Trumpism and the Friend-Enemy Distinction

So I read this insightful article by Mark S. Weiner – Climate Change Denial as the Historical Consciousness of Trumpism: Lessons From Carl Schmitt

Sure, I was interested in the particular systematic and/or philosophical reasons for climate change denial within Trumpism.  More than that though, I was interested in hearing his take on “historical consciousness” and Trump.  To what is the administration referring with the tagline “Make America Great Again”?  To what historical moment and/or narrative do they point?

Early in the article, the author argues for an awareness of the philosophy and ideologies undergirding Trumpism.  Buried beneath an avalanche of Tweets, he argues, is a set of philosophical convictions that must be acknowledged and understood.  To do nothing more than ridicule Trumpism is “mistaken and self-defeating” and “a signal of our own intellectual weakness.”

Truth be told, I don’t get this “substance below the surface” sentiment from Trump.  I don't think there's anything there.  But I do get it from, say, Steve Bannon.  He’s a dangerously smart guy.  Listen to this interview on The Daily. 

But back to the article.  I got to this part:

According to Schmitt, a political community arises when its members coalesce around some aspect of their common existence. On this basis, they distinguish between their “friends” and “enemies,” the latter of whom they are ultimately prepared to fight and kill to defend their way of life.

A political community, that is, is created through an animating sense of common identity and existential threat—indeed, that’s how “the political” as a fundamental sphere of human value comes into being, and how it provides the cultural foundation of sovereignty and the state for a community of equals. 

Schmitt believes that this pugilistic view of politics rings true as a conceptual matter, but he also regards drawing the friend-enemy distinction as a quasi-theological duty and part of what it means to be fully human. 

Without the friend-enemy distinction, he argues, political life would vanish, and without it something essential to humanity would vanish, too—human existence would be reduced to mere private hedonism. This gives Schmittianism, like the Bannon-affiliated elements of Trumpism, a family affinity to traditionalism in Russia—a link highlighted by Bannon’s discussion of the traditionalist underpinnings of Eurasianism in his 2014 remarks to a gathering of the Human Dignity Institute. 

One could equally express the Schmittian worldview in more theologically positive terms, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, as a politics based on love. For Schmitt, the political is founded on the essential mutual regard of community members for what they share beneath their surface-level differences. That recognition justifies the state’s demand that citizens be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in its name, and for Schmitt it forms the philosophical precondition of law itself. 

(bold italics mine)

It’s goes like this.  A political community requires a common identity to exist, something that it’s members share beneath their surface-level differences.  Absolutely fundamental to this identity is the friend-enemy distinction.  To lose this distinction is to lose something essential to human existence.  In what way?  The friend-enemy distinction and the conflict that inevitably follows is necessary both to create the construct of “sovereignty” and to avoid private hedonism.  Conflict is woven into the very fabric of existence.  There must be an in-group and there must be an out-group.  This is in no small part because the friend-enemy distinction provides an “other” by which and to which the community can point to an existential threat.  This existential threat, this shared fear, provides no small portion of the purposes for which the community exists.  The existential threat strengthens the belonging.  Without the friend-enemy distinction, something essential to humanity would vanish.  

This is very useful lens through which to view Trumpism.

We see the campaigning on hatred and fear of the immigrant and the Muslim.  It explains the twitter tirades, the stunning amount of blatant lies, the minimization of the state department, and the policy-of-withdrawal.  The only possible “peace” in such a worldview is an absence of immediate military conflict that comes through endless preparation for war, a peace brokered by highly militarized nations equipped to wipe each other out hundreds of times over.  Aspects of what is referred to as “globalism” threaten the entire meaning making apparatus, not just for tangible economic reasons but because we have no “other” to provide the existential threat, the shared fear, that promises to unify.  Because if we are truly all in this together, the ultimacy and necessity of the friend-enemy distinction is a lie. 

The identity of a group comes primarily from “us” not being “them”.  Whoever they are.

It’s at this point that I realized that this is not just a Trumpism thing.  This is a human thing.  Trumpism may assume a particular way of defining the enemy – nationally (which is inevitably cultural/racial) -  but it’s become apparent to me that human society revolves around the need for an enemy to serve as a scapegoat.  Uniting around a shared victim brings "peace".  The thought of Rene Girard (filtered through others) has illuminated this for me.

The friend-enemy distinction leads to and is reinforced by contempt for the enemy.

This is not a new thing.  Again, Girard illuminates the scapegoat mechanism present and revealed in the Gospels.

We see that the hatred of Jesus temporarily dissolves the animosity between Pilate and Herod:

Even Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him.  Then, dressing him in elegant clothes, Herod sent him back to Pilate.  That very day Herod and Pilate became friends with each other, for prior to this they had been enemies.
--Luke 23-11-12

Or for a less appropriate, more contemporary, and more comical take, here is Jay Mohr on “similar hates”.

I'm increasingly recognizing that Trumpism can't be so easily dismissed just because of the actions & character of the man who heads it.  Trumpism is certainly a cult of personality but it is also more.  That's why it's dangerous.  It plays to the worst in us.

More than anything, it makes me want to explore the ways in which my Christian faith and the Gospel of Jesus counters and critiques this narrative and might visibly offer an alternative to the existential threat narrative that characterizes the friend-enemy framework so prevalent in our time.

Russia and the Syrian Refugee Crisis

Twice in the past few weeks, I’ve read commentary implying that Vladimir Putin orchestrated the Syrian refugee crisis as a means of destroying western Europe.

The 1st instance was in On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder: 

“In early 2016, Russia manufactured a moment of fake terror in Germany.  While bombing Syrian civilians and thus driving Muslim refugees to Europe, Russia exploited a family drama to instruct Germans that Muslims were rapists of children.  The aim, again, seems to have been to destabilize a democratic system and promote the parties of the extreme right.” (p 108)

And the 2nd was in the essay The Seven Trends behind the Global Rise of Populism by Iyad El-Baghdadi:

 “Opportunistic players such as Russia found the perfect conflict to exploit to destroy the “liberal world order” – cynically and skillfully using it to erode international norms in the name of “fighting terrorism”.  Putin couldn’t throw missiles at Europe – so he threw waves of Syrian refugees at them.” (7. The unravelling of the Middle-East)

The 1st instance caught my attention, but it was more tangential than direct.  Though it is alluded to, “orchestrated” might be too strong a word.  I moved on.  The 2nd instance, however, forced me to sit up and really take notice.  Can’t ignore it twice.

Orchestrating a refugee crisis.  That’s a strong claim that requires evidence.  Sifting through that evidence requires time and attention, a refusal to be drawn into the unending cycle of “breaking news”, a desire to hear competing points of view, and a willingness to go beyond quick “gotcha” talking points.

I’m not talking Think Tank level analysis here, but is it possible for a novice such as myself to separate fact and fiction?  Could some basic reading and thinking bring even a modest amount of clarity?  Or are there just too many opinions from too many experts?  Too many “alternative facts”?  Too little time.

Let me tell you, after going through this exercise I have great respect for the press.  It is not easy to sift through mountains of facts and to make sense of ambiguity and contradiction in an age when millions of people can fact check your work instantly.  On and off, it took me weeks to write all of this....and it's likely that nobody will ever read it.  Imagine doing this on a daily deadline in front of the critical eye of millions! Particularly with the rapid pace at which the news cycle moves, the whole thing is exhausting.

**********

Given Putin’s support of the Assad regime, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for Western voices to “blame Putin” for the Syrian refugee crisis.

“Blame Putin” could be understood only in the most general sense, as in “Putin shares the blame”.  Inflammatory perhaps, but nothing overly shocking.

The two citations above, however, imply something different than mere guilt by association.  Something immensely more malevolent.  They imply, more or less 1)the intentional creation of a refugee crisis that was 2) orchestrated under the guise of or in conjunction with fighting ISIS and was 3) intended to weaken or destroy western democracy in Europe and throughout the world.

Perhaps I’m naïve, but I found this to be a stunning claim.  A refugee crisis as the unwelcome collateral damage of geopolitical conflict is one thing, unspeakably tragic as it is.  But the creation of a refugee crisis as the means of fighting a geopolitical war?  It’s so dark and twisted, so inhumane, that it almost defies belief.

Is there any evidence to support such a claim?  What would that evidence look like?  Is such a claim unambiguous and irrefutable, or is it only supported via a complex web of conspiracy theory laden circumstantial evidence?

The relevant factors as I saw them:

(1)    Targeting of Civilians

It seems to me that any proof must go well beyond the well documented Russian support for the Assad regime. Proof of “weaponizing refugees” must first be proven by Russian actions towards civilian populations.  So that’s the first question.

Take this article in The Telegraph from March 2, 2016.


General Breedlove, Nato’s military commander in Europe at the time, said this back in 2016:

“Together, Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponising migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”

What evidence supports this assertion?

“Barrel bombs are designed to terrorize, get people out of their homes, get them on the road and make them someone else's problem. These indiscriminate weapons used by both Bashar al-Assad, and the non-precision use of weapons by the Russian forces, I can’t find any other reason for them other than to cause refugees to be on the move and make them someone else’s problem.”

So the evidence is the use of weapons in an indiscriminate way, a way that is best explained as an attempt to create migration.

Or take Senator John McCain’s comments per this article from The Independent:

“He [Mr. Putin] wants to exacerbate the refugee crisis and use it as a weapon to divide the transatlantic alliance and undermine the European project.”

As above, the evidence lies with a Russian air campaign that target civilians:

-The intensified air campaign follows accusations from Senator John McCain, chairman of the US Senate armed services committee, that Russian President Vladimir Putin was intentionally stoking the refugee crisis in order to undermine the European project.

Numerous examples could be given of different authorities making this same assertion using the same evidence.  Russia, of course, denies targeting civilian populations or stoking the refugee crisis in any way. Whatever air force they employ, as the story goes, is targeted solely at rebels hostile to the Assad regime.

Have civilian populations been intentionally targeted or not?  Are rebels hiding amongst these populations or not?

(2)    Failed Cease-Fire

There is also the matter of the failed Turkey and Russia brokered Aleppo cease fire in October of 2016.  The cease fire was designed to allow humanitarian aid in and to let civilians out. The rebels, however, never accepted the cease fire.  Fighting never really stopped, and air strikes recommenced on the 3rd day of the cease fire.  As far as it relates to the refugee crisis, Russia and the Syrian government said that the Rebels wouldn’t let civilians leave Aleppo.  The Rebels asserted that the civilians tried to leave, but shelling by government military forces caused their retreat back into rebel occupied territory.

What to make of this?

If Russia wanted to exacerbate the refugee crisis, why wouldn’t they let the civilians out of Aleppo?  Perhaps Russian and Syrian forces did shell the civilians because they feared that rebels were attempting to escape with the civilians.  Or perhaps the rebels truly wouldn’t let them leave…because they wanted civilians as human shields or for another reason.  A number of narratives can be strewn together that, absent the facts, can make sense of any position.  Bottom line, it’s complex.  The facts are hard to know.

(3)    Putin’s Criticism of Europe’s handling of the Migrant Crisis

Regardless of whether Putin intended the migrant crisis, has he weaponized it?  Has he used it to attack and subvert European democracy?

Take the following example of a case in Austria; the raping of a 10 year old Serbian boy at the hands of a 20 year old Iraqi migrant.  This is a horrible story.  The migrant claimed that the rape was an emergency because he hadn't had sex in 4 months.  He was ultimately set free because the courts couldn't prove that migrant realized that the boy was saying no.  The attacker remained in custody awaiting a second trial.  I don't know all the details.  Here, I want to try to focus exclusively on Putin’s decision to wade into European migrant policies on this particular point.

“In a European country, a child is raped by a migrant, and the courts release him.”

“It doesn’t fit into my head what on earth they’re thinking over there.”

“I can’t even explain the rationale – is it a sense of guilt before the migrants?  What’s going on?  It’s not clear.”

“A society that cannot defend its children has no future.”

This same article included some comments by Konstanti Romodanovsky, head of Russia’s Federal Migration Service.

“The European Commission left it up to individual nations to decide how they want to treat asylum seekers – despite the fact that polices and capabilities of member states are very different.”

The common thread?  Using these sort of incidents as a means to argue that European unity creates unsolvable problems of sovereignty and thus puts individual nations at risk.  He argues that unity is weakness.  What is “strength” in these contexts?  Are “alliances” on paper only, but when shit really hits the fan it’s dog eat dog, the strong against the weak?  “Why the façade!?”…argues Putin.  “Let me point out the inherent problems of your “generosity” towards immigrants….a generosity that is fake and nobody really wants, mind you,” he argues.

This is the great challenge.

It’s curious though.  Putin places great emphasis on the nationalism and the sovereignty of the nation state. More specifically, he is concerned with his nation state.  So we should therefore assume that his comments here can be best understood against that backdrop – they are intended to benefit him.  That is, the sovereignty and safety of European nations is of little concern to him. These comments are to benefit Russia and, ultimately, himself.  The only questions are how and why?

(4)    The Effect of the Migrant Crisis

To put it mildly, the refugee crisis has "put strains on the regions resources and political unity."

If the intent was to destabilize Europe and it's unity, it appears to be working.  Working towards what end?

"Instead, it continues to view the United States and NATO as a threat to its own security. Since the beginning of 2014, President Putin has sought to undermine the rules-based system of European security and attempted to maximize his power on the world stage," he (General Breedlove) said.

Spotlighting the effects doesn't prove that the cause (the refugee crisis) was intended, but it's worth noticing that the obvious effects have not appeared to dissuade Putin (or Assad) from changing course.  Quite the opposite.  As outlined above, the crisis has provided the occasion for Putin to verbally attack Europe and to publicly question it's foundations.

This doesn't prove intent, but it's effects and the words and actions that followed suggest complicity.

**********

If there is a “smoking gun” I didn’t find it.  There is no leaked Russian memo entitled “On the Creation of a Refugee Crisis Towards the Destruction of the European Project.”  Much of what I found is circumstantial and therefore requires a level of analysis that only those who make their living in these sorts of things are prepared to provide.

As I wrap this up, one more angle to consider.  One more quote from The Seven Trends behind the Global Rise of Populism:

“Perhaps more things are being put on bureaucratic auto-pilot not because of a plan but because of the lack of a plan. Maybe the “elites” are also winging it.”

The lack of a plan.  Maybe everyone is just winging it.

Tell Me How It Ends: An Essay in 40 Questions

I recently read Tell Me How It Ends: An Essay in 40 Questions by Valeria Luiselli.

The book is an intimate look at the child refugee crisis as framed through the 40 questions posed to these children upon their arrival in the United States.  It is not a whitepaper or book of detached logic.  It doesn’t present the problems and then propose clearly achievable solutions.  So my intent here is not to ‘review’ this heart-wrenching, desperate book.  This situation is a nightmare, and the author practically begs for the underlying issue to be seen and acknowledged.  That the author does not know how this story ends is simultaneously a call to action and a sobering fact.

A few quotes from the book:

"It is not even the American Dream that they pursue, but rather the more modest aspiration to wake up from the nightmare into which they were born."

"In varying degrees, some papers and webpages announce the arrival of undocumented children like a biblical plague. Beware the locusts."

"No, we do not find inspiration here, but we find a country that is as beautiful as it is broken, and we are somehow now part of it, so we are also broken with it, and feel ashamed, confused, and sometimes hopeless, and are trying to figure out how to do something about all that."

"The political response to the crisis, therefore, has always centered on one question, which is more or less: What do we do with all these children now? Or, in blunter terms: How do we get rid of them or dissuade them from coming?"

"How would anyone who is stigmatized as an “illegal immigrant” feel “safe” and “happy”?"

"No one suggests that the causes are deeply embedded in our shared hemispheric history and are therefore not some distant problem in a foreign country that no one can locate on a map, but in fact a trans national problem that includes the United States—not as a distant observer or passive victim that must now deal with thousands of unwanted children arriving at the southern border, but rather as an active historical participant in the circumstances that generated that problem."

"To refer to the situation as a hemispheric war would be a step forward because it would oblige us to rethink the very language surrounding the problem and, in doing so, imagine potential directions for combined policies."

A Tale of Two Tweets (On Violence and Forgiveness)

This past Sunday morning, I woke up to the following two tweets right next to one another in my feed:

The first relates directly to the prior day’s attack in London:

@rcallimachi

10. Chilling testimony from eyewitness who says he saw assailants stabbing a girl, while screaming, “This is for Allah.”

And this followed:

@brianzahnd

Violence breeds violence.

Only forgiveness offers an alternative.

I know must don’t believe this but…

It is what Jesus lived and taught.

And it is what God has vindicated in…

Resurrection

**********

The degree and nature of the dialogue between the content of these two tweets is, I think, of the utmost importance.  In an age where our world’s imagination for destruction and ever more deadly weapons seems to shape our vision of the future, I don’t think it an exaggeration to say that it determines our future.

How do we hear this 2^nd tweet?

• As irrelevant religious blather?  Or as pointing towards the most relevant speech of all?
• As fundamentally mistaken and flat-out theologically wrong?  Or as the truth at the heart of reality?
• As cowardly, destructive, and leading inexorably to the deaths of the innocent?  Or as the courageous means to new life?
• As weak?  Or as strong?
• As luxury?  Or as necessity?
• As perpetuating the cycle of violence?  Or as breaking the cycle of violence?
• As hopelessly naïve, the result of privilege and distance from the death and suffering?  Or as sober and costly solidarity with the death and suffering in the world?
• As indifference and “doing nothing”?  Or as the means whereby an active and potent moral imagination is ignited?
• Which one "takes terrorism seriously"?

Some Ways to Discern Real/Fake News per Science Mike (The Liturgists)…..and #3 will shock you!!

Another great episode by The Liturgists.  Below is Science Mike’s methodology (paraphrased) for testing news claims as told on the Liturgists recent episode: Fake News & Media Literacy (starting at about the 16 minute mark).

1 – Legitimate news media will name the author and contributors to any post or article that they publish to create accountability.

If there is no author listed, lower the confidence that you put in the quality of the article and/or the truthfulness of it’s claims.

2 – Where was this published? 

Have you ever heard of this publishing institution or organization?  (Not to say that you’ve heard of every legitimate outlet, but do your due diligence.)

Do they have an editorial review board that holds journalists and authors accountable for the words they write?

Does this institution publish corrections, retractions, or letters to the editors?

Is there some means for the readership to publicly hold the institution accountable?

Who owns the publication?

3 – Date of publication?

Fake news generally doesn’t put a date of publication, so people often won’t realize how long the story has been out.

Fake news will often massage the language to make it appear as if it’s happening today.

4 – Trustworthy media cites specific sources.

It names names, names specific organizations, studies, etc.

Are the specific sources named or unnamed?  Must understand that you cannot fully substantiate news that comes from unnamed sources.  Stay alert, but don’t draw conclusions or take specific actions.

Does a news article state that “studies say” without citing a specific study or institution?  If that's the case, dig deeper.

Note that statistics/charts/graphs can be used selectively (though not necessarily inaccurately) to support a narrative.  Example, compressing (or expanding) a statistical time frame to illustrate the degree to which something has increased or decreased over time.

5 – Is the article well-written?

Typos, grammar mistakes, poor punctuation, and ALL-CAPS are huge red flags that you’re not dealing with trustworthy content.

*6 – Does anything in the piece make me angry or afraid?

Be aware that emotions aren’t good for analytical decision making and of your own propensity for confirmation bias.

Be aware of the capitalistic drive for media to create and profit from confirmation bias, sensationalism, and emotion.  In these cases, there is an obligation to dig deeper before accepting or sharing information.

Be aware of genre (e.g. satire!)

And if this is too much to remember, listen to Mike's rap at the end of the episode (lyrics here).  Brilliant.

“The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil”, Memorials, and the Eucharist (3) - Violent Ways

This is the 3rd post in this series of reflections on the satirical novella The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil by George Saunders.

The 1st post reflected on the final pages of the story, the intervention of the creator, the creation of a new people, the placement of the statue of Phil, and that statue's subsequent disappearance from the collective memory of the New Hornerites.

The 2nd post reflected on memorials and how, seemingly by definition, they don't address the shameful parts of a collective's history.  Is that a good thing?

In this 3rd post, I'd like to make some connections to the Eucharist in light of the 1st two posts.

To do this, I'm going to pull some thoughts from a series of meditations on the Eucharist written by Michael Hardin.  I encourage you to read this before going any further.

----------

It's impossible to proceed through Hardin's meditations about the Eucharist and the events of The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil without, in clear-eyed clarity, saying what it is that happened at the end of the story.

In short, through clever rhetoric, demagoguery, twisted "truth", and a fundamental malice, Phil was able to scapegoat a neighboring group of people - a people not very unlike themselves - as the reasons for their problems.  The Inner Hornerites were rounded up, stripped naked and humiliated, taxed until they had nothing, imprisoned, and then killed because their death was thought to be the means by which prosperity and fundamental order could be restored to the land.  Ultimately, Phil accomplished this at the intersection of the power of the state, the approval of it's people, and with the supposed blessing of Almighty God.

So let me just say again, this remembrance that the memorial might activate within the collective consciousness isn't something that any of them would likely feel good about remembering.

For Hardin, the same thing is true about the Eucharist.  Even as we recognize that it's not the end, we should not bypass the darkness of the thing:

"In breaking the bread we confess we are all persecutors, that had we been there, we would have crucified Jesus. We do not come to this meal with clean hands and pure hearts. We come to it frothing at the mouth, demanding a sacrifice that will take away our personal and social angst, violence and fear. We break bread, we confess we are murderers. This is the point. We are the mob, or in religious language, we are all sinners."

"We are God’s persecutors. None of us can escape this. We must acknowledge that had we been there we would have joined the angry mob, or we would have sought to force Jesus to act with violence (Judas) or we would have denied having ever known Jesus for fear of reprisal (Peter). We would have been the ones to stand in judgment, righteous judgment against Jesus, the law breaker."

"This meal breaks down all illusions of good and bad, sin and holiness. In this meal we are all going to get our hands bloody. We are those who would scapegoat the “other“ who is different, we seek our differentiation in the “other.“ The process of “removing“ sin is antithetical to this meal for this meal is all about sin, in fact one might be so bold to say that it is the ultimate act of sin in which we shall ever participate for in this meal we are standing there as the mob that rejects Jesus, that falsely accuses him, that blasphemes against him and we are the ones who drive the nails into his hands and feet. The old spiritual “Were you there when they crucified my Lord?” must be answered in the positive when we come forward to share in this meal for that is exactly what we are doing by participating in it. The Eucharist is Good Friday over and over again, a ritual repetition intended to drive something home, to drive something so deep into our the fabric of our being that we cannot remain unchanged. That something is all the blood on our hands from those relationships we have destroyed with our thoughts, our actions and our words. The Eucharist is not just about breaking bread, it is the complete and total recognition that in harming the “other,“ we are breaking bad."

First is a revealing.  As we reflect on the narrative behind it, the Eucharist exposes what we have done.  It recounts how the principalities and powers, the combination of church and state, conspired to kill Jesus as the crowds looked on.  It is a revealing of the violence that is at the heart of our culture.  It is we who imagined the cross, and we demand it's violence.

So this isn't just a sort of pious and reluctant "I'm a sinner, having broken the rules."  Rather:

"It meets us in the darkest places in our souls, the place where we would consign “the other“ to an eternal hellfire or a life of hell."

We need to dwell here for a moment, but not for too long because it is not the end.  We move through it to a message that speaks a better word.

continued

“The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil”, Memorials, and the Eucharist (2) - Memorials of Shame

The 1^st post in this series recounted and reflected on the story of the Inner and Outer Hornerites of George Saunders’ satirical novella, The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil.  I concluded the post in the same way that the book itself concludes; by pondering both the purpose of the statue of Phil and it’s disappearance from the collective conscience of New Horner.

Now, I don’t want to overanalyze the story as written or to read into it things that are not really there, but I think the following question is worth asking.  Why did the Creator – whose literal hands came down out of the heavens to “redeem” the Inner and Outer Hornerites from the mess of their division - leave the citizens with a statue of PHIL. MONSTER??  It certainly isn’t an arbitrarily chosen narrative device.

I'd like to reflect on this by way of a bold and courageous blog post by Richard Beck entitled America's Holocaust over at his blog, Experimental Theology.  I highly recommend giving it a slow, meditative read.

It's a post about national shame.  More specifically, it's about the ways that countries deal or don’t deal with the shameful parts of their history.

Beck talks about a recent trip to Germany and how "a national reckoning with the Holocaust had been and is being attempted."  He points to the memorial to Holocaust victims that's situated right smack in the middle of Berlin, the Topography of Terror Museum, and guided tours through the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

Why not tear that Concentration Camp down?  Why does it still stand?  Why is it illegal to fly the Nazi flag in Germany?  Unlike the Confederate Flag, why is consideration of the Nazi flag as a "cultural artifact" an impossibility?

What sort of things had to happen in the world at large and, perhaps more importantly, in the minds and hearts of the German people themselves in order to take the steps to memorialize their shame?

Nearly all of the time, Beck observes, our memorials are about pride.  They celebrate our successes, generosity, exceptionalism, and sacrifice but never our failures, theft, or those who we've sacrificed on the alters of “progress”.

It's interesting, he points out, that the United States has memorials to the Holocaust in nearly every major US city - memorials to the crimes committed by another country and to which the United States played a role in stopping - but not to any of our own Holocausts.

"What American Holocausts?!" you say.  

Where is the memorial to Transatlantic Slave Trade?  Where is the memorial to the lives lost in the Middle Passage?  How many within our borders even know what either of these are?  We memorialize their bravery and courage via our sports mascots, but where is the memorial to Native American genocide?

Our memorials to the slave trade and to the middle passage best take form in Black History Month or the Martin Luther King Jr memorial.  That is, we've managed to turn these things into symbols of national pride and progress.  They console us.

But we don't like memorials to our shame.  Those sorts of memorials "give us the creeps".

We need to hear this, even if it's uncomfortable.  Maybe it's worth hearing precisely because it’s uncomfortable.

To bring it back to our story, perhaps the very thing that could keep New Horner from once again becoming Inner and Outer Horner (or some mutation of it) is the statue of PHIL.  MONSTER.  In it, the New Hornerites might remember what had happened, what they were capable of, and what they might be capable of again.

And as Phil's story goes, this was all divinely blessed.  Phil invoked the will of this divine being confidently and liberally throughout his rise to power.  Invoking the approval of the divine certainly tickled the ears of his audience, but Phil had this god all wrong.  So just as importantly, the statue might serve as a reminder of the One who put it there – “creepy” as the statue may be.  It might provide a reminder of the One who broke down the boundaries of string that divided Inner and Outer Hornerites, made one man out of the two, and told them that they are enough.  It might remind them of their story, their telos.  

Here’s the thing.  The New Hornerites have the statue, but their memories were wiped clean and they don't know actually why they have it.  They'd need it to be told to them by their "invading" neighbors.  You'd think they'd want to know.  But do they?

In the next post, I'd like to look at some of these themes as they relate to the Eucharist.

continued

“The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil”, Memorials, and the Eucharist (1) - The Narrative

I happened upon this interesting tweet by David Congdon.  Check it out.

So I picked the book up from my local library - The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil by George Saunders.

It’s a short book.  130 small pages with big, double-spaced print, readable in 2 hours or less.  I’ve summarized the plot below, so if you don’t want spoilers you should read the book before reading any further.  This isn’t a book, however, in which the surprises are negated by knowing the story.

It’s a scifi-ish story of moral/political satire.  The main characters in this story are Hornerites - strange creatures comprised of any variety of earthly items sort of strewn together to create a living being.  Each Hornerite is either an Inner or Outer Hornerite, and Inner Horner is within the borders of Outer Horner.  Inner Horner is so small, however, that only one of it’s citizens can be within it’s borders at a time.  The remaining handful of Inner Hornerites live in the Short Term Residency Zone, a tiny overflow area that falls within the borders of Outer Horner.  The Inner Hornerites rotate in and out of Inner Horner, where exists a stream with some fish, some dirt, and an apple tree.  These things keep them alive independent of anything provided by Outer Horner.

How did things come to be arranged this way?  We don’t know.

But this is really the story of Phil, his methods and rhetoric, his rise to and fall from power.

He’s a bad hombre.  Believe me.

Having fallen in love with an Inner Hornerite who had loved and started a family with another Inner Hornerite, Phil, in his existential dissatisfaction and feelings of not living up to his potential, begins to despise the current arrangement with Inner Horner.  He accuses the Inner Hornerites of ingratitude of the “generosity” of the Outer Hornerites.  They attack Outer Hornerite values.  He questions the patriotism of his Inner Hornerites in accepting this.  He asks his fellow Outer Hornerites if they are not the greatest and biggest country - given to them by God Almighty - and if their prosperity could not be even greater.  Through some clever rhetorical manipulation, Phil “legislates” taxation of the Inner Hornerites and annexation of their land and possessions.  Phil is able to characterize the Inner Hornerites as thieves and aggressors, and places them in a concentration camp like “Peace-Encouraging Enclosure”.  Finally, in the name of safety and prosperity, Phil resorts to “disassembling” (executing) the Inner Hornerites.

It is at that point that the nation surrounding Outer Horner invades, it’s citizens being larger than those of Inner Horner and being concerned for their own future existence in light of Outer Horner’s newfound imperialism.

Phil, through the invasion and some comical physical limitations, is effectively removed from power.  The country is left wondering: “How could this have happened?”

There is much that could be said about the book, but my reason for writing today has to do with the way that the book ends.  I quote it here at length:

----------

The two hands, working together, gently disassembled the Outer Hornerites.
Then they gently disassembled the Inner Hornerites.
Using the Inner and Outer Horner parts, they rapidly constructed fifteen entirely new little people.
The only parts they didn’t use were Phil’s parts.  Phil’s brain (retrieved from under his couch, covered in chip-crumbs and lint, giving off the hissing noise a Type C brain makes when off-gassing) they dropped into the stream, where several of the new fish, mistaking it for Phil’s body, they mounted on a platform, after first spray-painting it black and mounting a plaque beneath it.
“PHIL,” the plaque read.  “MONSTER.”

Then the massive hands lifted the new people up to a pair of giant indescribable lips and whispered, in a fundamentally untranslatable Creator-language, something that mean approximately: THIS TIME, BE KIND TO ONE ANOTHER.  REMEMBER: EACH OF YOU WANTS TO BE HAPPY.  AND I WANT YOU TO.  EACH OF YOU WANTS TO LIVE FREE FROM FEAR.  AND I WANT YOU TO.  EACH OF YOU ARE SECRETLY AFRAID THAT YOU ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  BUT YOU ARE GOOD ENOUGH, TRUST ME, YOU ARE.

Then the left hand picked up the green string that constituted the boundary of the Short-Term Residency Zone, and the right hand picked up the red string that constituted the Inner Hornerite border, and the left had took away the remnants of the Peace-Encouraging Enclosure, while the right hand planted a sign reading: “Welcome to New Horner.”
Then the hands did that dusting-off thing hands do when they’ve finished a difficult piece of work, and withdrew majestically, through a large white cloud.

Soon the fifteen new people woke up, stretching and yawning.  Where the heck were they?  And who the heck were they?  They felt sort of sore?  Apparently, the concluded, by looking at the sign , they were New Hornerites, and lived in New Horner.  Apparently, they concluded, reading the little name-tags around their necks, they each had a name.
They were, they all agreed, just amazingly hungry.

On the way to a nearby apple tree, they passed a hulking black mess on a platform.
“What is that thing?” said Gil.
“It’s a Phil,” said Sally.
“What is a Phil?” said Sally.
“A monster,” said Leona.  “Apparently,” said Fritz.
“Or maybe Monster was his last name?” said Gil.
“You know: Phil Monster.  Like: Hi, I’m Phil Monster?  It’s not entirely clear from the syntax.”
“Whatever,” said Sally.  “Let’s go eat.”

Leona looked at Gil.  Syntax?  What the heck kind of word was that?  What was Gil, some kind of big-shot?  She hated big-shots, she suddenly realized.  She’d have to watch Gil.  She’d talk to Sally about it.  Sally didn’t seem like a big-shot.  Sally seemed sensible and moral and down to earth.  Sally, like Leona, was compressed and ball-shaped, unlike the freakishly elongated Gil.

As the months went by, the new Hornerites took to avoiding The Phil.  Although nobody could exactly say why, The Phil gave them the creeps.  Soon the oath bowed out around it, weeds overtook it, and all that could be seen of the The Phil was the tip of Phil’s rack, which stuck out of the weeds like a bad flagpole.  Animals burrowed in on The Phil, birds nester there, balls accumulated there because the New Horner kids were too scared to retrieve them.

And that is where Phil is today: hidden in a thicket of weeds not loved, not hated, just forgotten, rusting/rotting, with even the sign that proclaims his name fading away.
Excepts sometimes Leona comes to visit.  She does no find The Phil monstrous, but strangely beautiful, and sometimes sits in the thicket for hours, dreaming, for reasons she can’t quite explain of a better world, run by humble, compressed, ball-shaped people, like her and Sally, who speak, when they speak at all, in short sentences, of their simple heroic dreams.

----------

As literally as possible, The Creator intervenes.  He/She disassembles both the Inner Hornerites and Outer Hornerites, removes the flimsy string border that divides them, and creates New Hornerites.  The Creator then disappears.

When the New Hornerites wake up, they don’t know who they are.  Not really.  They have no memory of how they came to be.  They just have names and a sign that says NEW Horner.  NEW.  (There is an "old"?)  And they have a strange memorial, one that gives them the creeps.

PHIL.  MONSTER.

“What’s a Phil?”

Whatever reasons there might be for it's presence, they take to avoiding it.  As the mere existence of the statue of Phil gradually fades from the collective memory (the notable exception being one New Hornerite who finds it “strangely beautiful”) the reader is left realizing that the cycle is bound to repeat itself.

As the story is written, how could it not?  Seriously.  That's not rhetorical.

What IS New Horner?

I’ll leave it at that for the moment.  It's worth thinking about.

In the next post, I’d like to talk about this memorial of Phil, what role it might be intended to play within the life of New Horner, and some ways that this matters.

continued

Facts, Narratives, Confirmation Bias, Politics, and Belonging

A few weeks ago, a story broke (or unbroke depending on how you look at it) about a young woman who had claimed that she was harassed by a group of white male Trump supporters in a New York Subway.  As is common in our time and place, there was a race to break the story.

But it turns out that she made the whole thing up.  None of it happened.  And so there was a race to unbreak the story.  But the new story had to do with how the story broke in the first place.

I rarely watch Fox News, but I happened to be watching The Five when I learned that the story was a hoax.  Unsurprisingly, the panel on The Five was all over the story.

As material for the segment, the lead commentator focused on a particular set of Buzzfeed headlines related to the story.  Per these Buzzfeed headlines, the attack itself was originally presented as fact and was thus sensationalized.  When it became known that the attack was a hoax, the follow up Buzzfeed headline stated, with much less color, that it was “allegedly” a hoax.

“Why not ‘alleged’ in the initial report?” the roundtable asked.  “Why is the word ‘alleged’ only in the retraction?”

Those aren’t unfair questions.

And Fox had an answer.

It’s because, they argued, the “mainstream media” has a fundamental narrative (or “agenda” if you prefer) that they are prepared to believe aside from any evidence, and thus facts that support this preconceived narrative are not sufficiently fact checked.  Call it confirmation bias.  This monolithic media fundamentally believes that Trump supporters are racist and are thus quick to believe and perpetuate any narrative of bigotry and will seek to portray that narrative as normative.

The fact that this story turned out to be a hoax, per the Fox commentary, provides the occasion to talk about the narrative and bias of the “mainstream media”.

The real critique was about confirmation bias - a willingness to emphasize the facts that one wants to be true.  It’s not so much "fact" or "not fact" as much as it is “which facts?”  The narrative determines this.

The irony was that the Fox News panel proceeded to do the same thing.

They interpreted a particular facts within their pre-existing narrative.  They seemed positively giddy about the story being a hoax because it provided a means to support a narrative - that of the bias of the “mainstream media”.

Now let’s be clear.  The story of the young Muslim woman was a hoax.  While we should be careful in ascribing intent or overanalyzing, the Buzzfeed headlines are real.  It’s not that these particular facts aren’t true.  Rather, it’s the way that a particular situation or set of facts is viewed in isolation and held up as normative in support of a pre-existing narrative.  Just like their "mainstream media" foes.

Each narrative can find a set of facts to support their narrative and win them the day.  And it drives me crazy that the Fox News panel seems to think that the “mainstream media” is a monolithic group without any differences.  Or that “bias” is isolated to their political foes and not themselves.  That they aren't subject to confirmation bias.  Go read Breitbart for heavens sake.

It also provided evidence to suggest that the larger narrative of tangible anti-Muslim sentiment is itself a myth perpetuated by this same media.  Reports of increased hostility towards Muslims as reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center were addressed with “And who is auditing those?”  Credible reports of anti-Muslim sentiment are thus either disavowed or transplanted into the desired narrative – that of racism as being manufactured by this same media.  Two birds, one stone.  The proclivity to ignore or minimize a post-election increase in racially motivated incidents by appealing to a fake story as normative is driven by - you got it - a pre-existing narrative.

The point is, it seems that we humans have a tendency to find and focus in on the worst in whatever group we’ve identified as the “other”, and we’re prone to use those things to confirm our narrative.  Put another way, we sometimes focus in on weak arguments and caricatures in order to dismiss or avoid the strongest arguments.  Our narratives give us our belonging.  They help us make sense of our world.  We like certainty about our narratives.

Everybody lives from a narrative that provides some sort of basis for filtering reality.  We all seek to make sense of a complex world, and we have immediate access to more information than any other time in human history.  Sifting through it all is unrealistic.  Yet we are wired to make sense of our reality.  Wired for certainty and control.  Confirmation bias is real.  And it effects everybody.

This is why it’s important to not live our lives in an echo chamber.  It’s why it’s important to notice when and why a particular opposing viewpoint gets our blood boiling, and on the flip side, when and why we’re quick to believe something.  This doesn’t mean that each and every competing viewpoint is equally true or that all narratives are hopelessly muddled in ambiguity.  I don’t believe that at all.  It simply means that we need to be aware of our own confirmation bias and that we should always seek to engage varying viewpoints at their strongest rather than their weakest.

"Peace Through Strength" and the Propaganda of the Death Star as an Instrument of "Peace"

Saw Rogue One last night.  I'm not one of these big Star Wars guys who knows facts about the characters and storylines that don't actually appear in the movies.  But in light of recent political events, it got me thinking about the meta-narrative of Star Wars.

It was very striking to me that, amongst the Imperial Army, the Death Star is regularly spoken of as an instrument of "peace".  Whatever "peace" is in the minds of the Imperial Army, a vision which is ultimately formed by the Emperor and the Dark Side of the Force, it is best (and perhaps ultimately achievable only) through military strength.

Where have I heard this sort of thing before?

 

Donald J. TrumpVerified account‏@realDonaldTrump

A strong military will stop wars. Peace through Strength! Let’s Make America Great Again! https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ 

In Star Wars, the Imperial perception is that the ultimate power exists with the Death Star.  For them,  it is the truth of the way things are.  It is written into the fabric of the universe.

"This station is now the ultimate power in the universe!  I suggest we use it."
-General Motti

Doesn't "peace through strength" have a certain ring to it?  And a certain sober realism about human nature and the human condition?

"Love won't save you, Padme. Only my new powers can do that!  I won't lose you the way I lost my mother. I am becoming more powerful than any Jedi has ever dreamed of, and I'm doing it for you. To protect you."
-Anakin Skywalker

But make no mistake.  Peace through (military) strength is really just a way to say peace as submission.  Peace through submission to a military will.  Peace through fear.  Which is to say there is no such thing as peace at all, only power.

"Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station."
-Grand Moff Tarkin

"Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy. And... we shall have... peace."
-Chancellor Palpatine

**********
The Sith Code

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

**********

The stories we create have something to tell us.  As we see in the movie, Chancellor Palpatine's "peace" is anything but.  Haven't we tried this already?  It will not work.  And it isn't the "ultimate power in the universe".

Bigger threat to democracy – climate change or nuclear weapons? The answer is yes.

“The biggest risk to the world, to me – I know President Obama thought it was climate change – to me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons.”  

“The power of weaponry today is the single greatest problem that our world has, and it’s not global warming like our president said.  It’s the power of weapons, in particular nuclear.”

So says our president-elect Donald Trump.

I am no expert.  I’ll leave the evidence (which is ample) to the scientists and the policy to the politicians, but let’s just suppose that we DO have a problem with man-made climate change.  Assume for a moment that it IS a real thing.  Assume that the overwhelming scientific consensus is correct.  Set aside the questions of the role of government, the EPA, the actions of the Obama Administration, etc.  Basically, assume that everything that our president-elect has to say about climate change – through his tweets, speeches, policies, cabinet appointments – is wrong.  This may be extremely easy for you.  Or it may be extremely difficult.

Why is climate change such a grave threat according to those who affirm it’s a real thing?

It’s a threat to the environment itself, sure.  We see images of gaunt polar bills.  We hear reports of disappearing ice.  Bird and fish migrations are affected, etc.

Is that the sum total of it?  Environmental issues external to the well-being of human beings?  No.  This isn’t just about animals and trees, but about the biosphere that keeps humanity alive.

If the scientific consensus is true, then the food shortages, droughts, floods, catastrophes and the poverty, social instability, and resource wars that are likely to ensue are not only A means, but THE means by which nuclear war becomes a reality.  

The bottom line is this.  It’s a mistake to pit climate change and nuclear proliferation against one another.  It's not one or the other.  Climate change doesn’t reduce the threat of nuclear holocaust.  It raises it.  The terrible threat of nuclear war isn’t opposed or minimized by climate change.  Rather, climate change is the means by which it could come about. 

Even now, as a species, we have the ability to destroy our world many times over.  Reflecting upon the creation of the atomic bomb, Robert Oppenheimer is reported to have quoted the Bhagavid Gita: 

“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

May his prophecy sober us even as we act to prove it false.  

A Fundamental Change in Social Discourse

From "Obama Reckons With A Trump Presidency" By David Remnick (The New Yorker)

“Until recently, religious institutions, academia, and media set out the parameters of acceptable discourse, and it ranged from the unthinkable to the radical to the acceptable to policy,” Simas said. “The continuum has changed. Had Donald Trump said the things he said during the campaign eight years ago—about banning Muslims, about Mexicans, about the disabled, about women—his Republican opponents, faith leaders, academia would have denounced him and there would be no way around those voices. Now, through Facebook and Twitter, you can get around them. There is social permission for this kind of discourse. Plus, through the same social media, you can find people who agree with you, who validate these thoughts and opinions. This creates a whole new permission structure, a sense of social affirmation for what was once thought unthinkable. This is a foundational change.”

"We Live in a Semantic Universe" - Random Thoughts 11/10/2016

We Christians sometimes talk about “obedience”.  If “obedience” is viewed in the abstract and as independent of or superior to faith, hope and love rather than as their manifestation, then “obedience” is a sham, a millstone tied around your neck, a bringer of death and division.

----------

“Every prayer is an expression of hope.  If you expect nothing from the future, you cannot pray.  Hope is based on the premise that the other gives only what is good.”  (Nouwen)  For what do we hope?  Or rather, to whom do we hope?  Is the “God” that we see one that calls our hearts and minds to that mode of existence that we call “hope”?

----------

Be aware of “the immense difference that exists between hope and wishfullness.” (Nouwen)

----------

The fact that the word “great” appears in “Make America Great Again” does not itself make self-evident what the term means.  Be assured that it doesn’t mean to Donald Trump what it means to you.  To understand what Donald Trump means by “great” we need only look at his words, actions, policies, pursuits, and (perhaps most importantly) who or what is sacrificed in the pursuit of “greatness”.

----------

To those evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who piously hold forth that God “intervened” to give the presidency to Donald Trump I simply ask “Did God’s intervention on behalf of Trump begin before or after the Republican primary?”  If before, you cannot absolve yourself of the ramifications of your support due to him being “the lesser of two evils” or “having no other choice.”

----------

When I look into the face

Of my enemy

I see my brother

I see my brother

(“Brother” – The Brilliance)

This prayer of faith is pious nonsense unless that which binds and gives life to humanity is eternal; deeper and stronger than those things that separate.  A true vision of our beginning and our end may yet bring a healing and reconciling word to our present, a word that renders the construct of “the enemy” as illusory.  As vapor.

The Privilege of NOT Talking Politics

As the world of politics gets nastier and nastier, I’ve been more and more inclined to just ignore it all.  Write it off.

For one thing, I simply can’t keep up with the constant barrage of news and the associated political spin.  What is my source for “unbiased news”?

But more than that, I’m tired of the “my tribe is better” power struggle.  Let "them" hash it all out.  “The future of our country” narrative, I tend to believe, is largely fear based manipulation because fear provokes action and rallies supporters quicker and more effective than calls for patience and the common good.  Civility has all but vanished.  I find myself getting caught up in the spirit of anger.

It’s not that I don’t have opinions.  I do, and I try to make them informed opinions.

But there is a sense in which stepping away from the circus is a realistic option for me.  Don’t mishear me.  It’s not that I exist outside the world of politics.  But there is a degree to which it can be compartmentalized.  I can lay it down and pick it up as is convenient.  I don’t say that with pride.

**********

As the same time as the political world descends into chaos, I’ve been coming to an awareness of the privilege that I’ve enjoyed throughout my life.  My "success" cannot be reduced to "hard work" alone.  I’ve been given SO many opportunities and I’m increasingly able to recognize the political side of that.

So when Science Mike said this on Episode 34 of The Liturgists Podcast entitled “Black and White: Racism in America”, it stung.

“I’ve been learning that the ability to NOT talk politics is an embodiment of what some would call privilege…..”

**********

I think he’s right.

Health Insurance - Right, Responsibility, or Luxury?

A lot of what I write is just me processing stuff, attempting to work through information and to navigate a variety of well-informed and honest perspectives.  The following thoughts started as some scribbling on how to think about the various components of health care just to better understand it.  It evolved, for me, into something of a framework through which I could better understand the relevant issues.  Thought I'd post it here.

**********

Many across the political spectrum can agree that there are significant problems with healthcare in the US, both before and after Obamacare.  Ever have to go through a medical bill line by line to see if you’ve been billed correctly?  How would you even know one way or the other?  Ever tried to get info on costs before service is incurred?  Or try to get an insurance company to work directly with a healthcare provider?  It’s not pretty.  The quality of care suffers for all of this.

I’m not convinced that anybody really knows what’s in Obamacare (including Obama).  We can only guess at the unintended consequences that may lie in wait – consequences both good and bad.  This is no different than most other bills, though, and I don’t see any reason to single it out in that regard.  The bloated nature of it aside, the MOST controversial part of Obamacare is the so-called mandate.  THAT is what people argue most about.  THAT is the root of the accusations of so-called “socialism”.  (To be accurate, the enforcement of the mandate is a monetary fine.  The penalty of any failure to comply with the mandate is not criminal in nature.  Thus the Supreme Court ruling of it as a “tax”.)

I personally think that in talking about the mandate, we have to back up and talk about pre-existing conditions.

Actually, let’s back up even further.

Recall the 2008 election year debate between McCain and Obama over whether health insurance was a “right” or a “responsibility”.  And I’d like to add the term “luxury” as a 3rd option.  So “right”, “responsibility”, or “luxury”.  Obama said that it was a “right”.  McCain said that it was a “responsibility”.  (I think that the position Obama supported is more of “right to be responsible”, the debate itself being centered around access to health care.)

Now I think it fair to say that both candidates wanted everyone to have access to health care, so I think it fair to frame the disagreements within that paradigm.  Among other things, they disagreed about the role of government in promoting this access, particularly within the context of the privatized health insurance market that characterizes our current health care system (note that there ultimately was no public option within Obamacare).

I’d like to focus specifically on McCain’s answer – that health care is not a “right” but rather is a “responsibility”.

Now clearly it is not a “right” in terms of the constitution, and I don’t think anyone would argue that it is.

So the idea behind using the term “responsibility”, I presume, is to indicate (1)a level of personal accountability and (2)that government should have as minimal involvement as possible.  The philosophical idea that underlies this, I believe, is that these two things are necessary for long term success and “prosperity”, and that the government granting excessive “rights” undermines that.  Opponents tend to frame such a “right” as a “handout” – a form of political pandering to lazy and irresponsible individuals who will do nothing more than ask for more and more.  Ultimately in this view, legislation to ensure a credible and transparent marketplace is needed to ensure that “individual responsibility” has a fighting chance (though some are opposed to any sort of regulation AT ALL, I suppose - these people are delusional), but that the government can and should do the bare minimum and then get out of the way.

But I want to pause and, rather than get caught up in the inflammatory rhetoric of laziness and entitlement when it comes to “rights”, instead look at that word “responsibility”.

Now, if a person is going to assert that having health insurance is a “responsibility”, it MUST follow that a “responsible” person would have the ability to fulfill this “responsibility”.  It must be reasonably achievable.  Right?  If this is not the case, then the word “responsibility” is a misnomer and should be discarded.  Agreed?

And this happens to be where the assertion of “responsibility” begins to fall flat.  The freedom of private insurance companies to withhold access to a health insurance product due to pre-existing conditions has ensured that millions (it is undeniably in the millions though estimates vary as to how many) will be unable to get any type of health insurance AT ALL.  None.  No amount of “responsibility” on the part of these individuals is going to change that fact given the current nature of the system. 

This is THE essential point.  The system itself prohibits people from being responsible when it comes to acquiring healthcare.

This is indisputable.  And if the language of "responsibility" is to be retained, something has to change.  Period.

With the ability to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, health insurance can only be characterized as a “luxury”.

What is also beyond dispute is the reason that pre-existing conditions are grounds for ineligibility.  Money.  Period.  Pre-existing conditions mean more costs for insurance companies, less profits, and/or higher premiums for everyone else.  It's unnecessary to get into the ethics of insurance in order to understand the issues (though the conflicts of interest are obvious).  IF the U.S. is married to a model in which private insurance companies manage health care (which it is), it is essential that these BUSINESSES remain viable.  Their operations, efficiency, and viability is necessary to the health care system.  Period.

Now, prior to the “mandate” it’d possible to group the uninsured into two groups of people – (1) those who wanted insurance and couldn’t get it and (2) those who could get it but didn’t want it.

Supporters of the law generally focus on group #1, whereas opponents of the law either focus on #2, or are so opposed to the general idea of a “mandate” that, for “slippery slope” reasons, it outweighs anything else including the benefits to or the moral claims associated with group #1.

Which group do YOU focus on?  Which is the law focused on?  As an aside I might also ask, which is the Christian focused on?

I will say that my primary concern is with group #1.  If there is, in fact, a way to provide coverage to group #1 without a mandate, then I would support that.

Indeed, shouldn’t it be possible to eliminate the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions while simultaneously not legislating an insurance mandate?  Why both?  Why not just ensure that all who want coverage can get it rather than also require that those who don’t want it have to have it?   Needless to say, there was general agreement across the political spectrum about the harmful effects and injustice of the unavailability of health care insurance due to pre-existing conditions.  Thus the bipartisan goal to provide access to coverage to group #1.

But in short, no.  You can’t do one without the other.

Why do I say that?

Without getting into the similarities (or lack thereof) between mandating a company to sell a product and mandating a consumer to buy a product, the possibility that individuals could wait until they’re sick to acquire insurance shouldn’t be minimized.

In fact, without the ability to deny coverage, the occurrence of such a situation is a virtual certainty.  And that’s a problem.

Now it could be argued that the vast majority of people with pre-existing conditions wouldn’t acquire coverage ONLY when they needed it.  Nevertheless, insurance copies couldn’t take that risk.  Nor, given the key role that they play within the health care, could society risk their bankruptcy.  This becomes (gasp!) a social issue.  This could either bankrupt insurance companies or drive up premiums to the point that more individuals forego coverage (or devastate the economy because people have less disposable income) thus perpetuating the problem.  Or perhaps individuals just don’t want their OWN premiums to go up because the patient pool just got sicker – ideology being a smokescreen.

Now THIS is where the mandate comes in.  This isn't some random “big government” power grab as it’s often framed.  “Government death panels” and all that.

If insurance companies were going to be required to provide insurance to ALL people regardless of any pre-existing conditions (as both sides of the political aisle wanted), then the insurance companies themselves WANTED the mandate.  They effectively DEMANDED the mandate.  Otherwise, what prevents people from gaming the system and signing up for insurance only when they’re sick?  How is that fair?  What about profits?  What happens to premiums?  Could it bring these insurance companies down?

So in large part, the mandate relates to the “rights” of group #1 vs. the “rights” of group #2 as identified above.  Someone is having their “rights” infringed.  Either group #1 is having their “right” to purchase health insurance infringed, group #2 is having their “right” to NOT purchase insurance infringed, or insurance companies are having their “right” to profits infringed.

How do we navigate this?

A quick side note before I wrap up.  Health care costs themselves are a separate issue.  An important one, but a separate one.  Lower costs don’t change the nature of this particular problem AT ALL.  Lower costs may lower the potential cost ceiling, but it doesn’t materially change the nature of the problem to be solved.

**********

I recognize that this is an extremely brief commentary about a complex and polarizing topic.  To conclude, I’ll simply return to a set of questions that precede the mandate.

Is health insurance a right, a responsibility, or a luxury?

Can a system in which millions are denied access to coverage due to pre-existing conditions rightly be characterized as one in which health care coverage is  a “responsibility”?

Can those with pre-existing conditions be offered private insurance coverage without a “mandate”?

To restate, I think that an appropriate starting point for talking about health care, including the so-called mandate, is asking that first question – right, responsibility, or luxury?  I’ll argue that without access to coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, the characterization of health insurance as a “responsibility” is flat out wrong.  Period.  And I also contend that there’s no way to offer that universal access without a mandate for the reasons I highlighted above.  This, of course, is THE big question.

I understand why people don’t want a mandate.  My intent isn’t to argue the merits or lack thereof, the legality or illegality of an insurance mandate.  I simply don’t know.  I’ll leave that to others.  You are free to argue that a mandate is a dangerous crossing of the line.

If that is the case, however, I WILL argue that you’ve no right to characterize health insurance coverage as a “responsibility”.  Stand up tall you politicians and pundits, confess that a rightly functioning federal government cannot and should not do ANYTHING about health care access, and call it what it is – a “luxury”.  Speak those worlds clearly, and then let those implications sink in.  Or if you have an alternative, bring it to public discourse.  Either solve the problem (and I'm very open to hearing alternative solutions to the pre-existing conditions issue) or disclose that it is well outside of the jurisdiction of the government ("here is the problem, and here is why government shouldn't solve it").  That’s all I ask.

**********