The Mueller Report - Who Will Fix The System?

After the better part of two years, the "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference Into The 2016 Presidential Election" (better known as the Mueller report) has finally been made public. Most of it, anyway...roughly a third of the pages had something redacted. There's been a ton of reaction from people all over the political spectrum, but it's amazing to me how little is being said about preventing it from happening again.

The report came in two parts: volume one talks about impact on the 2016 election by Russian agents, and volume two is about attempted obstruction of justice by President Trump and his allies. That's an oversimplification but close enough for my purposes. A lot of what's in there is not new...a lot of the Russian interference stuff was already released in previous indictments, and you'd have to be hiding under a rock not to know of the many ways that Trump had been pushing back against the investigation. In both areas, the investigating team basically says that evidence exists but isn't enough to bring criminal charges against the President.

The reaction that I've seen, both in the media and anecdotally, has been largely split down party lines: Republicans are happy that Trump isn't going to court or (at least for now) being impeached; Democrats are upset about the exact same thing, complaining about those redacted sections and promising to continue to investigate. For his part, the President is, as usual, making grand exaggerations about how good this is for him.

Let's forget President Trump for a minute, difficult as that may be no matter which side of the aisle you happen to inhabit. Look at what the report is saying without coloring it with your feelings about the current administration, good or bad. A foreign power was able to impact a United States Presidential Election, in a significant enough way that criminal charges were brought against the foreign perpetrators. Then a President was able to place obstacles in the way of the investigation into that election interference, with enough evidence that the investigators could not exonerate him but not enough to lead to criminal charges.

Where is the great outcry from every United States citizen against a system which allows this to happen? Where are the lawmakers putting forward reform packages to combat the problem? I hear a lot of complaining - Trump supporters that he's being unfairly targeted, Trump opponents pushing for more investigation and possibly impeachment - but very little about fixing the system.

I suspect we're going to hear a lot about the Mueller report during the 2020 Presidential and Congressional elections over the next 18 months. I'm going to be much more inclined to listen when candidates leave aside the partisan rhetoric for or against Trump, and instead focus on how we prevent this travesty from happening again.

The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis

The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I picked up The Fifth Risk thinking it would be about the Trump administration's hollowing-out of the administrative state by failing to fill key positions. There's some of that, but the book is much more about what the government does and some of the consequences should it stop.

Lewis splits the book into three main sections, each covering a major federal department: Energy, Agriculture, and Commerce. In each case, he goes out to talk to people about what those agencies actually do. Which is what you'd have expected the Trump administration's transition team to have done once the election was won, but was not the case.

I found the descriptions of the various departments fascinating. The mass of data collected by Commerce, the waste cleanup run by Energy, the nutrition programs in Agriculture: I'd sort of heard about those things but never in this kind of detail. And presented in an entertaining manner - Lewis knows his stuff and finds ways to make it all relatable and pulls in the personal touch with the various folks that provided the information.

The bottom line in The Fifth Risk is that these federal government programs (and presumably many others not covered here) are a key underpinning of our society, whether we realize it or not. And when the country's executive leadership is ignorant or uncaring, those programs are in danger of being taken over by oligarchs, cut down by budget cuts, or simply mismanaged into failure.

Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator by Gregory B. Jaczko

Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator by Gregory B. Jaczko
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Pretty much every rational person has a healthy fear of nuclear weapons. Massively destructive and terrible long-term consequences. Nuclear power comes from the same dangerous forces, but we rely on technology and design to keep those forces in check. Jaczko makes the case in Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator that the system designed to keep nuclear power safe just isn't working.

Before I get into the main points of the book, let me first say that Jaczko has done a fine job of keeping a potentially dry subject entertaining. He includes plenty of personal anecdotes and first-hand descriptions of some pretty tense situations around events we're all familiar with - Three Mile Island, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster - as well as some near-misses that may not be as familiar - fire at Browns Ferry in Tennessee, flooding at the Fort Calhoun plant along the Missouri river. And he makes no bones about his own personal failings, either, especially his often adversarial and confrontational personal style. It's not a page-turner thriller novel, but the book is well written and kept me engaged throughout.

Jaczko makes two main points about the current state of nuclear power:

First, because the forces involved are so powerful, it's impossible to make nuclear power completely safe. We can develop elaborate safety measures that will reduce the risk to extremely low levels, but that risk is always there. This means safety measures have to be redundant, cover every known risk, be constantly updated against new risks, and strictly enforced. If you don't do those things, the risk very quickly becomes unacceptable. This is a pretty straightforward point and I don't think anyone would argue with it, though the definitely of exactly what is "acceptable" can be debated.

Second, none of that is happening as it should, because the regulatory system in place to ensure nuclear power safety is ineffective. In the current political environment, not just in the US but all around the world, putting a truly effective nuclear power regulatory system is simply not possible. This is a much more contentious point, but I think Jaczko makes a strong case. He cites repeated examples where regulators have been unable to enforce existing rules, or put into place important new rules, due to interference and delay by nuclear power providers. Those obstructions are enabled by political cover from officials who are beholden to the nuclear power industry. This is an example of regulatory capture: through political and economic influence, the nuclear power providers have taken control of the very processes meant to ensure that their product is safe.

The logical conclusion from those two points is that nuclear power should be eliminated, and that is in fact the position Jaczko takes. "Nuclear power is a failed technology"...no equivocation there. That is a very strong denouncement from a former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The argument isn't that human beings are unable to use nuclear power safely - while the risk is never zero, it can be reduced to acceptable levels. Rather, the constant pushback against updating and enforcing regulations required to maintain those low levels of risk means nuclear power won't be made safe. The issue isn't that we can't, it's that we won't.

I've long considered nuclear power to be a worthwhile alternative in the search to find alternatives to fossil fuels, but after reading this book I've changed my mind. Until we can either drastically improve technology to lower risk, or effectively address the regulatory capture concerns that Jaczko raises, nuclear power should be off the table. I don't see how the former is possible economically, or the latter politically. There are other clean alternatives, and though those have their own issues, they don't carry the same extreme risks as nuclear power.

Acting with History in Mind

I've mostly stayed out of the furor over the high school kids from Covington Catholic school confronting a Native American protester - most everything I could say has already been said. But this article from The Root deserves to be spread widely, not just as a sarcastic takedown (which it most definitely is) but also for the attention it draws to historical and institutional racism.

Those of us on the privileged side of history need to take every opportunity to remind ourselves that we can't just look at ourselves and our immediate surroundings in isolation. There's a long history behind every interaction we have. Whether you're talking about high-profile confrontations at protest marches, or economic statistics like lower prices for black-owned homes, it's not just about what's happening today, but all the history that led up to this point. And this isn't just about how to respond at protest marches, but should influence all our actions - including the kinds of policies we support and who we vote for.

Full disclosure - I was one of those privileged white boys who had no understanding of how my actions might impact others, back when I was that age. (Case in point.) Experience and interactions with many people of varying races and wealth levels have taught me empathy, and I hope some of the kids from this incident can do the same.

Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward

Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Bob Woodward is a reporter, and Fear reads very much like a very long newspaper story. Lots of quotes from individuals, paraphrasing where necessary, coming from "deep background interviews" or other published works. It's all in service of one thing, trying to make sense of the erratic first year of the Trump White House. (This is in contrast to Fire and Fury, the other major book thus far about the Trump White House, which I felt was much more of an entertainment work.)

There's not much in the way of consistent narrative in Fear, as it reports notable interactions between various actors in mostly chronological order. It jumps back and forth between issues as they were more or less important at the time. This can make it difficult to follow, but is necessary because Woodward is mostly aiming to describe President Trump's interactions with his staff and provide a glimpse into his state of mind, both which changed regularly as events progressed.

Largely this shows a negative picture of Trump, as a man who has little patience for the opinions of others, a very limited attention span, and a habitual liar. But it's not all negative. Woodward also shows the President's real sadness and anger over deaths in the Syrian civil war, for example, and how he did his best to console families of deceased service members. I was impressed with Woodward's work reporting the complexities of the President, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions.

For me, that conclusion is that the Trump White House that Woodward describes largely revolved around people trying to keep their leader from doing real harm to himself or the country. Trump would propose action, like doing a personal interview with Robert Mueller on the Russia investigation or withdrawing from the South Korea-US trade agreement or imposing steel tariffs. Then the staff would frantically try to delay or water down those actions until the President either lost interest (usually) or could be convinced to take another course (rarely). Sometimes the staff was successful, sometimes not.

The book also painted several key White House figures in a different light than I'd seen before. The one that stood out most in my mind was Rob Porter, who resigned in disgrace after being accused of domestic violence. But before that, Porter had been a very important influence on President Trump, often moderating some of the more extreme actions that the President wanted to take. Another is Gary Cohn, a former Wall Street executive who was instrumental in pushing through the Republican tax cuts. The extensive efforts that Cohn went through to fight against Trump's anti-free-trade actions (tariffs, withdrawal from free trade treaties) are described in detail in Fear. I wouldn't say I have a better view of either man, as I still think both did some incredibly harmful things, but at least it's a more complete view of how much worse things could have been without their efforts.

I can't exactly say that I enjoyed Fear, because it's not an easy or uplifting read. But I certainly feel better informed.

Senator Gary Peters Community Meeting in Grand Rapids

I've been to quite a few town hall discussions with my congressional representative, Justin Amash, several of which I've posted about here. But this was my first opportunity to hear from a senator, in this case Democrat Gary Peters. (My other senator, Debbie Stabenow, has not held any similar events in my area to the best of my knowledge.)

The meeting was held at the Gerald Ford Presidential Museum in downtown Grand Rapids. There's a nice auditorium there and it was mostly filled; a bit over 200 people would be my guess. I was a bit surprised that there weren't more folks, considering how rare it is for our senators to hold this kind of event.

The very first question set the tone for the meeting, when the question of supporting and co-sponsoring Bernie Sanders' Medicare-for-all bill was brought up. Senator Peters responded with a lot of talk about the Affordable Care Act: how he'd voted for it, the Republicans were doing their best to kill it, and he was fighting to keep as many benefits as possible. All of which may be true, but did not address the Medicare-for-all proposal and did not satisfy the crowd. Several more people followed up with health care questions, and several others just shouted repeatedly that the senator should be both fighting for the ACA and supporting the new proposal. Personally, I agree that change is needed, but shouting down your senator at an event isn't the way to change his mind.

The senator eventually moved on to other topics, trying to end the conversation by appealing for unity against what the Trump administration and the Republican party are doing. I'm not sure that went down well with most of the crowd. This experience made it pretty clear to me that the Democratic party has a long way to go if they're going to overcome the kind of divisions that hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016. Not a surprise, but still disappointing.

Other topics didn't get nearly as much time as health care, largely because the senator and his aides kept the meeting moving. The discussion did stay more civil, though. Here's a few of the topics:

• Supreme Court nomination: Senator Peters talked about pushing back against the Republican majority to delay any nomination until after the 2018 midterm elections (which is what the Republicans did back in 2016). His hopes appeared to be pinned on getting one or two Republicans to turn against any nominee that is put forward prior to the 2018 midterm elections. That seems unlikely to say the least. As far as I can tell, the only hope the Democrats have of blocking a nominee is to refuse to show up and thus deny the Senate a quorum, but that method wasn't mentioned.
• Border family separations: The lady who asked about this seemed woefully uninformed, as she thought there had been legislation passed to stop it (not true - it was an executive order) and for some reason thought that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos had something to do with the process. But the senator did a fine job in response of talking about what was actually happening, and what he's been doing. Which isn't a lot, since the Trump administration is in charge, but at least he's been able to have his office check in at the detention centers and push for basic improvements like letting parents talk with their children on a regular basis.
• Interactions with police: An ex-policeman asked what is being done about the fear that many people, particularly those of color, feel when interacting with police. Senator Peters brought up the National Criminal Justice Commission and their work with both police and civil rights organizations.
• Campaign finance: The senator said he is in favor of reform, particularly provisions requiring disclosure of "dark money" sources and finding a way to combat negative advertising.
• Affordable higher education: State-level funding is the primary source, but the senator did talk about expanding federal grants like the Pell Grant program. He also mentioned tying student load interest rates to federal bond rates.

Thank you, Senator Peters, for holding these community meeting events. I'd love to see them more often, from both of our senators.

Border Family Separation Needs to Stop

The biggest story in the news recently has been the United States government's policy of separating children of illegal immigrants from their parents. It's a terrible situation on a whole host of levels, it's completely unnecessary, and the President needs to make it stop.

Children and parents are separated in this country for all kinds of reasons. Some are legit, such as abuse, and that's as it should be. Others are financial, such as when a parent is arrested for a crime (whether guilty or not) and can't afford bail. It's been going on for a long time, and we mostly don't notice because the people it happens to aren't in our daily lives. But we're noticing when hundreds or thousands of children are being taken away at the border, and that's by design.

The Trump administration made a specific change to enforcement to enact this separation. As far as I can tell (not a lawyer but I've read opinions by those who are), it's perfectly legal because the actual laws don't say exactly how illegal immigrants should be detained. By the same token, when President Trump says the Democrats or Congress created laws that are causing this situation, that's a lie. There's discretion for the administration to go either way on this, and they're using it.

One argument being put forward is that this is a necessary policy to slow illegal immigration, but that's false. We've managed to deal with illegal immigration for decades without taking this particular step, and the illegal population has been stable or declining since before President Obama took office in 2009. It's not necessary to cause the kind of harm that is being done to these families if your goal is to reduce illegal immigration, as we've been doing for years. On the other hand, if your goal is to break up families for political purposes, then the policy makes sense.

Why do this now? There's a lot of speculation about that. Personally, I subscribe to the idea that Trump is making one of his standard negotiation moves. He says or does something incendiary, gets a lot of people all riled up, then offers to stop if they'll give him something he wants. In this case, that's asking Congress for "tremendous security" on the border...read that as funding for his wall and putting even tighter restrictions on legal immigration. The President wants a big uproar over this issue, and he's getting it.

This is not new. The administration tried the same thing six months ago. Back then Trump was threatening to remove protections for DACA recipients, and demanding more or less the same things in order to keep those young people safe from deportation. There was enough push-back that Trump didn't get what he wanted then, and so the administration decided to try again with a different kind of incendiary action.

I know people who don't think this is a bad thing. "People who can't obey the laws and enter the country legally deserve whatever treatment they get." "We need to make the results of illegal immigration harsh enough to make people stop coming." I understand those arguments, and even sympathize to some extent.

But...you need to draw a line somewhere. If there's no line, we'd just kill everyone trying to enter the country, and pretty much everyone agrees that would be morally reprehensible. The impact on these kids from this experience is going to last for years, and it's completely avoidable. Using those kids' pain to advance a political agenda is well on the wrong side of the moral line, and it needs to stop.

The President can stop this inhumane and unnecessary policy of family separation any time he likes. Don't believe it when he or anyone else tells you otherwise. Make your voice heard on this issue however you can, whether that be through posts like this one, calls to your representatives, protests, or whatever else works for you. And consider making your voice heard where it matters most...when you next vote.

Update June 21: So the President has indeed done what many have been calling for and stopped the family separations at the border. (Despite his repeated claims that Congress had to do it.) This doesn't fix the damage already done, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Representative Amash Town Hall (May 2018)

My congressional representative Justin Amash held a town hall meeting in Caledonia at the high school just after Memorial Day. Nice location choice, since it's about a 4 minute drive from home for me.

As always, I appreciate Amash's willingness to hold these public town hall meetings. So many politicians just don't bother, and it doesn't seem to matter much since they keep getting re-elected anyway. Amash conducts his business professionally and in a courteous manner, so no matter how much I may disagree with some of his positions, I respect how he carries out his responsibilities.

The meeting started with the congressman talking about how the legislative process is broken. This isn't new...he's been making the same points in one form or another since I started attending these things several years ago. The short version is that party leadership (both Republican and Democrat) controls the process of writing and amending legislation so tightly that rank-and-file representatives have no real control over what is brought up for votes. That means compromise legislation that might actually be able to pass is never created (via the amendment process) and/or brought to the floor for a vote. Most representatives go along with this because the party leaders control a lot of their election campaign funding, plus it means they don't have to go on the record on controversial issues.

I don't disagree with this assessment, but I feel like Amash is preaching to the choir. We're the district that elected a guy who bucks the system. (Well, not me personally, I didn't vote for him. But the district did.) Telling us about it doesn't help much. What he needs to be doing is using his platform as a member of Congress to reach a national audience, if he really believes that going back to a more open legislative process is a key component to improving how Congress works. Convince voters in other districts to get after their representatives about joining Amash in making changes.

After that came the Q&A session, which was scheduled for about 40 minutes but lasted more like 90. That's pretty common for Amash, in my experience, and very much not what you see from other politicians. He seems to genuinely want to hear from as many constituents as possible. A lot of the questions were about current news items and he didn't say anything really unexpected. Yes, Mueller should finish his investigation into Russia and the 2016 presidential election; no, immigrant children should not be separated from their parents at the border; yes, we should hold our leaders to a standard of telling the truth. He was careful not to call out President Trump directly on any of these things, but otherwise it was fairly standard stuff like you might read in any news story.

One question that was a bit different brought up Amash's vote for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act back in December 2017. In his response, Amash claimed that the tax cuts were progressive, moving the tax burden toward wealthier Americans. I have no idea what he's referring to. A quick web search will give you any number of opposite assertions, including this one from the Tax Policy Center. And if you add in the corporate tax cuts, which mostly benefit the wealthier folks that can afford to own those companies, it's even more tilted to favor the wealthy. I don't know if Amash was confused, misinformed, or what...I choose to believe he wasn't intentionally lying since he's not done so in other areas to the best of my knowledge.

It's good to hear directly from my representative, even if the answers aren't always exactly what you'd want to hear. It would be nice if my Senators and state legislators would do the same someday.

Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff

Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

It's pretty obvious from the outside that the Trump administration is more than a bit chaotic. Fire and Fury is a long and detailed confirmation of that impression.

Michael Wolff describes in an author's note to begin the book how he was more or less left to his own devices inside the White House, gathering information from a wide variety of actors. Confidential conversations would often be later repeated in public by one of the parties, official statements would reveal contents of previously confidential discussions, and pretty much no official restrictions were placed on Wolff's access. This alone is very strange, as strict information control is a pretty basic tenet of modern government.

Much of the book describes the maneuvering of the various factions within the administration. Most notably, three top advisors to the President: Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner (and Ivanka Trump), and Reince Priebus. Priebus' impact is minor, but rivalry between the Bannon and Kushner camps is a recurring theme throughout. There's no need for me to detail the specifics - plenty has been written about that already - but Wolff draws a pretty clear picture of constant undercutting of the competition from both sides.

There's a lot about the President himself, of course, and very little of it is complimentary. Again, plenty has been written about the specifics already, but I'll say that it's pretty clear that (at least from Wolff's point of view) Trump cares about little beyond his own image. Whether that's how the media portrays him, what his billionaire friends are saying, or the opinion of world leaders, it all comes down to Trump either wanting attention or reacting to some (real or imagined) slight. His actions make sense viewed in this light...even if they look completely illogical from any other angle.

Wolff doesn't stop at describing events and statements as he witnessed them. He includes a lot of speculation about the reasons behind various actions, about what was going on the heads of various figures as they made decisions. Most of it makes sense to me, but I can't help feeling that at least some of it has to be overstated. Wolff is an entertainer as well as a documentarian, and it seems to me that he knows very well that more spicy gossip sells better.

After the 2016 campaign and a year of the Trump administration in the headlines, I can't say that I was particularly surprised by anything in Fire and Fury. There's a lot of crazy things described that would have been unthinkable just a couple of years ago. It's disappointing to see that a behind-the-scenes view confirms that things are just as crazy as they seem from the everyday headlines...disappointing, but not surprising.

Unbelievable: My Front-Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History by Katy Tur

Unbelievable: My Front-Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History by Katy Tur
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I had no intention of spending much time looking back at the 2016 campaign. It was bad enough the first time through. But I was listening to NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me when they interviewed Katy Tur about Unbelievable, and it sounded a lot more interesting than I expected.

Largely this is because Tur writes as much about herself as about the campaign. Personal sacrifices made to further her career, childhood days in a news helicopter, the difficulties of being constantly on the road...there's a lot of personal reflection in the book. I'd have liked even a little more, as I thought the end of the book felt a bit rushed in personal terms. But then, life often works that way - there's not always a tidy ending.

There's quite a bit about the rigors of covering a political campaign and the internal workings of a major media organization. Tur is very honest about her own insecurities about her career, too. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised at how much this sounds like any other corporate world. When you see these folks on television, it always seems like they have it together and get along great. But behind the scenes, they're human too, and it's fascinating to see behind the curtain.

If you do want to relive many of the insane moments from the 2016 campaign, Unbelievable has that covered. And despite what I said above, I think this is a good thing. Tur describes feeling threatened at Trump rallies, being literally spat upon, and requiring a security detail just to do her job. She recounts innumerable "Lock Her Up" chants and shouted assassination suggestions. She talked with supporters who simply refused to think about Trump's disparaging comments toward women and minorities and foreigners. We need to remember that these things happened. Hopefully to prevent them from happening again.

Don't dismiss Unbelievable because it takes place during a campaign that you'd rather forget. I really enjoyed reading the personal perspective that Tur shares. And though the reminders of the worst moments from the 2016 campaign aren't pleasant, I think it's important that we remember.

The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The Color of Law makes the case that racial segregation of African Americans in the United States was largely enacted by government action, and has never been sufficiently addressed.

Much of the book is devoted to explaining the many practices, at all levels of government, that caused segregation that persists to this day. From zoning boards to police to union regulations to school boards, discrimination and segregation has resulted directly from government actions or refusal to halt unconstitutional citizen activities. I don't think there are many people who would disagree that this was the case from the Civil War until the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

Rothstein takes the argument further, though, explaining how the results of segregation have caused lasting harm to those affected. Explicit racism has largely been eliminated through legislation and the courts, but very little was done to correct the results of decades of government-sponsored segregation. Generations of African Americans have lower wages, less housing equity, and fewer educational opportunities than their white counterparts. Those disadvantages compound over time, and have never been corrected.

Today's policies may no longer be explicitly based on race, but many still effectively target African Americans due to the legacy of segregation. Public services based on property values, for instance, will provide lower funding and service levels for low-income areas, which is where many African Americans still reside. Government provides more support to affluent suburbs (the mortgage interest deduction is one example), which are largely white. Even programs which support low-income citizens have restrictions which serve to keep those people in the same locations and professions...segregation in all but name.

Rothstein puts forward a few ideas for making corrections to this inequality, but he himself says that it's highly unlikely that any would be enacted. Allowing African American buyers to purchase houses at a discount proportional to their income (vs equivalent white residents), for instance. That might be correct some of the historical discrimination, but would assuredly be seen as favoritism in today's political climate.

I must admit, I found The Color of Law to be somewhat depressing. The extent of the racial discrimination in the history of our country, and the impact it still has to this day, isn't easy to face. But I think it's important to recognize these kinds of flaws, both to avoid repeating past mistakes, and to have perspective on current issues. If more people recognized this history, we might find more support for the kind of policies that can begin to undo the damage.

The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I picked up The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt from the library recently. It was recommended by the Make Me Smart podcast, which I listen to regularly.

Seeing the term "righteous" in the title immediately made me think of this as a religious book, but that's not really the case. The theme of the book is morals and ethics, and of course religion does play a role, but not a major one. The author explains the use of "righteous" in his introduction as an intentional way to point out that the human mind is not just moral, but also judgmental and critical and intolerant (as in "self-righteous").

That's something of a negative start, but it's an important point that drives much of what Haidt has to say. The book is divided into three sections, each of which presents a principle of moral psychology:

1. Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. Haidt describes the mind as being like a rider (reasoning) on an elephant (intuition - comprised of emotions, gut reactions, etc). When the elephant has a reaction to something, the rider's primary job is to support that reaction. While it's possible for the reasoning rider to change the elephant's direction, it's difficult and rare. Most of the time, our reason looks for a way to justify whatever our gut feels to be true, ignoring evidence or arguments to the contrary.

2. There's more to morality than harm and fairness. This section presents the Moral Foundation Theory, which describes how different morality systems around the world can all be traced back to a few "foundations". The MoralFoundations.org website describes the theory and foundations as well as some of the research supporting the theory. I think this makes a lot of sense - just about everyone has a sense of "liberty" (to use one foundation as an example) but exactly what that means can be very different between people or cultures.

3. Morality binds and blinds. Moral systems are about more than just personal beliefs, they apply to the groups that we identify with. We gravitate toward groups that line up with our intuitions, and those groups also influence our ways of thinking and behavior. People are willing to do things for their groups that aren't necessarily in their individual interests. That can lead to positive or negative results - the same group instincts can lead to supporting charitable organizations or becoming suicide bombers. We're rarely willing to listen to points of view that run counter to the interests of our groups, even if we would benefit at an individual level. Religious and political associations are used as two examples of groups that can have significant impact on how their individual members behave.

I'm far from an expert on ethics or the philosophy of the mind, but the ideas that Haidt presents in this book certainly seem to make sense to me. I've long thought that most people behave in a largely rational manner if you consider that they have an internal set of assumptions (which they are rarely willing to reconsider, despite whatever evidence may exist to the contrary). Haidt's rider-elephant metaphor fits nicely into that concept, so it wasn't much of a stretch to wrap my mind around his model.

Understanding this is one thing, but it can still be difficult to accept for those of us that consider ourselves rational people. I like to think that presenting evidence and well-ordered arguments is a good way to convince people (including myself). When I really stop and think about it, though, there are examples everywhere that reasoning really is secondary to intuition, including many that Haidt describes in the first third of this book. It's especially true in cases where time is short, either because a snap decision is required or because I simply don't bother to spend a lot of time on something.

This model of "intuition first, reasoning second" has obvious applications for advertising, political campaigns, and other kinds of marketing. If you want people to buy your product or vote for your candidate, you need to present something they identify immediately as good, at an instinctual level. Then you can add logical arguments to that gut reaction to seal the deal. Sounds obvious, but it's not always easy, particularly if you're trying to convince a diverse group.

The Righteous Mind was a very interesting read, though not a quick or easy one. The morality model presented by Haidt is a good fit for explaining how diverse groups of people can have such different ideas about what is moral or ethical. I consider my time with this book to be well spent.

Michigan Radio "Issues and Ale" in Grand Rapids

Michigan Radio puts on occasional panel-discussion style events around the state, in a series called "Issues and Ale." This week they came to Grand Rapids.

The event was held in a theater at Celebration Cinema, and the place was full. This was the first "Issues and Ale" that I've attended, but judging from what I've seen about past events, they're usually held in smaller venues. (Brewpubs, often, thus the "ale" part.) Good thing they booked a larger venue this time, as the Michigan Radio folks were saying that they ran out of tickets. They brought in a small corner bar set up in one corner of the theater, too, so the ale was still present.

Michigan Radio analyst Jack Lessenberry moderated the discussion, along with four panelists:

• TJ Bucholz, President & CEO of Vanguard Public Affairs
• Scott Hagerstrom, state director for President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign
• Cheyna Roth, capitol reporter for the Michigan Public Radio Network
• Gleaves Whitney, presidential historian and Director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University

The subject of the discussion was "President Trump: A Michigan Report Card." The idea was to talk about how the first few months of the Trump presidency has affected Michigan. It started out approximately on subject, but once audience questions started I didn't think there was a whole lot specific to Michigan. There was some discussion of Great Lakes water protection, but otherwise the subjects were the same you hear at the national level: health care, overcoming partisanship, education, etc.

There was no doubt that this was a left-leaning crowd. No one raised their hand when asked if anyone present had voted for Trump, and the audience response was pretty hostile to much of what Scott had to say. Not too surprising for an event put on by NPR, though I noticed much the same thing in other political events recently (such as town halls for Republican congressman Justin Amash).

I thought Jack did well as moderator, stopping the discussion several times when it got heated and keeping the panel more or less on topic. He called out the panelists a few times when they dodged questions or tried to deliver incorrect information. Honestly, I'd have rather had him as one of the panelists, as I like the daily commentary he provides on Michigan Radio and I think he'd have had some good opinions to share. But he did a fine job as moderator, too.

Nothing that was said surprised me all that much. Scott supported much of what President Trump has been doing (when not battling scandals) and repeated many of the points he campaigned on. TJ provided a response from the Democratic party point of view. Neither said anything that would be out of place on one of the cable news channels. The other two panelists did provide some interesting takes on some questions, particularly some of the historical perspective from Gleaves, but they didn't get the majority of the speaking time.

All in all, an interesting evening. I'll certainly consider going to another Issues and Ale event in the future, though preferably one on a less contentious subject.

Voters Not Politicians Town Hall Meeting

The group Voters Not Politicians (VNP) held a town hall meeting yesterday in Kalamazoo which I attended. VNP is a ballot question committee working to get a state constitutional amendment on the 2018 ballot that reforms the redistricting process.

VNP has been holding these meetings all over the state of Michigan this month. Normally I'd have attended one closer to home, but my schedule was such that Kalamazoo was my best option. It's only about an hour drive. The First Congregational Church in downtown Kalamazoo were very gracious hosts, providing space for the around 100 attendees. The main presentation was given by Wayne State political science professor Kevin Deegan-Krause. He's a very enthusiastic and engaging speaker who kept things interesting, not an easy task with this kind of potentially dry subject matter.

The purpose of the meeting was to explain what VNP is trying to do, why they're doing it, and communicate the process. Put simply, they're trying to end the practice of gerrymandering in Michigan. Gerrymandering is the process of drawing political district boundaries to give advantage to a particular group, and as for why it should end, it's a major factor in skewing representation away from the actual voter proportions (which is something I've talked about before). In Michigan today, the districts are drawn by the legislature, who are the people who most directly benefit from that process - an obvious conflict of interest.

To end gerrymandering in Michigan, VNP is putting a state constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2018 to establish an independent commission to draw district boundaries. That's a pretty long and involved process, thus the meetings happening more than a year before the election. They're working on the amendment wording now, and will be collecting voter signatures over the summer. Assuming that all goes well, the group will then be promoting the ballot measure next year leading up to election day.

The turnout for this meeting was great, with over 100 people on a Sunday afternoon, and the leaders mentioned that other meetings had been just as well attended. Gerrymandering has been a problem for a long time, but not many people in Michigan have been motivated to address it. The extreme partisanship of recent times and unhappiness with the last year's election results make this a great time to push for change in the political process, though, and VNP is in a good position to take advantage of that. They have my support and I very much hope they succeed.

Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Russell Hochschild

Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Russell Hochschild
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

You hear a lot in the media about the divisions in American politics. It's easy to find writing to support one side or the other. What you don't see very often are real attempts by one side to understand the other, but in this book Hochschild does exactly that.

Hochschild is a liberal university professor from Berkley, California. In this book, she recounts her experiences getting to know conservatives living in Louisiana. It's hard to imagine a larger gap in political viewpoints, which was exactly the intention. Hochschild wanted to personally talk to people in the opposing political camp to understand their viewpoints.

From those conversations, Hochschild gathered what she calls a "deep story" for the conservative right. This story largely deals with feelings of being left behind while others are given advantages which have not been earned. (Whether that's actually the case or not isn't the point...the feelings are real either way.) When political leaders appeal to the emotions behind that deep story, the people respond, even if the actual actions of those leaders cause them harm.

Harm caused to the population is a pervasive theme in the book, mostly in terms of Louisiana's serious pollution and environmental issues. Most of those interviewed have suffered direct harm from industry causing environmental damage, and yet continue to support leaders who cater to those same industries and oppose environmental regulation. The appeal of the deep story is offered as an explanation for this seeming contradiction.

You might think that a book entirely about a liberal having discussions with conservatives over environmental damage and other political hot topics would be full of arguments and anger. There's very little of that to be found here. Hochschild repeatedly refers to the people she met as her conservative friends, and the tone of the book certainly supports that. I give her plenty of credit for that, since an interviewer with the wrong attitude will almost certainly cause an angry reaction. And just as much credit goes to the interviewees, who clearly were willing to share their experiences and feelings honestly.

I highly recommend reading Strangers in Their Own Land, no matter your political viewpoints. I think it makes some good points about certain specific issues, primarily around environmental regulation, but that's not the main reason. What I found most compelling about this book is that way that people on opposite sides of the American political divide had honest conversations, learned to understand each other, and parted as friends. We should all strive to follow that example.

Gender Transition in Competitive Sport

Recently, a story has been making the rounds of the usual news outlets about Mack Beggs, a teenager in Texas who won the female state wrestling championship. Generally not national news, but in this case Beggs was born female and is transitioning to male.

Let's start with the facts (according to the link above, which I have no reason to doubt). Beggs was born female, but has chosen to transition to male. The process started a year and a half ago, and includes testosterone injections. According to Asa Merritt, a reporter in West Texas, Beggs "...wants to compete against boys" but isn't allowed to due to a Texas school rule that students must compete as the gender on their birth certificate. Thus, Beggs competed against girls. And as it happened, won every match on the way to a state championship.

That rule about competing as the gender on your birth certificate sounds familiar - it's similar to the North Carolina Bathroom Bill that caused such an uproar last year. But I think there's a significant difference here. There's no competition involved in using a bathroom, but in sport the competition is the main focus. While I see the bathroom question as a discrimination issue, I think in sport the issue is about maintaining a level playing field for the other participants.

If anyone else took a performance-enhancing drug while participating in competitive sports, the rules would prohibit them from competing. (Or at least put them in a more appropriate category, if one exists. In this case there's probably not enough born-female-but-testosterone-enhanced participants to have such a category.) It seems to me that the only reason we're even hearing about this issue is that the drug was taken as part of a gender transition.

I don't have any problem with someone making a life choice that is appropriate for them (even if I don't understand it, which in this case I certainly don't). But I also think we need to recognize that every life choice that a person makes opens some doors and closes others. No choice should cause discrimination, but it also should not infringe on the rights of others. In this case, the right to compete fairly against other similar participants. We all make choices on a regular basis that affect our opportunities, and while this one is a bigger decision than most, it shouldn't be treated any differently.

When Beggs chose to take testosterone, that should have closed the door to participation in competitive wrestling (and likely, any other sport). The reason for taking it shouldn't matter, only that it was a free choice made by the athlete which caused an competitive imbalance.

Representative Justin Amash Town Hall - Hastings, February 2017

I've been to a few town hall meetings held by my district's representative in Congress, Justin Amash, over the last few years. I remember one where no more than about a dozen people attended, and another where there were maybe fifty. Things have changed! In Hastings this weekend, a hall rated for 200 was completely filled, with several dozen more waiting outside. I arrived 15 minutes early and was still stuck near the very back - many of those who arrived later didn't get in at all.

Hard to tell, but that's Rep. Amash in the center. Getting closer for a better picture was out of the question, too crowded.

I've said it before and it's worth repeating - Justin Amash is one of the most professional, polite public speakers that I've ever seen. As a politician it's important to be polite to voters, of course, but that doesn't stop some from either losing their cool or avoiding public forums entirely. Amash consistently holds town hall meetings when he's here in Michigan, even now when the public temper is decidedly unsettled and contentious. He never gets angry with even the most inane (in my opinion) speakers, and answers everyone seriously, even when it's clear they're trying to bait him. In this town hall, scheduled for only an hour, he stayed for almost 2.5 hours so more people had an opportunity to speak. I greatly respect the way he goes about doing his job.

Having said that, I certainly don't agree with a lot of his policy positions, and judging from this town hall I'm far from alone. You expect opposition at public forums, of course...those who disagree are more interested in being heard by their representative than those who are happy with how things are going. But in the past town halls that I've attended, when comments about conservative hot topics (repealing the ACA aka Obamacare, environmental regulation rollbacks, balanced budget amendment, etc) came up, most people clapped and otherwise expressed support. This time, there were a whole lot of boos for those kinds of topics, and a lot of support for what are generally considered liberal positions (expanding Medicaid, federal oversight/support for schools, etc).

This is what it looked like from the entryway just before start time. There's more people behind who can't get in, and the police were turning away more at the door.

A lot of the speakers were clearly interested mostly in venting, going on for minutes at a time about one particular aspect or another of an issue. Topics ranged widely, but a few issues came up repeatedly: health care, education, environmental regulation, and inquiries into the behavior of the current administration. Everything I heard from Amash on these topics was pretty much what I expected based on what he's said on social media and in the news. One thing that does deserve special mention is that he supports independent inquiries into ethical issues, such as conflicts of interest in the administration.

Time after time in his answers, Amash expressed his belief that the federal government should pull back from direct involvement, and instead allow the state/local governments and/or free market to work. This was not a popular position, to put it mildly. I suspect part of that may be the ineptitude of our state government here in Michigan, incapable of fixing roads and presiding over disasters like the Flint lead-water debacle.

Even more than simply not trusting our state government, though, I think there's an underlying assumption about human nature that differs between Amash (and many conservatives) and the town hall crowd (and many liberals). If you believe that authorities will deal fairly with everyone in their domain (regardless of race/religion/sexual preference/social status/etc) then the idea of pushing control down to state/local levels makes a lot of sense. It minimizes overhead and bureaucratic waste, provides opportunity for diversity based on different local preferences, and follows the principals of limited government. On the other hand, if you believe authorities will play favorites, doling out benefits to certain groups and refusing to address the issues of others, then it makes much more sense to have a strong central leadership that can ensure equal treatment. I definitely fall into the latter group, and while our federal government leaves much to be desired in terms of maintaining equality, it's better than some of the things we see state and local governments doing.

(Edit: I've gotten several replies to the above paragraph which are along the lines of "why do you think a strong central authority is better for equal treatment than smaller local authorities?" My belief is that the wider and more diverse the constituency that the authority must answer to, the better that authority will be at providing equal treatment. In the long run, at least - certainly not every individual election bears that out, as we saw last year. I'm not saying that the federal government is inherently any better than state or local authorities, but it is more likely to have the best interests of the most people in mind since more people have a say in its makeup.)

I'd like to thank Representative Amash for spending his time to conduct these town hall meetings. A lot of politicians pay lip service to the idea of listening to their constituents, but Amash is one of the few who actually does it on a regular basis.

Opposition, not Obstruction

I read a blog post by Robert Reich the other day calling for resistance to Donald Trump's agenda as President. It's disappointing that none of it included trying to work with the new administration.

Some of the points in that blog post are basically obstruction of government. Call your senator and representative and ask them not to cooperate with the administration. Make it difficult for immigration authorities to do their job. Is this really what being an opposition party is about now? Yes, I realize Republicans have done similar things during the Obama presidency, but that doesn't make it the right way to conduct the affairs of government.

I agree with very little of Trump's agenda, or the way he does business. So I understand why Reich and other liberal voices are calling for opposition. That blog post also includes some good opposition concepts, like (peacefully) protesting or expressing your views through letters and social media. But obstruction tactics are just a way to keep anything from being done, and the more they're used, the more likely they'll continue to be used when the balance of power shifts back.

What the political opposition voices need to be calling for is looking for ways to positively influence the Trump administration via compromise. There will be policies and legislation enacted that we don't agree with, that's a given. There will be a repeal of at least part of Obamacare, and there will be tax cuts that favor the rich. With Republican control of both Congress and the Presidency, those kind of changes aren't avoidable.

However, the Republicans are no more united now than the Democrats were back when they had control of Congress and the Presidency. If the leaders aren't willing to make compromises, then they won't get far since their own party isn't united. Democrats willing to work with the administration and congressional leadership will be able to find ways to include compromise positions. It won't be easy - nothing in politics is - but I'd rather see something done over trying to simply block everything.

Election Postmortem

2016, the year that British voters did something incredibly stupid, and then the United States electorate went and topped it. Brexit may end up being only the second-worst thing to happen in politics this year. You're welcome, Great Britain.

In January, there's going to be a President Trump. I'm unhappy for all the reasons I stated back in March, but nonetheless I have it pretty good. As a white, male, straight, Christian, upper-middle-class US citizen, most of what Trump has been saying he'll do won't negatively affect me (at least not directly). The unhappiness comes from caring about what happens to people who don't share those same attributes.

I checked the election results as posted on Michigan Radio and the Kent County website. Not counting the unopposed races, all but one person that I voted for lost their race. (That one was Lisa Posthumus Lyons, for County Clerk. I know she has lots of government experience since she was my state representative until recently, which I'd rather have than ideological agreement when it comes to a Clerk position.) The presidential result was a surprise since Michigan almost always votes Democrat in state-wide races, but everything else was pretty much as I expected.

Nevertheless, after each election it's a good idea to be optimistic, no matter who won. So, some good things about yesterday's results:

• Both houses of Congress and the President will be controlled by the same party for the first time since 2010. While I'm not naive enough to think that will end Congressional gridlock (especially since Republicans don't have 60 Senate seats), I do have hope that at least it'll be easier to get something done.
• We'll get a ninth Supreme Court Justice again. I know, that would have happened no matter who won, but I think it's worth mentioning. Being in a sort of judicial limbo while the Senate refused to even consider a new justice isn't sustainable. I can practically guarantee that I won't agree with whoever President Trump nominates, but at least the system will be moving again.
• Mike Pence is likely to have more power than many vice presidents, perhaps even to the level of Dick Cheney. Donald Trump likes to promise big things, and be the face of his organization, but then let his staff do the work to deliver. Now, I don't agree with many of Pence's positions, but I do think that he knows how to do the job of a chief executive, as he did in Indiana. I think it's likely that Pence will keep the executive-branch machine running even if President Trump tosses a lot of wrenches into the works.
• We're probably going to see the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. I've supported the ACA because it was better than doing nothing for the uninsured, but that doesn't make it good. What we really need is a health care system that minimizes the profit motive, and the ACA did nothing on that front. That won't happen with the Republicans in power, I know, but the failure of the ACA is a first step. I'm hopeful that it will lead to a better chance for real change the next time health care reform is attempted, instead of just trying to build on the broken system.
• I'm glad Justin Amash was re-elected as my representative in the House of Representatives, even if I didn't actually vote for him. We don't share a lot in the way of policy positions, but I respect the way he executes his position.
• At the local level, both the John Ball Zoo and the Kent County 9-1-1 system upgrade proposals passed. Good news for local safety and culture.

Yeah, I know, that's not exactly a lot of positives, but I'll take what I can get. Yesterday I said that I was voting for Clinton in hopes that she would "not do any major damage to international relations or the economy." Now I'll have to hope that Congress slows down President Trump's crazier ideas to limit the damage.

Finally! Election Day Tomorrow

It's about time. Just one more day of ridiculous numbers of ads, yard signs, flyers in the mail, and media coverage of every little thing any candidate says or does. (OK, that last one isn't going away, but it should at least slow down.)

I'll do both, thanks.

Everyone and his dog is talking about the presidential election, of course. I'm voting for Clinton, for reasons stated months ago. Nothing has changed, no matter what the frantic media coverage wants you to believe. I'm not particularly happy about it, though voting for the (hopefully) first female President is kinda cool. Mostly, I'm voting in the hope that she can keep US politics from getting any worse for now, and not do any major damage to international relations or the economy. All the other candidates (including the third party folks) are practically promising to do their best to inflict major damage to one or both of those areas.

Enough about that, what about everything else on the ballot? My district has one other federal race, for US Representative, which is a shoo-in for Justin Amash. I agree with him on practically nothing in terms of policy, but I do like the way he conducts his business. Still, I'll probably vote for the Democrat, though it doesn't really matter how I vote. Due to the way my district is drawn, Amash is going to win regardless.

We also have a State Representative race, with no incumbent due to term limits. I plan to vote for Lynn Mason, although I'd be shocked if she won. Again, the district is drawn to be very safe for Republicans.

The rest of the state-level races are about education, and to be honest I know very little about any of the people running. I did some quick looks around their websites and Internet searches, but for the most part they all say much the same things about putting the students first, supporting teachers, etc. The few differences break almost exactly along party lines. Examples: the Republicans support increased local control and more charter schools, the Democrats want the state setting standards and focusing on improving public schools, and the third parties seem to mostly want to abolish large parts of the system. I'm going to end up voting straight Democratic, I think, simply because I believe that as a general rule the Democratic positions on education lead to more equitable availability of education to all citizens.

Then we get to the local level, with 10 different county and township races, many of which have only one name listed on the ballot. (Republican, of course.) Very little information about any of these people beyond the basic "I support community and families" stuff that every politician says. Where there is a choice, I'm going to vote for whichever name I have not seen on any yard signs or in my mailbox, on the general principle that the names plastered all over the place are more annoying. I expect that 99% of the responsibilities in these jobs could be executed by any competent human that actually qualified to be on the ballot, so it's not going to matter a whole lot either way.

After this, there are 10 "non-partisan" races, which is a bald-faced lie. I've been seeing ads for the Michigan Supreme Court races, for instance, featuring the two Republican candidates. The party affiliation may not be listed on the ballot, but it's certainly still part of the races. Several of these races also have only one choice listed. I would much rather not vote for judges at all - the federal appointment system seems much smarter - but it's on the ballot. Finding information that actually distinguishes one candidate from another is nigh impossible for a layman like me - they all seem to have experience, and all claim to support the law/community/etc. I think I'll go with the same "vote for whoever annoyed me the least with constant ads" method as mentioned above.

Finally, we have two proposals. The first is an increase in property tax to support the John Ball Zoo, both the primary campus and educational outreach programs, which I will absolutely support. (Despite the fact that the zoo has their own set of annoying ads around town. Not the fault of the animals or school kids.) The second is for an enhanced 9-1-1 service, paid for with an extra charge on "communication service suppliers' billings" (basically, phone bills). I'll support that one, too, on the general principle that skimping on things like emergency services tends to come back to bite you later on.

I signed up to get my flu shot tomorrow, so I can take care of two necessary but mildly painful things in one trip. Doctor's office, then the polling station, then home to read or play video games or stream some TV show...anything but watch election coverage.