Blog Archives

Triage

11/27/2020

Triage

Determining where various groups of people will stand in the line to get the COVID vaccine (and the processes for making those decisions) will be the most contentious and revealing issues of the next six months. We’re already starting to hear rumblings in the media, but once we get past the Inauguration and initial appointments/policy statements, this set of questions will give us some significant clues as to what kind of country and what kind of world we live in. The answers may not be surprising, but will certainly be instructive.

Of course, much will depend on the progress developing/approving the Pfizer, Moderna, and Oxford vaccines and the others that are coming along. There will be major issues around manufacturing, distribution, and pricing. Some will work better with some populations and distribution chains than others, but the composition of The List will engender political/moral debate at both the national and global levels.

Not everyone can be first. A two-dose vaccine will require 15 billion doses. The world’s largest vaccine manufacturer has estimated that it could well be 2024 before there is complete global coverage. So The List is important and, in our current world, its construction will be (generally) public and political. Even in the US, the (present) Administration has said that allocation will be done by the states (but how are the doses to be allocated to the states?)

Various groups will be proposed for priority treatment, each with plausible arguments behind them: (not in any order)

The elderly (oldest first)
Health care workers
Teachers
Students
Political Leaders and those politically connected
Sports Teams (why not artists?)
People with ‘co-morbidities’
"Essential” workers
Rich people
People from countries that
- paid for the vaccine in advance
- are powerful and rich
- have been hardest hit
- steal the vaccine formula

I don’t propose to resolve this debate. Polling companies are likely already ramping up to take the figurative pulse of the nation (and the world). I do think it would be interesting to put people who have washed their hands a lot and always worn a mask at the top of The List. And, we can assume that ‘anti-vaxxers’ will not be interested in any event (that’s another problem).

Regardless of the result, I will be curious to see the claims/arguments from those who downplayed the pandemic. Will they manufacture reasons for immediate self-protection? Perhaps voluntarily go to the back of the line, since the pandemic was a liberal/media hoax, so there’s no rush?

Similarly, I wonder about those who are vehemently anti-government. It seems pretty clear that governments will be in charge of this. So, especially if you are a die-hard Ayn Rand fan, arguing for an entirely market-based solution (vaccine auction anyone?), you will have something to complain about. Cost issues will come up here, too. Will those opposed to “excessive” government spending also argue for everyone to pay their own way? One of the big arguments against Obamacare and “socialized medicine” in general, was that governments shouldn’t ration health care (Sarah Palin’s diatribe against “death panels”). But, in an important sense, that’s what we’re going to have. For those people whose closest contact with triage was watching episodes of M*A*S*H, this could be a wake-up call.

There is another layer of issues at the global level. Should World Health Organization make the decisions about country-by-country allocation? What about those who quit the WHO? There is a group of 156 countries called COVAX (under the WHO’s auspices) which is working this out (guess who’s not in). Wow, if you hate government and socialized medicine in the US, the thought of a bunch of furriners putting the US of A at the back of the line is pretty appalling. Maybe we should send in a SEAL team to scoop some up?

Even without military action, the rich countries have gotten used to running things globally (e.g. IMF, WTO), usually with the US in the lead. But lately, we haven’t been at the table and even when we go back, it’s likely the others won’t be as deferential as they have been in the past. A new spin in international organization/governance may be one long-lasting result.

It will take a year to get everyone in the US covered. In the meantime, there will be another interesting situation: the potential for different social status between those with vaccinated/certified immunity and those without. What is the public health rationale to require vaxxers to wear masks? (New joke line: If a vaxxer and a non-vaxxer walk into a bar…?) Do they have to go to different rooms? Will they get other preferential treatment? Will vaxxers be allowed to wear a badge as an exemption? When some inevitably lazy/sociopathic guy decides to forge an ID card or badge even though they haven’t been vaccinated, will they be subject to criminal charges?

Generally, though, it will be an interesting exercise to make your own list. Which groups should go first? Why? How do your preferences correlate with your own demographics? Can I persuade you that seniors and teachers (and their friends) should be very high up on The List?

0 Comments

Stories

11/20/2020

0 Comments

“History,” as William Cronon has said, “is the stories we choose to tell about the past.”

Or, as I tell my students, there is (upper-case) “History” (the discipline and the practice and the stories) and there is (lower-case) “history” (all the stuff that has happened in the past). One of the things I am glad many of my students pick up on is that what they’re told in textbooks (and the History Channel and Wikipedia) is just one (highly digested and extremely coherent) version—one story told by one author in one time and place—and that there are many other ways to see the events, trends, and people of the past.

That’s an important part of using History as a means of teaching critical thinking: getting students to be aware of and weigh differing interpretations of the past: ‘were the Germans responsible for the start of WWI or was it the Serbs?,’ ‘was the American War of Independence about democracy or a contest between elites for which group should rule the colonies?’ We need to be aware of potential biases (sometimes explicit and plausible, sometimes not) or novel insights in interpretation. Being aware of that historians choose and how historians choose which kind of story to tell about the past is an essential part of Cronon’s point.

There is another layer to the issue of history as stories; and that is the question of the very use of narratives or stories. Humans love stories. Almost all of us love hearing stories (and some of us like telling them, too). Whether they claim to be factual or clearly dispense with any claim to the “truth,” we can get easily wrapped up in the telling of tales. Part of this is driven by emotional satisfaction from heroic epics, romances, and the resolution of tension.

But a bigger part comes from the comfort of coherence, from the psychological security of feeling able to understand a situation and taking that comfort and applying it to my own life. If the world makes sense (i.e., is coherent) then perhaps I have a better shot at controlling it or at least I will feel less afraid because there are fewer unknowns/surprises. If “History” has “lessons,” then perhaps I can learn them and apply them and have some control over my future. That’s the theory, in any case.

If I have a reliable theory of the origins of anti-Semitism, perhaps I can take steps to prevent its recurrence or deal with its effects. Love stories and hero’s quests (even if fictional) provide more positive role models, but to the same effect. A story that makes sense encourages me to believe that the world is subject to understanding and (to some degree) control; even if, in fact, much/most/all is random and contingent.

This practice may be deeply based in human cognitive evolution and worked well enough when proto-humans were running around East Africa. Now, however, the world is much more complex and driven by the workings of human minds (not just animal behavioral patterns). It’s no wonder that modern historical analysis developed about the time of the industrial revolution as the pace of change and complexity in human societies began to skyrocket. We needed tools to try to make sense of this world and History (the practice) promised to explain change and subject history (the past) to order and usefulness.

History also depends on claims of rational (i.e. legible/understandable) human behavior. But, as we all know from our own lives and trying to understand our own friends, families, colleagues, etc. this is a dicey game. It usually ends up being about me projecting my own idea patterns on others. Why did Truman order the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan in August, 1945? Did this “cause” Stalin to react in certain ways, leading to the “Cold War?” Many theories/factors have been advanced, most of which are quite plausible. But how to weigh and sort them? Without understanding Truman’s psyche (or Stalin’s), it’s a mug’s game. And, yet, we Historians draw from whichever version we prefer to create all sorts of stories about post-war international relations and geopolitics.

Even without this logical gap in our ability to analyze human behavior, we Historians face two other hurdles: the past-ness of historical behavior (how can we really imagine what people from another culture thought?) and recent neuro-science claims that human consciousness is unknowable. It’s no surprise that some have argued that History (at least the part that tells stories filled with causation and explanation, including pretty much all “popular” history) is, in Henry Ford’s words, “bunk.”

It will come as no surprise to those who have read the initial entries in the blog that I have some sympathy for this view. What I may take as the “lessons” of history are usually projections of my own feelings and ideas. Now, as a card-carrying Historian (AHA member #8429936), I still think there is value and use in studying the past; just not as much as many of my colleagues. How I choose to order the events of the past, how I connect a string of individual’s decisions over time, how I “understand” history—all are great tools for me to see myself.

And, while I’m working on that, I still like getting wrapped up in a good story.

0 Comments

Party Time

11/13/2020

3 Comments

Trump’s election in 2016 was an overdetermined quirk. His defeat in 2020 was not, however, a return to “normal.” Among the many aspects of the defunct old order is the Republican Party, whose behavior (both corporately and in terms of the “leaders”) has been even more egregious and surprising than the rise and fall of a certain solipsistic putz.

With a few exceptions (McCain, Kasich, Romney (from time to time), and a smattering of second-tier Bush-ites), the lust for power and fear of a non-white-male-dominated America has led to a smorgasbord of craven kow-towing. The jettisoning of institutional values in Congress and the administration was breath-taking until it became routine. A recitation of the list would be numbing.

Rumblings about Trump continuing in politics are media noise. He may run a fund-raising/celebrity/reality show scam, but between the COVID carnage and his upcoming personal and financial travails, his cult of personality will grow quickly stale. What will be even more interesting than who seeks to assert some mode of post-Trump leadership (Haley, Cruz, Cotton?) is the question of what they will stand for. Even leaving aside the pettiness, crudeness, and idiocy of many policy decisions, there is little left of what used to be Republicanism.

In his typically unintentional irony, Trump regularly referred to any number of traditional Republicans who dared not to fall completely into (his) line as “RINOs”: “Republicans In Name Only.” (as usual, the best way to read Trumpian critiques is to reverse the pronoun, i.e., he criticizes others for his own character traits).

The problem is that such a critique assumes that there is something substantive to being a Republican. There used to be, of course, but what is left?: tax cuts and deregulation based on trickle-down economics: yes. Balanced budgets and deficit reduction: No. Federalism and deference to local groups: No. Compassionate Conservatism: No. Liberal Internationalism: No. Respect for the Military: No. Fierce devotion to individual freedom: spotty at best.

Even plausible policy positions (regardless of whether I agree with them) on immigration, education, judicial interpretation etc. have been drowned in Trumpian vitriol. Nor is it apparent who has the moral standing to bring any sort of coherent, politically viable collection of “conservative” policies to the public forum.

There may be a Republican Party going forward, but it is likely to be, itself, RINO.

The Democrats are not in much better shape. Once the target of indignation is gone, they will likely revert to their infighting, wrestling with climate, identity politics, coherent foreign policy etc. AOC has already started down this path. Other “progressives” join her in conflating policy hopes (which I generally share) and political feasibility. In our polarized political discourse, most tugging from the wings generates animosity on the other wing and fear in the center.

My argument is not about which ideology should prevail in either group, a topic that has already engaged the commentariat; rather it goes to the shells/labels/institutions which carry some set of ideas forward.

Change is in the air. The world is different, the country is different. The parties (at least their shells) remain. They are stale, corrupt, and well past their “sell-by” dates. As a political society, we are overdue for a realignment. The Nixon/Johnson switch in the loyalty of the South is fifty years old. The Progressive line up through FDR is pushing 100.

The nineteenth century saw all sorts of party births, deaths, and realignments. It’s doubtful either Adams or Jefferson would have recognized their progeny fifty years after they had passed. The British went through a tortured period of transition from Liberalism to Labour from the late 19C through WWII. Many countries have a lengthy roster of current parties and a bewildering list of historical incarnations. A substantial number have really just been personality vehicles who collapsed after their leader left the scene. Their ideological consistency has been fortuitous in the moment, and then evanescent. Is the GOP next in this line?

What may keep the shells of both Democrats and Republicans alive in the US is that they have insinuated themselves into the legal process of politics. Their sclerotic duopoly controls gerrymandering, access to primaries and election rolls. A robust antitrust model would blow them apart and re-open the political markets to competition. Why is it that taxpayers should pay for a private group to select its leaders? The Methodists don’t line up and the federal trough when they elect a new presiding Bishop, nor is Walmart’s Annual Meeting subsidized (at least directly) by the State of Arkansas. Some states go so far as to provide that in case of a vacancy in their US Senate seat, the incumbent’s state party central committee gives the Governor a short list of acceptable replacements.

The duopolistic nature of the system is most evident in the high art of electoral district line-drawing. Now armed with sophisticated mathematical models parties design districts for incumbency rather than community (with no small degree of racial and class discrimination). Early-19C Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry (and his salamander-shaped legislative district map) would be envious. The recent move in some states to neutral citizen-driven apportionment processes offers some hope on this front, but the entrenched parties and pols (and their judges) will likely make this slow going.

This is not rooted in an aversion to the “two-party” system; although splintering may be the result, at least for a while. Coalition governing is no panacea, even if it is no worse than what we have. A bit of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” is called for. Let’s shuffle the cards and see what shakes out.

Besides the structural benefits, noted above, a re-shuffle would energize the process and allow for new leadership, new alliances, and new ideas to emerge. If we need a new political culture of engagement in this country, tossing out the Ds and the Rs (or, at least, not preventing their implosion) would be a good start.

3 Comments

A Path Forward

11/6/2020

0 Comments

Some years back, when I was managing the merger and integration of businesses, I was told “The hard stuff is easy and the soft stuff is hard.” I have found it to be true in many circumstances. Combining payroll systems or marketing logos or divisional structures can be a real pain, but they pale in comparison to corporate culture. Every group of people has language, attitudes, and an ethos by which they relate to each other and operate whatever activities they have as a group. Sociologists call these “institutions” (not to be confused with formal organizations) and they usually take a lot of time to consciously change.

The same points apply to societies in general and to US democracy in particular. As we look to next year, we see our culture has been severely battered over the past few decades and we need to figure out what to do. As noted above, the “hard” stuff is (relatively) easy. Legislative agendas are afloat, including social justice, health, environment, and dozens of other areas. Although the likely blockage of Mitch McConnell will render significant steps (and anything that AOC would prefer) nugatory. Relations with Europe and China will be repaired, capable people will be appointed to senior positions and some progress will be made.

More challenging is the “soft” stuff. Political polarization, exacerbated by mercenary mass media, makes it seem that, as a society, we can’t talk to each other. Norms of courtesy and comity have been discarded (not least in relationships within our governmental bodies). This has been largely the work of the soon-to-be-erstwhile Administration and its craven allies. However, those on the ‘left’ are hardly innocent. Hillary Clinton’s infamous reference to Trump supporters as “deplorables” was insulting, over-generalizing, and destructive. The schadenfreude over anti-maskers getting infected is of the same ilk. Judgmentalism is rife on both sides.

The question is not whether I like everybody in this country (much less agree with them); rather, it is how can I contribute to mending the body politic. This requires sympathy rather than disparagement, an effort to listen to and through what others are saying, and listening to more than MSNBC/Fox News. Pretty much everyone I know (even in that bizarre bubble of culture known as the Bay Area) is complicated and contradictory. Underneath the vast majority of our fellow citizens there are some common values; unfortunately, they (we) have slipped into simplistic, Manichean thinking (both as to ourselves and each other).

More fundamentally, I have to decide that while it would be easier and nicer to imagine a country where everyone (more-or-less) agreed with me, that is not the case. Unless I am prepared to jump ship, I am part of this place and I will be better off with a community that accommodates and compromises than one which embraces some sort of ideological fantasy. There is no history of social revolution in this country (1776-83 replaced one set of white male elites with another); nor, as evidenced by the down-ticket strength of the GOP, (media hype over the “Proud Boys” notwithstanding) is one foreseeable (much less likely).

It means discarding easy (red/blue) labels and categories. It means making some hard choices on tough issues: social justice, abortion rights, and gun rights, among others, that aren’t fully aligned with my views. It means making an effort to find real concerns underneath the rhetoric and respecting them. It does not mean throwing away what I believe, but dealing with the reality of a complex and diverse population.

It also means working to engage others in conversation and encouraging everyone to participate in our shared endeavor. Civics lessons shouldn’t be limited to those under 22. This needs to be a conscious choice—setting a new habit—to value our political community as much as our political policy preferences. After all, what are our choices:?

God smites all evil people, leaving just those who are right-thinking (i.e., us).
We assume that it’s a generational thing, and that in twenty-or-so years, enough of “them” die off to foster necessary change.
A modest-sized progressive majority makes the desired changes and “they” roll over and accept it.
We battle it out indefinitely and have a miserable and dysfunctional body politic for a while.

It would be nice to have leaders who would lead us in a constructive direction. The corrupt political class (on both sides) is caught up in power dreams and few have stepped beyond this. On the other hand, it’s not (just) their fault. As Joseph de Maistre said (1811): “Every country has the government it deserves.”

Real leadership is cultural, moral and inclusive; in attitudes, not budgets.

I’m sure there are many who would say I’m being naïve, a Pollyanna, or that I have ‘sold out.’ I am eager to hear alternative ‘real-world’ solutions to our predicament.

0 Comments

Condemned to Repeat It --
Musings on history, society, and the world.

I don't actually agree with Santayana's famous quote, but this is my contribution to my version of it: "Anyone who hears Santayana's quote is condemned to repeat it."

Triage

Stories

Party Time

A Path Forward

Condemned to Repeat It --Musings on history, society, and the world.

Archives

Sign up for alerts when there's a new post

Condemned to Repeat It --
Musings on history, society, and the world.