two thirds of Americans are clinically overweight, the precursor for a host of long-term medical conditions and a major factor toward productivity in the workplace.  A third are clinically obese and are in immediate jeopardy of significant medical issues.  Almost two thirds of adults are on some kind of prescription medication.  Two-income families have become the norm just to stay afloat.  People are tired, stressed, and feeling increasingly helpless in managing their own destinies.

If you want to be relevant in the political spectrum, you have to recognize this.  You have to get back to the kitchen table.  That's what our 45th President did.  For whatever else you may think, he got this one right.  The Republican Party OWNS the kitchen table.  The big money Super PACs and think tanks don't actually care about these folks; they are simply tapping into their circumstances to further a larger pro-corporate agenda.  And that's the awful irony of the whole thing.

The good news is, we are all experts!  We don't need focus groups or polls.  This is OUR reality.  The bad news is, the Party is completely focused on Washington.  We are going to drag them along with us or, potentially, leave them behind.

This is also where outreach begins.  Before you ask for a vote or to post a sign or support a rally, or - heaven forbid - ask for money, offer a hand.  Find out the core issues in your community and start looking at how to tackle them together.  If you believe in the core liberal values of Equal Opportunity, Equal Dignity, and Equal Justice, as I do, then this is where our attention is needed most.

Liberalism and Morality

Conservative propaganda loves to paint liberals as "moral relativists" and hostile to Christian values.  It's the pretext for a lot of the uglier, more hateful sentiments harbored by people on the deep hard-right.  If you claim a superior morality, then everything you disagree with becomes "wrong" in the eyes of God.  (Sharia much?)

So let me just say it now: the idea that my morality is inferior to yours - is - horrifically - offensive.  In fact, it's hard for me to even continue writing with that sentiment in my head.  But this is important.  So, onward!

I'm not going to comment much about what the Liberal version of morality is.  Not least of which, because I don't presume to speak for anybody beyond myself, let alone a vast wedge of political and social ideology.  Instead, I'm going to examine morality itself and its role in government and society.

Point One: You can't legislate morality; only societal norms.
Human nature is a kooky thing.  If you want to get people to do or think something, pretty much all you have to do is tell them they can't.  And, if you try telling everyone that they must believe a certain set of things as "right" they'll work awfully hard at proving you wrong.  That's why, more than anything, the whole concept of a "Christian-based nation" is critically flawed.  You just can't tell human beings what to believe with the force of law.

Furthermore, there's this little issue of picking which version of religious morality you're going to use. Because, as much as some would refute it, religious doctrine is pretty malleable.  According to the Hartford Institute of Religion Research, there are 217 Christian denominations in the US alone.  Some are strict interpretationists, while others are more broadly open to ideas.  Which one would you pick?  Think about divorce.  In the mid-20th century, divorce was considered essentially invalid across most mainstream faiths.  People were not allowed to re-marry.  Even the Princess Margaret of Great Britain was prevented from marrying a divorced man.  Where is that hard and fast doctrine today?  See, laws are a bit more rigid.  Would you jail someone simply because they remarried outside the church?  Would you punish people who dispute the age of the earth?  Because that seems to be open to some debate, even among Christians.

Point Two: Everyone has got a little "relativism" in them
Take something as prosaic as traffic violations.  It's the law, right?  Yet, here in Phoenix, the common joke on the loop around the city is that "101" is the speed limit, not the name of the freeway.  People take liberties where they feel comfortable and safe doing so.  Good people, bad hombres.  All of us. So why do we get super-sanctimonious on some things and not others?  Remember, if you want the law based on "Christian principles" that means you plan to obey them fully and without exception.

The binary idea of "right" and "wrong" is a child-like approach to the world.  Sure, there are some things we can all agree are pretty universally wrong: killing or hurting someone who isn't threatening you; taking things that don't belong to you.  We can all get behind those.  But, for most of life, a mature thinking person recognizes that there's a spectrum of "better" and "worse" and that context is everything.  And anybody that refuses to acknowledge that is simply not being honest with themselves.

Point Three: A lot of this is about "the yucky sex stuff"
This country was founded by Puritans.  And we've retained a lot of that puritanical streak in the American nature.  It's important to acknowledge that we are straight-up prudish about sexuality as a society, and that much of the anti-liberal "moral-cesspool" stuff can be traced straight back to S-E-X.  I don't know when we, as a society, are going to finally graduate the 8th grade, but if this is your hang-up and basis for rejecting me as a person, then we're just going to have to continue to disagree.  How about this?  I promise not to flaunt my sexuality in your living room if you promise not to flaunt yours in mine.

Point Four:  Religion can be an easy cover for hatred
From slavery to segregation through to the AIDS epidemic and today, being able to declare an entire class of people as inferior or deviant gave cover to countless atrocities.  Prominent mainstream figures, citing religious mandates have condemned people to death and damnation and excused those fearful, hateful practitioners that dealt out God's wrath on earth.  So what is to say that somebody's moral imperative tomorrow won't deliver some similar atrocity?  Nothing, actually.  Nothing at all.

So, where does that leave us.
The Constitution is truly an amazing document.  Virtually all laws are designed to limit.  But the Constitution is a set of laws designed solely to preserve.  Our nation is founded in Liberty.  And the principles of liberty dictate that I have a fundamental right to believe and live whatever way I choose as long as I don't use those beliefs to directly prevent you from doing the same thing.  You don't have to like my choices; I don't have to like yours.  But as long as we can conduct our lives in the same society without one trampling the other, we're good.  If we all spent a lot less time grading other people's lives than focusing on our own, we'd be a much happier place.

And five things we probably can't discuss

Updated 8 Feb: This article rapidly became the most read and most argued piece I've written to date.  It says something to me that nobody wanted to join a discussion when I offered an opening on five core wedge issues between Liberals and Conservatives, but as soon as I said something was off limits, people went through the roof.  

I'm leaving the original article untouched below, but I want to add something for future readers. And it's this:  saying a topic is off limits is not the same as saying the matter is settled or that I don't see anything worth hearing from anyone on the other side.  Instead, making it off limits is to forthrightly and respectfully say to you (in advance) we are only going to get into a fight, not a discussion or a debate, but a fight, if you try and force me into one of these lanes.  I'd rather not do that.  I'd rather you know where my red lines are and, instead, focus on the many things we have in common to try and start building small bridges where we can.  That said, read on.

In my last post, I suggested that there are a lot of things that liberals and conservatives can actually talk about IF you agree to drop the rhetoric for a little while.  And, if we're going to actually turn the corner on this ever-widening impasse, then we're going to have to take those first tentative steps.

But some things are deal-breakers; ideas whose time has passed and simply do not belong in 21st century America.  The conservative machine likes to characterize liberals as mushy-gushy, bleeding hearts who hug trees and cry a lot.  But liberals should not be afraid to draw a hard bright line when their core principles are attacked.

Equal Dignity
There is no room for diminishing any person or group of people, simply because you disagree with them, believe differently than they do, or because you believe you simply have the superior position, morally or personally.  We do not have second-class citizens.  I look forward to a day when the term "marginalized group" is something we talk about in historical context.  If you plan on going down this road, I will stop you.  I will correct you.  I will invite you to never speak that way in my presence again.  This includes any so-called 'dog whistles'.

Equal Justice
There's a saying: lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Spin machines love to find ways to twist statistics into narratives that imply inequalities in justice are either over-blown or self-imposed.  The bare facts on this matter are plain and irrefutable.  Marginalized groups in this country do not get equal protection or equal treatment under the law.  If you're not willing to acknowledge that injustice and see it as a central issue of the American identity, then we aren't going to be able to talk.  Yes - #BlackLivesMatter

Equal Opportunity
"Opportunity" is a really broad term.  When I say "opportunity," I mean "opportunity to flourish."  To me, this goes from childhood (education) through transition (college and entering the workforce) through adulthood (work, income, participation in all aspects of society).  Now, I'm not talking specific policy here (I don't think college should be free for everyone, for example).  I'm just talking about the core belief.  If you won't acknowledge that, currently, people are still systematically and individually blocked from opportunities afforded to others, then I can't have a conversation with you.

Repealing Roe
We are never going to agree on abortion.  And that's okay.  It's a visceral issue.  Protecting children is one of our deepest instinctual traits.  But here's the deal.  Not supporting abortion personally is not the same as declaring your values as holding dominion over a woman's body and choices.  A woman who is forced to have a child in our society is forced, too, to bear the full burdens of supporting and raising that child in almost every case.  Outlawing abortion is basically a mandatory minimum 19-year sentence for the woman with ZERO accountability for men or for society.  So, no, the middle-aged affluent white men in think tanks and government have no business passing laws over one segment of society that will never impact them directly, and I'm not going to debate that with anyone.

"Fake News"
I hate this term.  It lends too much credibility to lying.  But that's what we call it these days.  I have very active and respectful debates with long-time friends on the right.  But bring the facts.  Facts lend clarity.  Facts can be examined on equal terms by all parties.  Propaganda cannot.  And, if you come at me with unverified nonsense from "RedMeatDaily.ru" then I will shut you down.  That's not a debate; that's a flame-throwing match.

Why aren't Liberals more Patriotic?

Apparently, I'm a bit of an American contradiction.  If you know me first as a veteran, then you're surprised to learn that I'm liberal, socially and politically.  If you know me first as an activist, then you're surprised to learn I spent two decades in the military.  Why is that?

If you listen to conservative outlets, you'd believe that they have a special hold on patriotic sentiment, support of the military, and our founding principles.  They certainly think so.  And they proudly lay out the flags and bunting, yellow ribbons, and blast Lee Greenwood to prove it is so.

While not presuming to speak for any of my military sisters and brothers, I will say that we're a pretty diverse group.  Many are indeed highly conservative in their views, but just as many are liberals.  And quite a few lean libertarian.  Does serving in the military make one uniquely patriotic?  Of course not.  But the modern conversation of what "Patriotism" is can't seem to help but entangle the two.

It raises the question: what does American Patriotism mean today?  Can you love your country and still acknowledge that it has a lot of problems that need to be fixed?  Can you be a patriot and disagree with the direction the national government is taking?  Can you treasure the values upon which our nation is based while still acknowledging that we have fallen disastrously short of those aspirations time and again?

Yeah, I think so.

I think of the conservative brand of patriotism, as it is currently constructed and portrayed, as somewhat childlike.  The word comes from the Greek "patris" which means "fatherland".  And when you're young, you look up to your father as a pillar of virtue and excellence.  You want to emulate him.  You want to BE him.  It's only as we get older that we learn (often to our disappointment) that nobody's perfect.  Fathers come off the pedestal and down into the real world with the rest of us.  Hopefully, that new insight gives us new respect and love for our fathers.  This crap is HARD and they did their best, regardless of their imperfections.  It's that quiet respect that grows and endures for the rest of our lives.

And this is the heart of liberal patriotism.  I love my country.  But I also know it is deeply flawed.  And yet, I see in it the greatness, growth, improvement, and potential for so much more.  We've failed time and time again.  Yet, we have also gotten SO MUCH BETTER too.  So my liberal patriotism has grown into that quiet, open-eyed respect.  Bunting be damned.