THE YEAR OF THE POLITICAL SCIENTIST

You parents who had doubts that a liberal arts education would pay off for your children; here is hoping you raised them to be political scientists and not lawyers or doctors.  

   

Over the past decade, economics has dominated the best seller list, speaker forums and overall American culture.  This has been necessary and predictable given the collapse of Western economies following the 2008 recession. Those experts who professed to be economists needed to explain what they got wrong, what happened and to set out their plan for the future.  Even Cinema took this normally undramatic “dismal science” and made a series of feature films highlighting ordinary citizens getting screwed by economic forces not easily explained.

The academic world must now prepare for a major attention shift from an enthralled public.  2016 and beyond will see a time that political scientists lead the academic discussions that matter in America.  We are not talking about the television pundits who jabber on endlessly about the election, but rather real academic heavy weights who are trained to analysis data before and after elections take place.

Political Science by its nature is observational. It seeks to reveal the relationships underlying political events and conditions and from these revelations it attempts to construct principals about the way the world of politics works.  Donald Trump has given these specialist something to observe, unlike anything in their collective lifetimes.  No political theory or hypothesis in our pluralistic democracy predicted his rise to capture the Republican Nomination.  Now the experts must figure it out.

One can almost predict the topics of the best selling tomes that will hit the book shelves by early 2017, after the data is complied and theories developed: “America’s move to an illiberal political order thriving on anti-immigrant sentiment and Islamophobia”; “Trump’s success and the new media”; “The demise of America’s traditional two party system”; “Celebrity and politics in America.”;.  No one would have predicted these trends a short time ago.

In many respects this election season, which is now remarkably longer than the NFL season, is similar from an analytical perspective.  In football the goal is to deconstruct the winning team in order to mimic or defeat it.  In 2016 it appears that copying or defending against the Obama formula from 2012 will not be enough.  Trump has jumped the shark, not unlike a good NFL Patriots team, sending all participants back to the drawing board.  This is what makes 2016 such an exciting time to be a political scientist.

For all the attention it gets, American politics is normally a case study in incremental change. Not only Trump but also the Sanders phenomenon has guaranteed that 2016 is different. Dwight Eisenhower who once said: “I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center,” would be appalled. The center is under attack from angry isolationists on the one side and progressives on the other.  The only thing that is certain is that political scientists will figure it out after the dust has cleared.

BABY BOOMERS…….START CLIMBING

Last week I came across the quote: “I am so far over the hill that I am half way up the next one.” This could be interpreted as a call to action for all baby boomers in their sixties and seventies to rethink their golden years.  In short, we need to begin climbing the next hill by understanding and helping millennials, aka our children.  With a blink of the eye they are coming into their own and dominating the political, social and economic culture. If we pull up the rocking chairs rather than put on the walking shoes boomers will exercise little positive influence over the future of our country.

Most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to around 2000 in defining millennials.  The signs of the changing of the guard are everywhere.  Our new family vehicle is basically a mind numbing computer on wheels, designed with millennials in mind.  It should come with a 30 year old in the back seat to explain the radar, cameras, bluetooth, wifi, navigation, i phone and voice recognition interfaces.  When I sarcastically told my age challenged friend that the car was equipped with an Amazon app that dropped packages through the moon roof via drone, he believed me. Ironically, while many millennials turn down a new vehicle  purchase in favor of Uber, mass transit and short term rentals, boomers will never fully understand the technology packaged to attract their children.

Statistics disclose that for the first time, more millennials than baby boomers are eligible to vote in the presidential election. Many are educated minorities and white Americans with increasingly liberal attitudes.  They are more likely to support economic policies based on equality, same sex marriage and legalization of drugs. As the Bernie Sanders campaign has revealed, millennials want their own issues addressed by elected officials.  These concerns include the prohibitive cost and debt service of higher education, the ability of the wealthy to buy elections and real progress on fixing the national debt, Social Security and Medicare.

The economic habits of our chidren are changing America. Purchasing a home or a car (see above) are no longer top priorities.  Frequently changing employment is common in search of a job that actually makes them happy. Malls and department stores are passé and all of brick and mortar retail is in a funk because there is nothing that they cannot  purchase on the internet.  Important news events are picked up on twitter and few read print newspapers or magazines. Chain restaurants that cater to their eating habits, gourmet coffee and tattoos have become prevalent.  They are among the few luxuries many millennials can actually afford.  Cable television, land line telephones and desk top computers are as unnecessary to millennials as typewriters were to baby boomers.

Socially, studies show that millennials tend to be less religious, better educated and slower to get married and/or start families than their boomer parents.  What effect this will have going forward is unknown.  Either there will be a rush to produce children as biological clocks wind down, turning boomers into grandparents in their 70s, or the country will begin aging.  Because we  boomers will live longer and many have already depleted savings for a number of ill advised reasons, a sizeable number of millennials will not inherit wealth when their parents finally expire.  But they will, no doubt, be saddled with taking care of us, as many boomers hang around past the century mark.

We over the hill boomers have a choice.  We can start climbing the next hill with vigor and moral clarity along with our children and be part of the solution by understanding their world and cooperating on solutions.  The alternative is to keep our title as the “me” generation and double down along with AARP to defend our entitlements to the last dollar.

There are simply not enough resources for boomers and our children to both move ahead unhindered.  Better for older Americans to sacrifice a little and seed the future with higher taxes and entitlement benefits that vest later and in lower amounts.  Better to volunteer and help our children with the multitude of economic and social issues they will face.  Better to take a deep breath and start climbing the next hill.  Along the way we may even learn what Bluetooth is and how it works.

A PROPOSAL TO HELP MOVE FROM “BEING RIGHT” TO “UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER” IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONFLICT

It has often struck me in this election year how political and social labels shape our dialogue with each other.  Indeed it has become difficult to determine where a person stands on important issues based on broad labels (e.g. conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, angry white male). When we associate one of these labels with another, we often jump to invalid conclusions about that person’s political and/or social views.  This tendency makes civil and constructive discourse on important issues more difficult and at times more antagonistic than it needs to be.  Political and social conflict are inevitable in a pluralistic democratic society, misunderstanding each other is not.

For those who wish to share ideas, either orally or in print, we need a better system for determining both political and social orientation in America.  The old labels are either too open to multiple interpretations or too ugly to withstand face to face discussion. An example of the former is labeling oneself a democrat or republican which in today’s political environment tells us little about a person’s views. Examples of the latter are to label someone a racist, sexist or immoral individual.

My suggestion regarding “political” orientation would be for actors to identify their standing by specifying a well know individual who shares their views or time period that represents their political orientation. Thus when we speak to or read an article by a “Theodore Roosevelt Republican”, or “William F. Buckley Conservative”, or “Lyndon Johnson Democrat” or “Senator Angus King Independent”, we would know much more of the positions held by the speaker or author. For example, describing oneself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative akin to Bill Clinton says much more than simply being called a democrat.

Such an adjustment to foster clarity would have several positive effects.  First, it would require those of us interested in political discourse to do our homework and learn more about political history, philosophy and thought.  Second, it would remove many of the unwarranted assumptions we make about another’s political views based on an over broad label.  Third, it would compel us to rethink our positions and make sure our overall orientation is consistent. Fourth, it would recognize that personality is often as important as positions in choosing a political orientation.

My suggestion regarding “social” labeling is a bit more complex than the political variety.  I would replace many of the negative social terms now popular in speech and print with three new classifications:  intolerance, permissive tolerance and respectful tolerance.  These terms are not my own and were developed by the contemporary German political philosopher Forst Rainer in his work on the culture of toleration.

Intolerance is rather self explanatory.  It would cover opinions most of us share including those involving pedophiles, terrorists or other individuals who are responsible for conduct outside accepted norms. Intolerant would also be an appropriate label for an avowed racist, homophobic, or sexist.

The second classification, “permissive tolerance”, gives qualified permission to the members of a minority to live according to their believes or to be accepted on the condition that the minority follows certain rules, laws or conditions. For example Donald Trump has advocated permissive tolerance toward immigrants by excluding families who entered the country illegally.  Ted Cruz has advocated permissive tolerance toward Muslims by subjecting their communities and places of worship to surveillance.  North Carolina has passed permissive tolerance legislation that specifically targets transgender individuals in their use of public restrooms.  Many conservative evangelicals demonstrate permissive tolerance toward homosexuals by having no objection to civil unions but being against gay marriage.

When the above examples are viewed through the lens of permissive tolerance, the debate changes in a way that I believe is more manageable.  The majority granting permissive tolerance often feels the minority should thank them for being more accepting than in the past.  The minority does not feel it is enough to not be exiled or persecuted.  They want to be respected as fellow human beings.  They want to be considered as neighbors, friends and colleagues who are diverse but treated equal.  In many respects a permissive tolerance analysis makes it easier for both sides of a conflict to understand the position of the other.

The last category is “respectful tolerance” where citizens may have fundamental differences between them but morally regard each other as having equal social, legal and political status.  Different ethnic backgrounds, different religions, different views on social issues, all tempered by respect.  Here there is no attempt to assimilate the minority into the majority and diversity is encouraged to make the whole stronger than its parts. Respectful tolerance is the sweet spot of political and social conflict resolution.

With respectful tolerance, conflict between competing interests remains.  However, a civilized debate takes place on a level playing field.  All actors recognize the healthy conflict as the basis for our pluralistic democracy.  Understanding the other is as important as being right. Compromise rather than all or nothing positions is more prevalent.

Where do I see these dynamic categories shifting before our eyes?  The  vestiges of passive racism as embodied in the “black lives matter” movement and minority incarceration, drug policy and urban education in America are examples of positions shifting from permissive to respected tolerance.  In international affairs, our changing foreign policy toward Cuba and Iran are examples.  The understanding and treatment of mental illness is also making this shift.

No classification system can account for all our differences or overcome our human nature to be right rather than to take the time to understand each other.  I am sure that others could propose classifications with more clarity. My goal is simply to start the conversation in developing systems to consider political and social conflict in a more positive and constructive way.