VOLUNTARY EXPATS ARE REPLACING POLITICAL EXILES

   

“The idea of being away from home is so inconceivable to me.”  Zadie Smith

History gives us many examples of individuals who supported an out-of- favor political cause who were then forced or opted to live outside their native country. In early modern history, these individuals were often coerced to leave by political enemies and branded exiles. Today, those on the wrong side of election outcomes are more likely to become expatriates (expats) who voluntarily leave their country of origin. This commentary will explore the escalating trend of those opposed to Trump to leave the United States since he was elected president.

First, a brief history on exiles. Traditionally, those exiled for their political beliefs, did not want to leave their culture, extended family, or fellow citizens. Often an exiled individual was the deposed sovereign leader of his people. According to Wikipedia, throughout history 95 important heads of state have been exiled from their homeland based on shifting politics.

To avoid political dissent, governments have also exiled citizens who threatened their claim to power. In 41 AD, Roman Emperor Claudius exiled the respected philosopher Seneca to the island of Corsica for his political beliefs.

In 130l AD, the famous poet, Dante Alighieri, author of The Divine Comedy, was exiled from Florence for his political affiliations. He was banished at age 36 never to see the city again.

The well-loved author, Victor Hugo, was forced out of France in 1851 due to his opposition to the Second Empire of Napoleon III. Hugo spent 19 years in exile on the Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey. After the fall of the Emperor, Hugo returned to Paris in 1870 to the welcome of cheering crowds. 

More recently in 1959, the Dali Lama, both the spiritual and temporal leader of Tibet, was exiled by the Chinese. The Soviet Union stripped Andrei Sakharov of all his Soviet titles in 1980, then exiled him to the city of Gorky. Not until 1985, when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, was he allowed to return to a normal life in Moscow.

The largest exile movement in the United States took place immediately following the American Revolution. Sixty thousand British loyalists, confronting real doubts about their lives, liberty, and potential happiness in the new republic, left the colonies and started over elsewhere in the British Empire. They took fifteen thousand enslaved people with them, bringing the total exodus to seventy-five thousand. This represented one in forty members of the American population. Based on the aggression they faced in the new nation, the decision to leave was far from a free choice.

A second example of a proposed large exile in America was an abject failure. Before and after the Civil War, some misinformed white Americans supported a “Back-To- Africa” movement designed to transport freed slaves to Liberia. Very few African Americans favored such an option. Less than 20,000 decided to return. Instead, a majority of Black Americans were determined to stay and support the abolitionist and later civil rights movements to obtain civic equality.

There are now few political circumstances that would force citizens to leave the United States. Nonetheless, according to VisaGuide.World, the number of Americans looking to live abroad jumped by 1,500 percent following Trump’s election. All of the internet travel sites reported increased inquiries from discouraged Americans researching the requirements for living in another country. The topic is being discussed by journalists and on blogs across America. While it is not known how many citizens will actually leave, the exploding interest in escaping America to become an expat is unmistakable.

There are several reasons why despondent Democrats are seeking to live abroad. First, threats supporting post-election political retribution were rampant. While campaigning, Trump consistently voiced the opinion that Democrats were the “enemy from within.” He has said, “They are so bad and frankly they’re evil.”  Moreover, never before had a presidential nominee openly suggested turning the military on Americans simply because they opposed his candidacy.

Second, many Americans are vigorously opposed to Trump’s proposed policy positions. They believe he will ratchet up the anti-democratic tendencies he exhibited four years ago and turn America into an authoritarian nation.

Third, in recent years several countries have become pleasant destinations for American expats with great weather and excellent medical facilities. These include Cost Rica, New Zealand, Portugal and other Southern European countries. Canada remains in the mix despite Trump’s taunting of Canadian officials that he will make it the 51^st state.

Personally, I agree with Cara Hoffman, a former expat, who recently wrote a guest essay for the New York Times. She believes that potential expats “should be imagining what it is they want instead of reacting to what they fear.”  Hoffman concludes that, “Would-be Trump expats should be aware that in this age of social media and American cultural dominance, there is little way to avoid the United States.”

The domestic political situation may indeed become uglier and more threatening. President Trump and his allies will no doubt cheer political opponents leaving the country. However, becoming an expat is not the answer.

There is another option that former exiles from Victor Hugo to Russian dissidents would find a better choice. Stay home and embrace the famous words of civil rights leader and Congressman John Lewis: “Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

WE HAVE TOO MUCH STUFF

 

"Not what we have but what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance.” Epicurus

Following an excess of holiday giving and receiving, many of us make New Year’s resolutions to tidy up the house and to discard what we no longer need. We also make solemn promises to organize all of our stuff.

Sensing our January emotional needs, every brick-and-mortar retail store is suddenly piled high with plastic storage containers. Unfortunately, like going to the gym, rarely are these efforts carried through past Valentines Day.

My spouse and I are not hoarders. However, our basement and attic are full of objects that never became part of our living space. While I am not as bad as the teenage son in the Zits comic strip, where clothing and dirty dishes are piled up in every corner, my sock drawer is an unmanageable twilight zone.

For both of us, finding stashed away household and personal items when we need them is often a maddening adventure. Our brain cells do not fully charge like they used to, and the house is large and uncooperative. Short of attaching Apple air-tags to these elusive objects, what is to be done?

Apparently, we are not alone. According to a survey by Pixie Technology, which measures modern trends, the average American spends a total of two and a half days every year looking for misplaced household items. More than $2.7 billion a year is spent replacing misplaced possessions. Disorganization is rampant in American lives.

 

A recent article in the New Yorker Magazine, What Professional Organizers Know About Our Lives introduced me to a thriving industry that is now in vogue. Its sole purpose is to attack clutter and to organize personal belongings. It turns out that Professional Organizers are not simply a legitimate vocation, their trade has turned into a broadening phenomenon. The author, Jennifer Wilson, proclaims that “Decluttering – with the advent of how-to books, Netflix series and even Hallmark movies based on the subject – has become central to American culture.”

Wilson agrees with the Washington Post that the pandemic accelerated our national focus on home organization. She explains in some detail the accepted rules to defeat clutter: “Americans who hated math suddenly could not stop talking about the four-box method (four boxes per room, labelled ‘Keep’, ‘Give Away’, ‘Throw Away’ and ‘Storage’; the 20/20 rule (toss anything you could replace in twenty minutes for twenty dollars); and the one-in-one-out rule (throw out one item for every new one you acquire).”

Before the Pandemic, the Japanese author Marie Kondo was credited with sparking both the do-it-yourself movement and professional organizer line of work. In 2014, this decluttering celebrity published “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up. The book became a best seller with fourteen million copies sold. It also spawned the 2019 Netflix hit series “Tidying Up with Marie Kondo.” According to Wikipedia, “the show had a notable cultural impact in the U.S. and the UK, where it was reported to have increased donations to charity shops.”

Kondo argues that most organization methods advocate a room-by-room approach, which is not effective. She encourages tidying by category. Her system begins with clothes, then moves on to books, papers, miscellaneous objects and finally sentimental items. Her Japanese Zen training urges us to keep only those things “that speak to the heart” and to discard items “that no longer spark joy.”

Kondo has now authored three additional books. While the first was an introduction into her methods, the second, An illustrated Master Class on the Art of Organizing goes deep into the details. The third, Organizing Your Professional Life, offers strategies to help eliminate clutter at work.

It is Kondo’s fourth, most recent book, Marie Kondo’s Kurashi at Home that I find most interesting. Published at the end of 2022, Kondo was now married with three children. She was struggling like many young mothers to keep her life in order.

The Japanese concept of “Kurashi” means “way of life”. Her advice is no longer singularly focused on organizing. Instead, she tells her readers: “I was a professional tidier, so I kept my home tidy at all times. I have given up on that in a good way. Now I realize what is important to me is enjoying spending time with my children at home.”

Funny what a husband and three young children will do to an award-winning theory of organization. For Kondo, taking advantage of every moment has replaced perfection in tidying up.

In November 2024, the definitive book on Professional Organizers was published. The author, Carrie Lane spent years studying the topic before releasing More than Pretty Boxes. The book does a deep dive into how these experts alleviate the demands society places on our limited time and energy.

Lane tells us that professional organizers are usually women seeking self-directed work. The book explores the strategies organizers use to help people part with their belongings. It raises social questions of overconsumption and the nature of unpaid home organization that places unfair demands on women. The book also discusses the psychological implications of emotional connections to stuff we own but never use.

Lane concludes that professional organizers are best thought of as “therapists of capitalism.” They form a relationship “suited to people trying to manage their copious belongings while also working through their feelings around their stuff and the labor it demands of them.”

 

 

 

 

 

FINDING HOPE IN THE AFTERMATH

 

I was baffled by the contrasting messages coming out of Syria, where rebel fighters overthrew Bashar al-Assad after decades of despotic rule, and from progressive Democrats following the recent election of Donald Trump.

In Syria, the CBS news show, “60 Minutes,” interviewed exiled factory owners returning to their bombed-out facilities, eager to rebuild. Families in towns destroyed by Assad, living in piles of rubble, only wanted to talk about what freedom felt like after fifty years of living in fear. Parents who finally learned the fate of their sons, killed in the Assad prison system, were relieved to have closure and talked about the future of their country. Hope appears to dominate the social fabric of Syria.

The opposite mindset was expressed by many Democrats following the election.  Author Ben Tarnoff reflected the thoughts of many when he wrote for The New York Review, “Trump’s style is simple, a gleeful hostility toward the institutions that have traditionally organized American life. He positions himself not merely as an outsider but as a destroyer: someone who delights in the demolition of norms and normalcy.”

Shortly after the election, an editorial in the U.S. edition of the Guardian had this to say, “Today is a day of despair, and it would be futile to tell those who fear and grieve for what is to come in America that they will be OK. It would also be dishonest: many of us, in truth, will not be OK.”

How is it possible that such widespread hope can exist among Syrians who continue to live at a subsistence level in an unstable environment? Conversely, what can explain the feelings of impending doom of so many Americans, who enjoy a high standard of living, surrounded by national exceptionalism?

To get some answers, I sought advice from my neighbor, a wise, retired psychology professor. He explained that in Syria, expectations were so low for so long that any positive news created an outpouring of hope for improved conditions. On the other hand, before the election, the expectations for being rid of Trump and sending him to prison were high among progressives. The Trump victory, with many voters who previously voted Democratic now supporting him, sent loyal Democrats into a deep funk.

In America, there was also the psychological tendency for people to overemphasize the negative.  “Negativity bias” ensures that unpleasant results have a greater impact and last longer on one’s psychological state than neutral or positive ones. This helps explain the willingness of Trump supporters to back the “stop the steal” movement since the 2020 election even though there was no evidence of voting improprieties. Similarly, upset progressives now warn of the “end of democracy” even before Trump takes office. In addition, most news coverage is predominantly negative and reinforces this trend.

I decided to stand back from recent occurrences in Syria and America to gain some perspective on where events are heading. In Syria, despite the recent abundance of hope, the political and economic prospects for the country are not encouraging.  As the statues of Assad were being pulled down, a scramble among sectarian rivals was on to see who would replace him.

A number of factors must come together to ensure that the situation in Syria improves. First, there must be an open, comprehensive dialogue involving all social, ethnic, and religious groups leading toward free and democratic elections. Second, foreign powers must agree to preserve Syria’s territorial integrity. Third, the militia that took down Assad must agree to protect minorities, women’s rights, and to prevent acts of vengeance. Fourth, governments and humanitarian groups must provide short-term food relief and longer-term reconstruction aid. Fifth, the chemical weapons manufactured by the Assad regime must be secured and destroyed. Lastly, a pathway must be established for the safe return of refugees.

A recent article in Foreign Affairs Magazine concludes that “The Syrian people face monumental challenges. Piecemeal solutions will not suffice, but realistic goals must be set.” Much must go right in the most dangerous area of the world not known for its success in nation building.

Turning to the pessimism following our election, I was encouraged by the recent and final column of Paul Krugman, an economist and writer for the New York Times. In the article, “Finding Hope in an Age of Resentment.” Krugman points out that when he started writing his column twenty-five years ago, most Americans were optimistic and “took peace and prosperity for granted.” He believes that “optimism has been replaced by anger and resentment” and that “the satisfaction with the direction of the country has disappeared.” This is because “governments have lost the public’s trust.”

Krugman explains there is a way out of the grim place we are in. He argues, “Resentment can put bad people in power but can’t keep them there. The public will realize that politicians railing against elites actually are elites and start to hold them accountable.”

Krugan concludes, “We will eventually find our way back to a better place.” This will happen when, “The voting public begins to listen to people who don’t try to argue from authority, don’t make false promises, but do try to tell the truth as best they can.”

Despite the contrasting public moods, my guess is that after the next national election cycle, democratic institutions in America will be far healthier than in Syria.