Scarlet Letters

While the #metoo movement is an encouraging sign of cultural and social enlightenment, it comes with a price.

Women gain support from sharing with each other, and the rest of us, stories of inappropriate sexual treatment by men, but this naming and shaming has consequences. Certainly, the world should know about those who have committed crimes, those whose abusing patterns are continuing, and the institutions that have enabled them: Weinstein, Cosby, Fox, etc. But this is a spectrum, and there is what’s happening at the other end of it that bothers me. These days, as soon as an accusation comes out, some men feel compelled to quit their jobs, if the institutions they work with haven’t already fired them, for behavior that happened in previous decades. Once a woman has put this label on a man publicly, it is indelible. There is no washing it off. Bankers and investment professionals who have taken millions from clients through theft or neglect, or even misapplied principles, largely remain in their posts. But a man accused of a sexual misdeed is toast, pure and simple.

Thanks to Nathaniel Hawthorne, I have a billion-dollar idea, if someone modern hasn’t already thought of it: a line of T-shirts for men with a big red “A” on the chest (yes, the A can be for a*hole or whatever other definition applies). Women can send these to their abusers. In the case of crimes, the men can be compelled by courts to wear them. Since we’re in the cold months now, we can add sweaters to the clothing line. The question is, do the men ever get to take them off? Is reform or redemption possible, or is it, once an a*hole, always an a*hole?

Look, I am not trying to defend bad behavior here. But there is something very French-Revolutionary these days about how easy it is to turn heroes (or the once-admired) into villains. What’s being done, at least in some cases IMHO, is creating a second set of victims where there was just one, providing little or no healing for either.

And it’s far from over. We haven’t even gotten to those at the “knew or should have known” level. We’ll leave that to the lawyers, I guess.

Us Too?

The outing by women of men behaving badly didn’t start with Harvey Weinstein, but that seems to have been the final chink in the dam to break. Now, with campaigns like #me too, women are sharing information about their unwanted sexual encounters with men. With the modern women’s movement reaching half a century old, why is this just happening now?

As with slavery, the dominoes don’t fall all at once, it takes time. And these days, women talk to each other about many things. The ability to share through social media reminds them that they are not alone, that they have power in numbers, and that even he most difficult barrier – their own shame – can be overcome.

There is something very American, though, about our reaction to sexual misconduct. Those accused of it face a lot more than simple embarrassment. It doesn’t matter how smart the men are or what they contribute to our culture. It’s like they must be erased from the Earth, stripped of jobs, honors, and even our consciousness. In some cases, the offenses happened decades ago. No matter. Sex crimes earn placement in a special circle of hell.

But the media love these stories. And with the drumbeat getting louder, it seems like all straight men are pigs. Of course we aren't. But how many of us can say we have NEVER acted like one in our encounters with the opposite gender? Maybe our sins weren’t as egregious as those of the Weinsteins or the O’Reillys – but still crossed a line. Do we have to say, us too?

That line can be a blurry one, but for many, religion makes it bright and clear. Mike Pence won’t have a meal with a single woman outside of the presence of his wife. President Jimmy Carter confessed that he had “lust in his heart.”  (The mystery is, how the current occupant of the White House got a pass).

Sexuality is part of being human. It is not evil in itself – it’s all about what we do with it. Can a man appreciate a woman’s beauty (perhaps silently, to himself) without having to own it or control it, or let it interfere with work, or allow it to become so dominant a note in their relationship that simple respect is ignored? Civility is a big word now, and this is one of those fundamental forms of it that we seem to be losing of late. 

The Big Word These Days Is Empathy

My dictionary defines empathy as the capacity to participate in another’s feelings or ideas. It’s not just the President. We are all being judged on whether we have this ability or not. Is it a gift, or a skill, or both? There’s no question that for some people – far too few – it is a gift. They can read both minds and hearts. We have all run across such people in our lives and appreciate them.

I am not an empath. I don’t always feel another’s pain, or joy. That’s simply a chip I wasn’t shipped with. But I like to think that I’ve developed some awareness of others’ feelings over time, usually the hard way, after awkwardly stepping on a toe or two. I may not have come with the chip, but I’ve been gradually downloading the software.

As a journalist, I learned that it was expected of me to be aware of and reflect the feelings and thoughts of those I was covering, even if they weren’t my own. With some issues, if I didn’t have the awareness, it was useful to be working in the newsroom with others who did.

Our President has demonstrated on many occasions that he has a tin ear. But is it solid tin? The empathy definition we started with, about participating in others’ thoughts or feelings, is only the second listed in my old Webster’s dictionary. The first is this: “the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it.” Wow. Well, he did manage to get himself elected, didn’t he? With a little help from those who make it their business to know something about human nature.

No Magic Bullet

If you’ve been a news junkie for more than five minutes, you are used to the fact that every kind of breaking story has a cycle. Mass shootings are perfect examples. The shooting itself, the body count, the cops taking out the suspect (if the suspect doesn’t save them the trouble), the shocked survivors, the teary families, the heroes, the shooter’s bio and the search for a motive – and the inevitable brief gun control debate. And then, nothing, as our short attention spans move on to something else – until it all happens again. Why do we keep seeing this movie?

The gun control debate itself has its own cycle. “Why do people need to own semi-automatic weapons? The writers of the Second Amendment didn’t know about modern firearms.” “But most gun owners are responsible, and gun laws can’t keep up with technology. Crazies will always find a way, and if the people in the crowd were armed, they could shoot back!”  In the case of Las Vegas, there has been one new step, the general agreement that bump stocks should be banned. Did you even know what that was a month ago?

“Control” is a dirty word, but we accept it in most aspects of life. Let’s take cars. We require licenses to drive them. To be “street legal,” vehicles must meet certain standards. There are rules of the road, and though cars and trucks are capable of high speed, we are not allowed to drive them to that limit on a public highway, only a race track. We have to carry insurance for them. Why is gun regulation so different?

You’ve heard the argument that if you want to control guns, you have to change the culture, our Wild West heritage. It’s impossible, many believe, to make guns unpopular here. But we have managed to do this with smoking -- after many decades.

Gun control is NOT about banning guns. That will never work. But there are things that can be done. They are not easy, and likely expensive. First, a massive federal buy-back program. That approach worked in Australia. Next, we do what we did with tobacco, tax the hell out of it. Every gun sale. Every bullet, perhaps with the money going to shooting victims and their families. How about a database that flags individuals who try to buy multiple assault weapons?

Then there’s media’s role. Not just news coverage and talk shows – Hollywood too. How are we covering shootings or portraying the use of guns?

This stool has way more than three legs and making the changes will take many small bits of legislation over time, perhaps by new generations with new things to think about. This is another monument we have to pull down, and it’s a heavy one indeed.

The 2x4 Message

Once in a great while, we find that the time for talk is over, and the time for action arrives. As ineffective as it was from a military standpoint, the attack on the Syrian air base in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons, apparently by the Assad regime, was necessary.

Over the years, I have become tired of all the arguments why we couldn’t do anything about Syria. Here are just a few:

1.    It’s too complicated.

2.    It’s none of our business.

3.    It’s too expensive.

4.    It’s just Iraq all over again.

5.    It’s unconstitutional.

6.    We did nothing in Rwanda while hundreds of thousands died.

7.    It’s supposed to be about ISIS.

8.    Assad’s awful, but it would be worse without him.

9.    We’ll piss off Russia and Iran…and the latest,

10. Trump did it to appear decisive and un-Obama-ish.

But we have been living with the price of non-involvement for six years now, and the Assad regime has only become stronger, with a little help from its friends.  Meanwhile, we have the worst refugee crisis since World War II. I can’t tell you how many nights on CNN were consumed years ago with reports about Assad’s army shelling civilian populations, with the world saying, “Ain’t that a shame?”

Sometimes, the military “messages” we send accomplish little on the ground, but the fact that we send them shows that we’re paying attention. Maybe it’s the 2x4 blow on the noggin that the stakeholders in the region need and even expect from us. It’s often the only language they understand. Syria is a terrible, complicated, bloody mess, but the world will sort it out eventually, simply because we will realize there is no other choice.

Stop Calling It Obamacare

That’s the name we have all given to the admittedly flawed health care law, more officially known as the Affordable Care Act (not much better!). We don’t call Social Security “Roosecurity” or the Emancipation Proclamation “LincolnProc.” Why this insistence on giving important laws or orders people’s names, anyway? Like, “Megan’s Law.” It doesn’t add or detract from their legal effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, as the case may be.

In their failed attempt to get new legislation on the books, the Republicans in the House were undoubtedly motivated, at least in part, by a desire to erase a law that bore Obama’s name, to blot it out of history. But at what point does this issue stop being his or theirs, and become ours?

It’s true that President Obama put the first points on the board, to use a March Madness term, for the team seeking an inclusive national health care system. It’s not pretty, but it’s there, and the game is far from over. Let’s remember that he and other supporters tried to build this complicated and arcane law using the current private structure as much as possible. It will be hard to fix, but at least we have to try. There’s a lot of mourning or gloating about broken campaign promises today. So what else is new?

I am no policy wonk, but first we have to decide whether health care is a right or a privilege. I think in the end, it’s a mixture of both.

Another thing we have to work out is whether people should be required to buy health insurance. Well, in most cases, the law requires you to carry insurance before you get into a car and drive it on the highway. Sure, you have a choice, you can decide not to drive. But if you’re alive in this country, you have a body – a vehicle on the highway, so to speak – and it may be OK now, but you could wake up one day with a life-threatening illness. Then you get to go to the emergency room. In principle, you should do the rest of us a favor and just die – but that’s not how things work.

I am a senior now with no children. Why do I have to pay property tax to support public schools? Well, the theory is that an educated citizenry is something we all have an investment in. Whether our schools accomplish that goal is a separate issue, something we have to try to fix.

Some say we should leave heath care to the free market as much as possible. Then, we would be left to the tender mercies of the insurance industry. How do we think that’s going to work for us? Should we leave health care to the states to regulate? Should employers be required to offer health insurance at all? We have to find the answers. I think we can.

Our current president, as a CNN commentator pointed out, seemed to be acting like a fire chief watching a building burn down, preferring to let it burn because he didn’t start the fire, and the charred remains will make his arguments for him. But he likes to put his name on things. Perhaps that will move him to put it on something that really works, or at least works better, regardless of whose name was on it before.

Donald, Bar the Door?

 As expected, feared or cheered, President Trump has signed an executive order imposing a four-month moratorium on refugees coming into the United States, with Syrian refugees in particular banned indefinitely. General entry from seven Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East is banned for 90 days until an enhanced screening program is put in place. The goal is to keep radical Islamic terrorists from entering and gaining a foothold here to carry out attacks.

Let me be clear: I do not have a problem with the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” or even enhancing the vetting process where needed. For Syrians in particular, however, the process was already daunting. Sadly, those in the final stages of this process now have the door slammed in their faces. And the discriminatory nature of the President’s order is right out there, as other Muslim nations in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are conveniently not on the “banned” list. Plus, an exception is to be made for Christian refugees.

I well understand that we can’t let in just everybody. But we never have. More often than not, we have discriminated. Many Jews fleeing the Nazis were not admitted during World War II, as an example. And it works in reverse: those with special skills considered necessary to our economy have always been welcomed. Adult male Irish immigrants who came during the Civil War were paid a nice bounty to join the Union Army almost as soon as they got off the boat. Lady Liberty may welcome the tired and poor, but is that what we really do?

As I have said many times, the U.S. and the West are almost complicit in the Syrian crisis. We shook our heads and said, “Ain’t that a shame?” when the Assad regime began murdering civilians using its own military. Even after President Obama’s infamous “red line” declaration when the regime was said to be using chemical weapons, we let Russia take charge – and take advantage of the situation to expand its influence. As wistful as many of us have been over the end of the Obama administration, our non-involvement in Syria remains a policy failure of cataclysmic proportions. The very existence of ISIS is a symptom.

Many of those who stand in crowds shouting “USA” and call for the building of walls conveniently forget that their American citizenship is a total accident of nature. Most of us just happened to be born here. We didn’t have to flee anything. Our ancestors were the ones who did the hard work. Not that living here is a picnic for everyone, but if we were born here, we all got free passes that we didn’t earn, and the oceans on either side of us have provided a convenient bubble for non-involvement in the rest of the world’s troubles.

What it boils down to, though, is that we each have to decide as Americans if President Trump is speaking for us with this executive order. He isn’t for me.

When Fail-Safe Fails

So how DID we get here, and where are we going now?

It’s almost impossible to absorb, in this age of instant communication and information abundance, that a confluence of events could have produced one of the most unpopular US presidents in 200 years. To me, it’s almost like what happens in a meltdown at a nuclear power plant. These facilities are fitted with layers of redundant fail-safe technologies to prevent such things from happening. But then, a collection of circumstances comes along which causes all of them to fail. We might call it an accident. But is it really? When we go back and review those circumstances, we find the culprit, or culprits.

The big one, in my view, is the whole system of elections. In the case of a presidential race, the process takes two years, and involves raising, and spending, billions of dollars. Because we allow every state to choose party nominees in their own ways, the rules are almost impossible to comprehend. Some have primaries, some have caucuses. In some the primaries are so-called beauty contests that don’t count, in others they do. In some, candidates have to win by congressional district. The process of even registering to vote varies by state. At the end of the process, after the national vote on the real Election Day, there is the Electoral College, which ensures that your vote and mine do not really count equally after all. Why do we tolerate this mess? A lot of it has to do with tradition. We’ve done it this way because it seems like we always have. Is that a good enough reason not to change it? Our Founding Fathers accepted the need for change. Even our sacred Constitution can be amended.

Of course, that’s not the whole story of what produced Donald Trump. What was the media’s role? It’s clear he got a disproportionate amount of attention. But did we have to have so many debates? And what about us media consumers? Was it just more reality TV for us, a different kind of American Idol? Come on, I saw some of you eating popcorn.

How did Hillary Clinton lose? Was it all down to FBI director James Comey? Was it the Russians? I wasn’t necessarily a Bernie Sanders fan, but the Democratic Party leadership did what it could to sabotage his campaign in favor of Hillary. The party got what it deserved.

Was it the elites versus the little guys? The 1 percent versus the 99? Immigrants versus native-born? Christians against Muslims? The coastals versus the flyovers? Or are many American voters just plain stupid? I submit that they are not. Most of us were blessed with a relatively equal number of brain cells. In too many cases, though, they go unused out of fear of letting in too much disruptive information. We have the technology to communicate, but we have clearly lost the art of it. And unless we find it again, there will be another Civil War, this time, a social one.

As to protests, I am all for them, but amassing a crowd, listening to speeches and wearing pink hats are only the beginning steps. There are a lot of things that need fixing now, and we have to save some energy for the long term, because many of the repairs are going to require courage, stamina, savvy – and open minds.