THE DISUNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

Two recent political speeches are instructive in understanding the discouraging divide in America.  First, President Biden spoke in Philadelphia describing the upcoming midterm elections as “a battle for the soul of America.” For the first time, he assailed not only the former president but also his followers in the Make America Great Again movement. He concluded that the MAGA agenda has no place in our political process and has become a threat to democracy.

Biden supported his conclusion by describing MAGA positions that: 1) reject the results of the last presidential election, 2) would eliminate all  abortion, 3) attack the FBI and Justice Department for doing their jobs and 4) seek to restrict voter access to the ballot box. He was careful in his remarks not to paint all Republicans as MAGA supporters.

Two days later, former president Trump gave a two-hour speech in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania. The event was scheduled to support the campaigns of Republican candidates running for Governor (Doug Mastriano) and for the Senate (Mehmet Oz). Predictively, the speech quickly drifted off into another polemic of grievances and lies. Among Trump’s comments, President Biden was labeled “an enemy of the state” and the FBI and Department of Justice were called “vicious monsters.”

Midterm elections are usually a voter referendum on the political party of the president.  This is especially the case when the party also controls Congress. Biden’s attempt to make the midterms a referendum on a former president is unprecedented. However, there is something far more troubling than caustic political rhetoric and the sorry state of national politics. In modern times, issues that matter most in peoples’ lives are often being formulated at the state, not the national level. In deciding these issues, the individual states of our republic are drifting so far apart that Lincoln’s description of “a house divided” is now an appropriate description of America’s political future.

Consider the following divergent public policies on abortion, gun control, immigration and voting rights recently adopted by various states:

·      When all the states have responded to the Supreme Court overturning of Roe, it is expected that half will have eliminated or severely curtailed access to abortion.

·      Mississippi now bans all abortions, vaccine mandates, the teaching of balanced racial history and transgender students participating in sports based on the gender with which they identify.

·      California adopted a law that protects people who come to the state to get or facilitate an abortion against legal actions filed in states where abortion is banned. The Governor is dangling California tax credits in front of companies that are seeking to move out of conservative states that limit reproductive, gay and transgender rights.

·      Connecticut has expanded access to abortion by allowing physician assistants and certified midwives to perform them.

·      In 2020, ten liberal states adopted new restrictions on the purchase or carry of firearms.

·      Twenty-three conservative states now allow “permitless carry” which removes all restrictions on gun owners being armed in public.

·      California has defacto legalized undocumented immigrants by being the first state to offer Medicaid and health insurance available for poor citizens to all immigrants, regardless of status.

·       In Texas, the Governor has authorized the state police to return unauthorized immigrants back to the border. He is working to withhold payment for undocumented children to attend Texas public schools.

·      Twenty-nine states have expanded access to voting by mail while thirteen states have restricted it.

There are many other examples ranging from climate change, to the Affordable Care Act, to public health issues. Not since the Civil War has the tenth amendment of the Constitution (reserving to the states the powers not delegated to the federal government) become such an important factor in American politics.

The impact of states’ rights is bound to get worse. In 2020 there were thirty-seven states in which one political party controlled both the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature. When partisanship prevents congressional action, individual states can move quickly to pass legislation opposed by half the nation. Moreover, the conservative Supreme Court has signaled its intent to follow up on the abortion decision by handing back other critical policy and cultural issues to the states.

What is to be done as America becomes more disunited? At some point, there will be a realization that there is no path toward reconciliation. There will be an admission that the United States is no longer a cohesive citizenry capable of moving forward as a nation. A new arrangement will be required that matches political form to political substance.

Partial defederalization, perhaps similar to the European Union model (a political and economic union of sovereign states) could serve this purpose, though it is fraught with difficulties. Blue states do not want to disadvantage poorer Americans living in conservative states. Red states, despite their attacks against national government, benefit more from federal programs and the distribution of tax dollars.

The alternative is to employ something in short supply — compromise. It should be possible to restore national political equilibrium if Congress radically changes the way it does business. The two political parties can no longer be more extreme than the voters they represent. Primary elections and gerrymandering must be reformed.

Catholic Ireland adopted a national, middle of the road, abortion policy. All of Europe passed sensible gun control, health care, education and climate change laws. These “United States” can do the same.

 

 

 

DOING GOOD IS COMPLICATED

 

“Everything sucks is not helpful. The relevant question is what can we do?” William MacAskill

As the summer winds down, what is left of the dwindling print press has focused on a positive topic to counter all of the bad news splashed across the headlines. Prominent articles on “altruism” or “the art of doing good” were featured in Time magazine (cover, August 22) and The New Yorker (essay, August 15).

One would think that such a topic would be a straight forward, uplifting examination of individuals and organizations devoted to improving the world. Alas, it turns out that practicing altruism is complicated. When a group of confirmed altruists get together, the debates are intense with conflicting positions.

One reason altruism is getting attention can be traced to the 35 year old Scottish philosopher, William MacAskill, credited with forming the modern movement on the subject. Mr. MacAskill has just published a new book on altruism titled What We Owe The Future. The book is expected to be a best seller. In the spirit of altruism, all proceeds will go to his organization dedicated to helping others.

Mr. MacAskill has spent his life agonizing over the threshold question of how one individual can do the most good for humankind. Years ago, he made his own calculations and determined that he would limit his income to twenty-six thousand pounds ($31,000.00) each year and would give the rest of his earnings away. Ironically as his organization called “effective altruism” (EA) has gained a worldwide following, his fund raising activities far outweigh his income.

Two issues complicate the life of an individual dedicated to altruism. First, how does one determine what activities will actually do the most good? Second, how does one reconcile being an altruist with living a healthy lifestyle, free of angst and depression, in a world so full of inequality, death and destruction?

The first question has caused heated battles within the altruism community. Traditionally, many philanthropists would favor giving to a favorite university, library or local causes in the community. The new view is that effective altruism is evidence-based to determine the best ways of helping others. Under this thesis, local giving may be seen as a personal indulgence to gain recognition rather than true sacrifice for the sake of the world’s neediest.

The modern altruism movement considers all human lives to have equal value.  A thousand dollars might buy one scholarship in Pennsylvania, four eye surgeries for children in Portugal or five thousand doses of deworming medicine in East Africa. When measured in what altruists call “quality-adjusted life years,” the deworming charity was found to be a hundred times more cost effective than the sight-saving eye surgeries. The Bill Gates foundation has used this approach in its decision to eradicate malaria. It has been determined that the most cost effective way to save human lives, anywhere in the world, is in the manufacture and distribution of insecticide treated anti-malaria bed nets.

Mr. MacAskill and his EA organization have come to favor a breadth of interlocking causes. Fifty percent of its funding goes to global health and development projects with the highest potential to save human life. Ten percent is dedicated to building the movement and for research. Animal welfare is a major issue in the altruism community and receives funding to promote development of alternative proteins to reduce demand for animal products. (Although MacAskill warns that giving to a clean energy charity will do more good than a lifetime of not eating meat.)  Lastly, programs are funded to support the relatively new concern for future existential risks. This includes threats like climate change, artificial intelligence, pandemics and genetic engineering.

When MacAskill first heard the call for altruism to address long-term risks, he was not sold on the idea. He felt there were too many real problems in the world facing real people to fanaticize about future apocalypses.  As the pace of scientific discovery quickened, his views changed.  He now believes “the world’s long run fate depends in part on the choices we make in our lifetime.”

This brings us back to MacAskill’s new book What We Owe The Future. It is a polemic on the moral imperative to take all necessary steps to influence the long-term future. He believes that humanity is in the early stages of development with three possible outcomes: extinction, billions of future unhappy lives or billions of future flourishing lives. The prescription for success is not an easy sell. It entails an individual duty to live a life of conscious self-denial along with financial contributions to the causes he champions. The conclusion is that a single person can make a difference in saving lives today and transforming the lives of thousands in the future.

Learning to live a balanced life while serving both present and future humanity is also complicated. MacAskill has undergone his own transformation over the years. Early on, he was often depressed and agonized over small decisions like what products to purchase and where to cut corners to give more of his savings away. Today, he is no longer overwhelmed by the magnitude of the world’s problems. He takes time off to enjoy life and prioritizes sleep, exercise and meditation. MacAskill now beleives it is possible to be comfortable and well-rounded while continuing to do the most good.