Commentary – Page 10 – Pat the Expat

This didn’t have to happen

Within days, we’ll witness a string of atrocities across Afghanistan, as the Taliban consolidates power, takes revenge on those who opposed it, and reimposes its sordid, misogynistic rule. The US went into Afghanistan to evict the Taliban not because they were, and are, evil; we went there because they refused to turn over Al Qaeda to stand justice. For this reason, the US deployed the force necessary to evict the Taliban in a truly amazing display of military power.

In the twenty years since that happened, various American Presidents tried and failed to extricate the nation from the war. It was clear to all that the end of an active US military presence in the Hindu Kush (the ancient term for the area we know as the “nation” of Afghanistan) would mean a return of the Taliban. America tried increasing its presence and operations to destroy the Taliban, tried increasing its civil involvement (building schools, writing laws, fostering businesses), tried reducing its military footprint to reduce frictions, and finally tried negotiating directly with the hated Taliban.

In the last five years, the US engaged in a strategy of delay and stalemate. We provided the Afghan government with all the means to succeed while realizing it never could: in effect we propped it up. We built up the Afghan military so it could resist the Taliban, but only if it retained the continued training, air support, and logistics from the US Army. This strategy succeeded by not losing.

Some decried this strategy as defeatist. While the American way of war emphasizes victory, the American public (and its elected officials) no longer have the stomach for the carnage (both to our soldiers and the enemy) that entails. Waiting the Taliban out was always a long-shot, but it had worked so far. Why did we abandon it?

Some said that Afghanistan was America’s longest war. They are either wrong or simply lying. We have been at war with the People’s Democratic Republic of (North) Korea for seventy-plus years. The fact we currently have an armistice that makes people (even South Koreans) think the war is over is testament to how a strategy of waiting the enemy out can succeed. In the meantime, South Korea evolved into a vibrant economy, a manufacturing powerhouse, and even a nascent democracy.

That long “not peace” was not always as peaceful as it is today. At times after the 1951 armistice, the sides exchanged fire and postured. North Korea infiltrated forces across the DMZ to attack targets in the South, and even master-minded an attack on the Blue House and the terrorist bombing of a South Korean airliner in 1987. The US and the Republic of Korea forces suffered casualties, but full-scale combat was avoided. This was a long-term, successful strategy by any measure.

Could this strategy have worked in Afghanistan? It was. Over the past five years, the US drew-down forces and reduced its footprint and operational tempo. We gradually let the Afghan Army take the lead, but were always close at hand in case “things went south” (as we used to say in the Army).

But what of the casualties? I want to be crystal clear here. I was a soldier once; many of my classmates served in Afghanistan, and some died there. No soldier wants to die, and soldiers deserve to know they’re not being sacrificed for no reason. But they do know, from day one in basic training, that they may be sacrificed. Especially in an all-volunteer, professional military, this is a well-understood proposition. Our casualties during the last five years in Afghanistan ran under ten deaths per year. We lose a thousand service-members annually to training accidents. There was no countless-deaths-in-vain reason to withdraw.

From the Federation of American Scientists. OCO is war-on-terror combat, non-OCO is training

But what of the cost? Even with the monumental (and well-documented) corruption, Afghanistan represented a minimal financial burden to the US. In the last few years, we were spending around $50 billion US dollars annually on all activities in Afghanistan; that’s what the entire US government spends in two days. The people who say the cost was too high are the exact same people who said we couldn’t just destroy Al Qaeda and leave the Taliban in charge, we had to create a democracy and build Afghanistan’s civil infrastructure. We tried; it didn’t take, or at least it didn’t take well-enough that Afghani soldiers felt compelled to fight and die to defend it. Maybe it just needed more time, but the clock ran out.

President Trump was wrong to direct a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Like most of his decisions, it went against his own hand-picked advisors, and seemed to be based on his gut instincts or his dislike for the Bush family. He thought he was being decisive in “ending an endless war,” when he simply misunderstood that in combat, only the loser can end a war. He has that decision on his record forever.

Even more execrable is President Biden’s decision to not only withdraw, but to accelerate the timetable. President Biden has seen fit to completely rescind almost every policy President Trump put into place, but here he doubled-down on it. I recall the quote of the Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said Mr. Biden had the unique position of being ‘the only person wrong on every major foreign policy issue in the past forty years.’ Looks like the string remains unbroken. His administration set arbitrary (and inane) deadlines, like withdrawing by September 11th. Then they advanced them further, apparently realizing all hell was breaking loose but not that such a move would be reminiscent of Saigon, 1975.

The Last Helicopter: Evacuating Saigon — Nothing to see here, move along!

Proving that this was a policy decision not fully coordinated with the military, the administration conveniently ignored the fact that thousands of Afghanis (and their families) who worked with the US military had to be evacuated or they would be massacred; the haphazard evacuation continues today. Administration spokesmen blithely bat away the helicopters-on-the-rooftops comparison, while the President orders three-thousand US Marines back into Kabul to evacuate the US Embassy. Guess we’ll use Humvees this time.

Yes, this war dragged on. Yes, the US engaged in mission creep, and was never willing to destroy the Taliban. Yes, the US military was going to keep sending soldiers home draped in coffins as long as this war continued. No, there was no compelling need for President Trump’s rash decision, nor President Biden’s inexcusable continuation of it. No, we were not bleeding ourselves dry outside Kandahar, nor were we bankrupting the nation’s treasure bankrolling corrupt Afghan officials. No, this loss was not inevitable. It was a choice.

As I said before–and as it has always been–the losers determine when a war ends. There is no dignity in this withdrawal, whether or not we see people clinging to helicopter skids. Our military did exactly what it was asked to do. This “L” is on our Leaders, who lost hope, lacked fortitude, and thought they could finesse it. There will be no finesse in Kabul soon, only peace, the peace that comes with the grave.

Our leaders always knew, from Day One, what would happen if the Taliban returned. They now share this legacy.

An Analytic Mind

Let me apologize in advance for the length, breadth, and depth (I hope) of this post. You’ll want to pour a large drink (coffee or something stronger), get comfortable, and take a few deep cleansing breaths before reading further!

Often during the past four years of blogging, and even back when I worked, I decried efforts to engage emotions over facts. Sometimes this happened in academia, more so in politics, frequently in news media, and overwhelmingly in social media. I found myself constantly warning others NOT to fall for the easy tug on one’s emotions. Ask yourself “why am I being told this?” Question “what is the rest of the story?” Ponder “how accurate is this data?” Always think “what else–beside the obvious aspect–could this mean?”

Analysts, indeed anyone with an analytic mind, must be careful when reaching for the very persuasive tool that is emotions. When I was still in the business of grading analysis, we had a rigorous debate about the use of graphics–pictures and graphs and maps and videos–to support analysis. After all, we all know “a picture is worth a thousand words.” One of the guidelines we instituted was the graphic should elaborate the analytic point (making it clearer, for example) but not extend beyond the analysis. Thus in an analysis which concludes that Bashar al-Asad used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in his own country, you don’t include a photo of gassed, dead babies, because the issue is DID HE DO IT? If the analysis was concluding he ordered the gassing in order to terrorize his opponents, you might include the same photo, because the point is his use of terror. As you might imagine, such a guideline raises interesting and difficult questions, but these are exactly the kinds of questions that should be debated when using emotional graphics in analysis.

But I realize that I benefited from years of training and practice in these arts, and constantly warning others not to fall for easy emotional grabs was not as useful as explaining how to avoid them. So here goes, with some examples of how to look at things and question what they mean:

This graph was from a New York Times’ OpEd piece. I didn’t embed the GIF for security reasons, but the graphic movement just shows that effective tax rates on the ultra wealthy have steadily decreased from 70% in 1950 to around 20% in 2018, while rates on most everyone else have slightly increased! Are you outraged yet? Take deep breaths, I’ll wait.

I am willing to concede that this data is correct, but what does it tell you? That the rich pay less in taxes? No. The wealthiest 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all federal income tax revenue. That the government is stupidly ignoring taxing the rich? Unlikely, since the government needs revenue. Our leaders are corrupt? Believe that if you like, but to do so you must indict both parties at all levels of government: Democrats & Republicans, federal, state and local officials. That’s quite an indictment!

So ask yourself: why (primarily) does the government tax? To gain revenue. It can also tax to discourage spending (e.g., sin taxes) or to encourage investment (home mortgage exemptions) but these are secondary to the main purpose. The government can only print money, it has to tax to acquire it. Why would the government lower taxes on the rich, if the rich have so much money? Because rich people have many more ways to avoid paying taxes. And like everybody, they will only pay what they feel is a “fair share.” Beyond that, they will use every legal trick to avoid extra taxes. And they will avoid those taxes, because they are rich and have more tax-avoidance tools.

The poor, on the other hand, have much greater difficulty avoiding taxes. They can’t simply move their residence on paper to another state. The poor can’t shelter income as dividends or business expenses, and they can’t avoid gas taxes and tolls. They are more inclined to see taxes as inevitable, and only react strongly when the situation gets way out of hand. Thus the poor are easier to tax than the rich.

The real kicker here is the middle class. They too only want to pay what they feel is their fair share: any more and they rebel and seek some form of evasion. This was the story of Proposition 13 in California back in 1978, which restrains that state to this day. The middle class has more resources for the government to tax, but also more active voters to avoid taxes. So go back and look at that chart, and you’ll see the government stops trying to tax the rich (which is popular but ineffective) but raises taxes on the middle class and near-rich, which is an effective way to raise revenue as long as there are more of them and they don’t revolt. As to the poor, they can’t avoid taxes, so they get hit too (when you count all forms of taxes). It may not be “right” but it is absolutely rational, and doesn’t require you to be outraged or believe the system is corrupt.

This post has been marinating for a week while I waited for another, current example: the Good Lord (and the Washington Post) provided. In yesterday’s WaPo there is an article about a real world policy issue: whether the additional federal unemployment benefits provided during the pandemic were keeping people from returning to work. The article is here, and is based on a WaPo & Gusto study you can read here. Go ahead and read the article, I’ll wait.

The essence of the debate is that red state Republican governors ended the extra benefits early, in the belief that workers were staying home cashing in on benefits rather than returning to work. Blue state Democratic governors kept the benefits flowing. Thus we have a natural experiment, the results of which should answer the question whether workers really were skipping a return to work because of the increased benefits.

The WaPo headline and lede demonstrates their analytic take: there was no hiring boom for the states who cut benefits. And they have a graph which proves the point:

However, the study also concluded that “who” was getting hired was different:

Blue states were relying on teenagers to keep pace

So red states saw a surge in 25+ year olds in hiring, but blue states saw a surge in teenagers to come up with the same numbers. Except those teenagers (1) weren’t eligible for the extra benefits, and (2) won’t be around in the Fall when they return to school. As the Post stated in a single sentence buried in the article: “The analysis also adds perspective to the teen hiring boom, revealing that more generous unemployment payments played a role in keeping more experienced workers on the sidelines, forcing employers to turn to younger workers.” (emphasis added)

Or, those who said the extra benefits were keeping workers from returning were correct. Which is not in the headline, or the lede, or anywhere obvious in the story. Now note I am not taking sides on whether it was a good idea, or moral, or anything else to reduce benefits early: just that the data suggests adult workers were staying out of the workforce because their enhanced unemployment benefits assisted that option. Which is/was the case in point.

The article also referenced workers who suffered from the reduction in benefits, which is an old emotional ploy. I wonder if the Post looked for someone in the states that maintained benefits and who used the extra money to buy oxycodone and died from an overdose? See how easy it is to tug at the heartstrings? Perhaps the article could have considered whether the best use of teenager’s time was to get them into dead-end jobs, or whether working affected their virtual schooling performance?

One last point: the WaPo piece also describes the other factors delaying workers from returning: schools or day-care, fear of the virus, or workers re-assessing their careers. It did so without mentioning why schools are still out (teachers union’s demands), whether vaccinated adults should be “afraid” and whether workers should be permitted to remain unvaccinated and opt out of working, or why federal benefits are appropriately used for workers to decide to change careers.

Nothing that the Washington Post wrote was factually wrong. But I think you can see how all of it was shaded toward an end. And that was done with all the data plainly provided for you to see. For those with an analytic mind, it isn’t hard to blow off the mists and see things as they are.

Look closely, because sometimes the smoke is just an illusion, and the only fire is in the eyes of the salesman.

On Patriotism

As we close on another American Independence day, I’ve been thinking about the nature of patriotism. It seems to me we Americans have lost the concept of the word. People talk about “love of country” and “American exceptionalism” leading to arguments that miss the point. Patriotism is not uncritical support; it is also not unsupported criticism. It is not the extremism of the fan who thinks only his team should ever win, and every referee’s decision or sport ruling to the contrary is unfair and biased. Yet it is also not detached neutrality, a keeping-your-distance and not-being-emotionally-committed attitude common in academia.

When I worked for the government, I used to remind my employees they were not neutral observers of American foreign policy: they wanted that policy to succeed, whether they personally supported it or not. (Note: we weren’t talking about policies they morally opposed; of course one is required to quit if asked to support a policy you could not in good conscience support). You didn’t need to chant “U…S…A, U…S…A!” all the time, but neither should you act like it made no difference to you.

Enough about what patriotism isn’t; what is it? Try this concept on for size: patriotism is an appreciation for the unique advantages your nationality bestows on you, unmerited on your part. Thus it does not mean your country is better than any other, nor does it mean everything your country does it right or best. This appreciative version of patriotism requires an objective view of your nation’s history, other nation’s histories, and the state of the world today. But it avoids silly chest-thumping on one hand, or ridiculous a-historical criticism on the other.

There is nothing particularly patriotic about believing your country is the greatest ever, nor in thinking solely about its many shortcomings. Both approaches lead to dead ends. There can be little doubt nations and nationalities demonstrate differing areas of excellence, and acknowledging this fact is not unpatriotic, just realistic. Brazil plays beautiful football. Nobody does cheese like France. Taiwan and computer chips. Sometimes patriotic fervor isn’t about absolute excellence, but simply relative excellence or good fit. I wouldn’t prefer the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, but the British cherish it as a national accomplishment nonetheless. It just works for them.

Heaven is where
the police are English,
the chefs are French,
the mechanics are German,
the lovers are Italian,
and the Swiss organize everything.
Hell is where
the Germans are the police,
the English are the cooks,
the French are the mechanics,
the Swiss are the lovers
and the Italians organize everything.
An old joke about Heaven, Hell and Europe

I didn’t storm the beaches at Normandy, but I benefited from the those who put an end to the Nazis. I never enslaved anyone, nor did my Irish forebears, but I was born into a society that had far more opportunity in South Bend than Sligo, just as an African American descended from slaves but born beside me in South Bend had so much more opportunity than a distant cousin still in Soweto. That we both had different (and unequal) opportunities is both a global statement of fact and a call for continued hard work. It is simply amazing to me that some people today think it is a remarkably American failing that inequality exists; if this surprises you, you either haven’t traveled much or weren’t paying attention when you did.

All nations have strengths and weaknesses. As do all forms of government, all ethnic groups, and all individuals. Being honest about these strengths and weaknesses is not disloyal, while only considering one or the other might be. I have little patience for those who say “America: love it or leave it.” I have no patience whatsoever for those who claim unrelenting criticism is some higher form of patriotic fervor.

America is, was, and ever will be far short of perfect. Yet it remains a blessing to be born an American, regardless of race, creed, or color. In praise or criticism, this remains true, and only an ingrate would challenge it.

Happy Independence Day!

Eucharistic Bombs

It’s not every day one sees Catholic doctrine debated on the front pages of the New York Times and in the chyrons of the so-called news channels. Given the quality of the debate we’ve witnessed recently, that’s a good thing. Watching professed-atheist journalists wrestle with concepts like transubstantiation is like watching monkeys with the proverbial football. Better still is “former” Catholics proclaiming their own gospel, Bishops suddenly attempting to regain the standing to make moral judgments, and poorly-catechized Catholics offering their take on right-and-wrong. Phew; what’s a poor sinner to do?

You may have heard that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops recently decided to issue a document attacking President Biden for receiving Holy Communion when he attends Mass. You might have heard that Pope Francis warned the American Bishops not to do this, but they did so anyway. You may have heard the Bishops are in the tank for former-President Trump and are attacking the current occupant of the White House for political reasons. You might even believe the Bishops have no moral standing to tell anybody anything, what with several decades of child sexual abuses allegations on their hands. All these things have an element of truth to them; none is actually correct. Like the blind men and the elephant, people are grasping for a partial truth, and oftentimes seeing what they want to see. Let’s stop looking through a glass darkly and see things as they are, shall we?

I know you were told there would be no math, but no one said we wouldn’t discuss Catholic doctrine, which is where we have to start. First off, Catholics believe in the Real Presence, namely, that the bread and wine on the altar are trans-substantiated into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a non-negotiable, eternal element of Catholicism. It means that the Eucharist is the “source and summit of the Christian life.” It is nourishment for the journey that is life, and a source of strength for life’s battle between good and evil. It made me laugh when some claimed the Bishops were “weaponizing the Eucharist.” Why of course they were; that is its purpose.

Because of this teaching, Catholics must be worthy to receive the Eucharist. This is a nuanced subject, as no one is truly worthy to receive the Savior’s body and blood. What worthiness involves is being in communion with the Church (believing what the Church teaches), not being in a state of serious (i.e., mortal) sin, and having completed the prescribed fast and penitence. So all Catholics are sinners, but repentant and in accord with the Church, so we go to Mass and line up for Holy Communion, or if we know we don’t qualify right now, we stay in the pews until we are. It does not matter whether you failed to keep a one-hour fast before communion, or you are remarried but not annulled in the eyes of the Church, or you are an abortion-performing doctor: all require the believing Catholic to repent and do penance before returning to the Eucharistic line. A long time ago, the faithful only took Holy Communion once a year, or tried to win a Divine Trifecta by being baptized, confessing, and receiving their first communion on their death bed (talk about just-in-time delivery!). Eventually the Church taught we all need the sustenance of the Divine Presence, seeking to avoid such heavenly gamesmanship.

The Church in America today is in crisis. Actually, the entire Roman Catholic Church is always in crisis. It began with leaders who were doubters, deniers, braggarts, vengeance seekers, fools and knaves, and never got better. There is a wonderful story about Napoleon occupying Rome, and learning that the Pope had forbid it, whereupon he threatened a Cardinal thusly, “Your Eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?” To which the Cardinal replied: “Your Majesty, we Catholic clergy have done our best to destroy the Church for the last eighteen hundred years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”

Somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence, despite it being consistent, unchanging Church teaching. Now there is nothing wrong with believing communion (note the small “c”) is only a symbol of Christ’s presence; this is a common holding of many Protestant sects. But is it most certainly not Roman Catholic teaching. So there is little doubt that Catholic catechesis is lacking, and whose job is that? The Bishops. Despite whatever other failings they have, the job is theirs.

On top of this, about half of Catholics don’t think abortion is a serious (as before, mortal) sin, reinforcing the lack of Catholic education. Again, there has been no change in Church teaching, as abortion has been around as long as the Church. And to remind, mortal sin is a dis-qualifier for receiving Holy Communion. Many of these Catholics don’t go to Mass, so the issue is somewhat academic. But some do. Now if you secretly support abortion, and go to Mass, and receive Holy Communion, your sin is very serious, but a private one: no one but you and God will know. You may be damned (it’s up to Christ), but your twitter standing is secure.

But what if you publicly proclaim your support for abortion rights, support funding for it, defend it as a morally-acceptable choice, and campaign for officials who do likewise, and then go receive Holy Communion? Why, you’re President Biden! Or Speaker Pelosi. Or any of a number of Catholic politicians who do so. And here’s the rub: by being public in their position, and continuing to receive Holy Communion, they commit an additional sin the Catholic Church calls scandalizing the faithful. This means other Catholics will look at them, see they say and do as they please with no sanction, so they must not be wrong, right?

This is the dilemma the Bishops face. Failing to act, and to teach what the Church believes, they ended up with faithful who don’t believe. Take a position, and you enter into politics, since the overwhelming majority of Catholics who support abortion rights are Democrats. What about the Bishop’s support of then-President Trump? Isn’t it hypocritical to call out President Biden? President Trump wasn’t Catholic (Gracias a Dios) so supporting him was a prudential issue, where one had to measure various political, moral, and ethical positions and decide. Faithful Catholics could come down for or against, and they did. President Biden is Catholic, so his behavior becomes an issue of Catholic teaching and who gets to decide what Catholics believe. Which are the Bishops.

Or should I say, the Bishop. One aspect of Catholic doctrine only covered in passing is the role of the national conferences. They are advisory bodies, a relatively recent phenomenon, meant to give the Church a means to speak in unity on national issues. Their writ extends to consensus documents and to such things as which extra holy days of obligation (Church feasts) to require for the faithful in their country. This is why Pope Francis admonished the Bishops to ensure whatever they taught about receiving Holy Communion, it was not divisive. He did not, and could not, say it was ok to receive Holy Communion in a state of serious sin, nor did he suggest support for workers’ rights, immigration, or child care were issues as serious as abortion. In fact, then Cardinal Bergoglio was the principle author of the Aparecida document which stated the prohibition forcefully: “We must adhere to ‘eucharistic coherence,’ that is, be conscious that they (editor’s note: politicians) cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals.”

In the end, whether President Biden receives Holy Communion in the District of Columbia every Sunday is up to Cardinal (Archbishop) Wilton Gregory, who has said “yes, he may.” And if the President travels outside of Archdiocese of Washington, it is up to the Bishop in whatever diocese he visits. Normally, these issues are dealt with privately in a parish setting. The would-be communicant visits the parish pastor, finds out what is needed to be “in communion” and not in a state of serious sin, then accommodates the priest’s directions. Sometime a priest recognizes someone in line for Holy Communion and is forced to make a snap-judgment: the priest may know the communicant was (at some time) not eligible, but what if they went to some other priest and are now “worthy” in Church eyes? The problem with public figures is they provide a public example, which reinforces the lack of understanding by the faithful, requiring a very public response which can be characterized as political. And remember, the priest is responsible for helping even a wayward Catholic, for in knowingly receiving Holy Communion in an unworthy state, the sinner merits even greater punishment.

Are some Catholic American Bishops engaging in politics? Maybe. Is there a deficiency in Catholic Americans’ understanding of the Real Presence? Yup. Will the Bishops author a document attacking President Biden? Nope. In the end, they will reiterate Church teaching on worthiness, specify that it is incumbent on the faithful to comply, and that Bishop’s only–not the believer–make the determination. I would bet they will have a sentence or two reminding public officials that, despite the claims of President Kennedy and Governor Mario Cuomo, there is no exception for elected officials who are Catholic. That will be all. The Bishops will approve the document, as will the Vatican. There is nothing new here.

Not all sins are equal, and I understand that non-Catholics may find it hard to believe that failing to support programs for real live children is not as morally suspect as abortion. However, for Catholics, there are differences, and if you want to say you’re Catholic, you don’t get the option of personally challenging how the Church categorizes sin. Sin, by itself, does not disqualify a Catholic from receiving Holy Communion. Serious sin, and disregarding Church teaching to reform and refrain from it, does. Even for Presidents.

Getting to “yes” in Palestine

In my last post, I reviewed the tangled, complicated events of the most recent conflict in the Gaza strip between Israel and Hamas. Some friends asked whether there was any way to cut the Gordian knot and achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. The expert opinion says “no” because the issues are many, the hatreds deep, and the political will is lacking. All three are true, but there is only one thing preventing peace in the area (in my opinion): unrealistic expectations.

Such expectations can be moderated by real leaders, to the benefit of all concerned. Currently, leaders on both sides choose to pander to the expectations, with predictably violent results.

What are those unrealistic expectations?

For the Jews, there are some who believe they have a Divine Writ to the Holy Land, meaning all the territory of Judea and Samaria belongs always and forever to the State of Israel. I am not here to debate the theological underpinnings of this claim, but only to state it is a maximalist position that can never be realized. For if Israel were to ever claim sole jurisdiction over all that territory it would cease to be a majority Jewish state in a matter of years. There are currently about seven million Jews and seven million Arabs in that territory, and another two-and-a-half million Palestinian Arabs in Jordan and Syria. The Jewish state would soon face an Arab majority voting bloc, or the need to create a permanent sub-class of Arab citizenship: real apartheid. Which would be anathema to most Jews and the international community. So it’s never going to happen.

For the Palestinians, there are those who believe they have the right to a separate, fully-sovereign (aka “normal”) state with Jerusalem as its Capital. Now it is undeniably true that this was mostly what was on-offer in the 1947 agreement which the United Nations brokered (Jerusalem was shared). But that was eight wars, two intifadas, and few thousand terrorist attacks ago. Things have changed, so to speak. The first thing the new Palestinian state did was ally with five Arab nations and attempt to destroy Israel. During the period of Arab control, they evicted all Jews from Jerusalem and prohibited Jewish prayer at the Kotel, or Western Wall. Given the upper hand, the Palestinians have repeatedly acted in bad faith: and all this knowing that the very creation of the State of Israel happened as a result of international recognition that the Jews could not rely on other nations to behave.

Drive off the unrealistic expectations on both sides and an agreement is difficult, but possible.

For Israel, Palestine must recognize its right to exist and to defend itself. This has been the secret to Israel’s successful negotiations of peace with Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states. There is no sense engaging diplomatically toward a long-term agreement with an opponent who insists you must die. The Palestinians must accept this. And, because the geography of any two-state solution is so irregular as to make Israel literally un-defendable, and because of the long history of unprovoked attacks, the Palestinians must accept status as a demilitarized state: no military forces, no weapons of any kind. There is only one country interested in attacking Palestine, and it is Israel, for defensive purposes. Remove the ability to threaten, and you remove the need for any military force.

Could you defend the blue from the orange? Somehow they did, but they’ll never agree to this again

Next, secure this solution by giving Israel complete control over the land/air/sea ports of embarkation into the Israeli/Palestinian territories, solely for purposes of excluding the introduction of weapons. The Palestinians can control immigration, but any object moving in or out must be inspected by the Israelis. The Israelis would also retain the right to patrol all borders, for the same reason.

Third, Jerusalem would remain under Jewish control, but further resettlement and historical claims to land titles would be reviewed under UN sponsorship. The Palestinian government would be given land and transit rights to establish government buildings (like the UN has in New York) and the right to claim Jerusalem as its capital. Religious sites for Christians, Muslims, and Jews would be under the control of religious authorities, with guaranteed access as long as they are used solely for religious activities (i.e., no protests, no political rallies, no violence, in which case they could be temporarily closed by Israeli authorities).

Fourth, Jews and Arabs who lost property in the wake of the 1947 war and other conflicts could apply for remuneration under a UN-sponsored process allocating funds donated by the international community. While it is unfortunate that people lost long-standing family homes, it is impossible to recreate the 1947 status quo. Application is contingent on surrendering any existing claims to actual property.

Fifth, and finally, the lines between the two states should be established solely by the determination of local communities in one-time plebiscites. While this will create mostly contiguous borders, there will be isolated minority communities, which will require detailed negotiations on management and access. The goal here (remembering that the security issue is mitigated by the overall peace agreement, as well as the Israeli control of borders) is to encourage more open commerce and interaction between the communities, in hopes that eventually they choose to co-exist.

The Jews would have a Jewish majority, secure state, with the ability to ensure no threatening weapons can enter. The Palestinians would have a state of their own, with a Capital in Jerusalem, but at the cost of total demilitarization and demonstrated acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. Those made refugees receive redress, if not the return of their property.

Are these peace terms unprecedented? Hardly. Costa Rica is an example of a state without a military despite living in a bad neighborhood. Japan went from militaristic to pacifist in a single lifetime, and no sane nation fears Japan’s Self-Defense Forces. There are even great examples of the details of a demilitarization process. The US and Switzerland have seventy-five years of experience with the functioning of extra-territorial government bodies (i.e., the United Nations). Many nations split their government functions up at multiple sites, and several have non-contiguous territory.

If it is all so clear and precedented, what is the hold-up? As I alluded to earlier, leadership. I mentioned the Israeli government’s paralysis, giving Prime Minister Netanyahu the push toward his natural, uncompromising positions. It is even worse for the Palestinians. The President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, is (a memorable quip from The Economist) “in the seventeenth year of a four year term.” Some suggest Hamas is not a terrorist group, since they have social service and administrative elements, and they even won an election in 2006. This is straining to put things in a good light, like the doctor who tells you that you have “a good cancer.” Those who always argue for more democracy should take a long look at this situation: many votes have brought to power (1) a corrupt leader beholden to a minority of extremists, (2) a corrupt and ineffectual octogenarian who has missed every opportunity to negotiate, and (3) murderous terrorists. So much for the wisdom of these crowds.

A breakthrough is unlikely either in Israeli politics or Gaza. Hope remains that a new generation of leaders in the West Bank could revive negotiations, leaving Hamas and the Gaza strip as a problem to be resolved later. A successful peace negotiation just for the West Bank would be a powerful impetus and undermine Hamas’ claims, while also allowing even tighter restrictions on Gaza in the meantime.

The Jews and Palestinians are like conjoined twins fighting it out in the womb, neither one realizing that the death of one will result in the death of both. We should all pray they choose new leaders, who choose life.

What Just Happened: Gaza

Israel warplanes and artillery mercilessly bombed Palestinian civilians trapped in the Gaza strip. The Israeli government evicted Palestinians from Jerusalem neighborhoods to secure Jewish control of the city. Jewish mobs dragged Palestinians from their cars and killed them.

Or . . .

Hamas indiscriminantly launched hundreds of rockets into Israel. Palestinian mobs threw rocks down on Jews praying at the Western Wall, and set fire to cars and synagogues elsewhere.

Or . . .

Cynical political leaders on both sides used a violent confrontation to further their own positions. Biased media reported parts of the story to get you to take sides. Gullible people who should be researching the situation instead shared and tweeted and emoted about things like international law and war crimes about which they knew little.

I’ll review the facts, you decide!

The current flare up–and remember, there have been countless ones before this–began in a courtroom. The Israeli Supreme Court was set to decide whether a group of Palestinians could be evicted from the Sheik Jarrar neighborhood of Jerusalem. The Palestinians had lived there since 1948, after having been displaced during the original Jewish-Arab conflict. The neighborhood had been Jewish prior to 1948, but the Jordanian government, which seized all of Jerusalem during the war and expelled the Jews, now had thousands of Arab refugees (there were no people called “Palestinians” at this time, as the term was a general one for the region, and not used for any specific people. It would be like referring to Ohioans as Midwesterners: true, but not specific). Jordan decided to settle displaced Arabs in former Jewish properties with the approval of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). While this was a practical solution, it did violate concepts of international law which forbid the re-titling of personal property forcibly seized pursuant to war.

Even the Jordanians respected this precedent, so despite Palestinian claims, Jordan never gave them proper title during the next twenty years, and Sheik Jarrar remained a Jewish neighborhood with Arab residents. The Israelis reclaimed all of Jerusalem in the 1967 war, and began systematically removing Palestinian squatters, both by legal and illegal means. This activity has proceeded in fits and starts for fifty-three years. At one point, Palestinian residents of Sheik Jarrar agreed to a compromise to be permitted to stay indefinitely as long as they paid rent, on which they subsequently reneged. The Israeli Supreme Court finally ruled last year that the Palestinians had to vacate the property by May of this year, but last month delayed the eviction to let the Israeli Attorney General take one more look at the case.

Point #1: International law is clear that these specific properties are Jewish and the Israelis have every right to evict the Palestinians. That said, the Israeli government has also evicted thousands of Palestinians without proper legal authority, and denies Palestinians the “right of return” to their former properties in Israel, the same right they are enforcing in Sheik Jarrar.

In anticipation of the end of the Muslim holy period of Ramadan, and the expected Israeli Supreme Court decision, Palestinian youth began gathering nightly at the Damascus Gate, a popular location along the Old City wall. Local Jewish authorities responded with riot dispersal methods before any real problems happened: perhaps with the intent to defuse, but ultimately inflaming the situation.

Jewish extremists gathered near the al-Aqsa Mosque on May 10th to celebrate “Jerusalem Day” and the recapture of the holy city during the 1967 war. These same marchers demanded access to al-Aqsa and were denied by Israeli security forces, but they subsequently engaged in acts of vandalism and violence at various locations in and around the city.

They throw the stones down from atop the wall

Palestinians responded by occupying the Temple Mount, the site of the Dome of the Rock (al-Aqsa), and began throwing rocks down on Jews praying at the Western Wall. This is a time-honored Palestinian technique which puts the Jewish authorities in a bind: ignore the rock throwers and Jews will be killed at the Western Wall. Respond, and that requires forcing your way up a narrow staircase and occupying part of the sacred Muslim ground on the Temple Mount. Almost always, the Jews choose the latter, resulting in tear gas and rubber bullets on holy ground, but in the end, an end to the fatal rock throwing.

Point #2: Every Israeli-Palestinian conflict begins with a series of action-reaction-overreaction cycles. The youths did not spontaneously gather; they were encouraged in case the Israeli court issued a ruling. The police did not have to disperse the original crowd. The Jewish extremists did not need to approach al-Aqsa. The protesters did not have to throw rocks from al-Aqsa. Same as it always was.

Next, Hamas began launching thousands of un-aimed rockets into Israel from Gaza, to “protect the dignity of the al-Aqsa Mosque from the Zionist occupiers.” To review, Hamas is the terrorist organization that seized control in Gaza in 2007. Their website states Hamas is a “popular, patriotic Palestinian, Sunni Islamist movement that resists the Zionist occupation.” Wait, isn’t one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? Why yes, but with whom do you agree? Hamas is a terrorist organization according to the USA, the Israelis (‘natch), the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others; Russia, China, Syria, and Egypt support Hamas. Hamas denies the Holocaust, and while publicly suggesting a willingness to negotiate with Israel, when speaking in Arabic to Arab populations, cites the ‘worldwide Jewish conspiracy’ and the religious duty to kill all Jews everywhere. The Israeli government would have a better chance negotiating with the Illinois Nazi Party.

Israel has the world’s preeminent anti-missile system, called Iron Dome, which can intercept these Hamas attacks. Except no system is 100% effective, and since the Hamas rockets are unguided and go just about anywhere, even the successful intercepts can result in large chunks of metal falling from the sky. And civilian casualties. Not to mention the fear factor of sirens wailing at all hours of the day and night, as Israelis scramble to get into safe-rooms in their homes (Israeli codes require them) or community shelters (provided by the government–remember this point for later). So the situation becomes intolerable for the Jewish people, even if casualties remain low. Thus Israeli leaders face a challenge: wait out the attacks, using up expensive Iron Dome intercepts on cheap Hamas rockets, or go after the launching systems and the people who push the buttons.

In Gaza, the Hamas leadership occupies a densely-populated (ranked as a city, it would be 43rd) urban area. It is, in effect, an urbanized refugee camp, which Israel can effectively blockade when it wants. Yet somehow, Hamas manages to smuggle in building supplies to dig hundreds of tunnels, both to further smuggling efforts into Egypt and to infiltrate terrorists into Israel proper. Note that Hamas does not insist upon safe-rooms in Palestinian high-rises, nor does it build community shelters. In fact, Hamas is infamous for co-locating its weapons and headquarters in schools, hospitals, and in this conflict, even a media center. Prior to the ceasefire, two-hundred thirty Palestinians and twelve Israelis had died.

The challenges of urban counter-strike operations

Point #3: In any Hamas-Israeli conflict, civilian casualties will always be one-sided. Israel can try all they want to limit Palestinian casualties, but Hamas is actually seeking more Palestinian casualties: more martyrs, more innocent bodies for the international media to cover, more calls for revenge. There is no accountability for Hamas, which does not need votes because it has the guns.

If the Israelis can defend against the missiles barrages, and striking into Gaza leads to inevitable civilian casualties, why doesn’t the government just wait it out? While this sounds attractive as an option, it has yet to work. Hamas and other militant groups have launched literally thousands of rockets into Israel in the last twenty years. The UN has even labelled these attacks as “terrorism” and oftentimes the Israelis make little or no response. However, when the attacks occur en masse, or seem aimed at specific areas (like Tel Aviv or Jerusalem), the Israelis respond. Can you name a country which stands by and suffers thousands of cross border attacks without responding? I can’t either.

The Israelis have physically invaded Gaza before, and could occupy the entire Gaza strip. However, doing so would require an extended urban military operation, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties and the destruction of most of the property. In the end (under international law), the Israelis would assume responsibility for the homeless refugees in an urban wasteland.

So Israeli government responses are a fine-tuned political calculation: enough force to reassure citizens and inflict pain on Hamas without causing an international outcry. Yet Israel’s national government is a precarious coalition. “Bibi” Netanyahu’s party has never achieved more than thirty percent in four elections over the last two years, so he remains Prime Minister in a caretaker role as the elections continue. And there is a powerful impetus to play the hard-line “warrior” leader in the meantime.

Point #4: No one should ignore the role internal Jewish politics plays in these crises. Jewish extremists wish to expel all Muslims from Jerusalem and elsewhere, and their small political parties play a crucial swing-vote role in determining the rise and fall of Israeli governments. No Israeli politician is ever penalized for acting or reacting too harshly to external threats; one (Yitzhak Rabin) was assassinated for being too willing to negotiate.

One new thing in this conflict was the effect of social media, which abetted the spreading violence into more and different areas. Using social media apps, Jews and Arabs began making claims about atrocities committed by the other side, and organizing to take revenge. This cycle witnessed Jewish mobs dragging suspected “Arabs” out of cars, and Israeli Arabs (there are almost two million of them living in Israel) forming mobs to burn cars and synagogues.

Point #5: Once again, social media demonstrated how it can be a tool for good or evil.

So, to wrap it all up. Does Israel have a long history of abusing the rights of Palestinians? Yes. Have Arabs and Palestinians constantly tried to eliminate Israel and the Jews since the founding of the state in 1947? Yes. Is Israel strong enough to defend itself against any threat at this time? Yes. Does Hamas employ terrorism simply to provoke Israel? Yes. Is Israel legally justified in responding to Hamas missiles? Yes. Has Israel ever offered a two-state solution to the Palestinians? Yes. Does current Israeli politics practically prevent a similar offer now? Yes.

This latest spasm was a calculated effort on both sides: by Hamas, who had virtually nothing to lose, and perhaps could incite leftist opposition in the West (which it did). For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was a chance to look the part of a forceful leader and test whether President Biden would back him (he did). Hamas has enough propaganda film for an entire season on PBS; the Israeli military believes they destroyed a significant amount of Hamas tunnels, launchers, and rising leaders.

The ceasefire will hold, because both sides can claim they won, and both sides have nothing more to gain at the moment. But the war goes on, as it has, since 1947. Whether the next spasm of violence comes from an arrest, a bombing, a riot, or an eviction, it will come. While the Jewish and Palestinian people continue to suffer, leaders for both seem unable to find a way to separate them, equitably, so they may live in peace.

A Mexican Driver’s License Test

Having recently prepared for this test, even though I was never asked to take it when renewing my licensia, I decided to make a helpful practice test so you can play along at home. Make sure to keep track of whether you guessed the legal or real answers. Enjoy!

This sign indicates:

Don’t go there
Don’t even think of going there
🎵 Don’t stop, believing 🎵
Don’t stop

The legal answer, and the real answer, is (4).

If you see this sign, you should:

Drive no more than 110 miles per hour
Drive no more than 68 miles per hour
Wonder what the difference between kilometers and miles is
Ignore it like everybody else on the road.

The legal answer is (2), the real answer is (4), but let’s face it, you’ll probably do (3).

You stop to let a pedestrian cross the road; he does this toward you. It means:

“¡Muchas Gracias!”
“Talk to the mano, gringo.”
“What’s the modal finger?”
“If I only had my gun!”

There is no legal answer, but the real answer is (1).

The car in front of you has its left turn signal on. It means:

The driver will turn left
The driver is indicating it is clear for you to pass on the left
The driver is a gringo who turned his signal on in 2019
The car only has one working light bulb

Both (1) and (2) are legally correct, but (3) and (4) are also real. Best to ignore the blinking left signal in all cases!

In Mexico, this is:

Likely to occur on any highway
Why you don’t drive at night
Not going to happen where the sign says
All the above

You already know it’s (4).

You come upon this sign. It indicates:

You are approaching a roundabout
You can’t get there from here
We are all part of the circle of life
You do you.

The legal answer is (1), but all answers are equally real.

If the first image means “right turn” and the second image means “left turn,” the third image means:

🎵All my friends know the low rider 🎵
Slowing down or stopping
Left turn but my arm got tired
Look, I can drive with one hand

Legally, (2), but quien sabe?

If you see this sign, you should:

Slow down because there are topes ahead
Slow down because once upon a time there were topes ahead
Slow down because the road has a ditch in it
Slow down for the topless beach

The legal answer is (1), but for God’s sake, just slow down!

This sign indicates:

You are now entering El Paso
Yield
You’re not in Kansas anymore
You took a wrong turn in Albuquerque

(2) is the legal answer; (3) & (4) may also be real.

What does this symbol indicate?

No hat zone
Sombrero only zone
Inspection site ahead
Can you say mordita? Sure, I knew you could.

The legal answer is (3). ‘Nuff said.

In Mexico, this is:

Exemplary helmet-wearing
HOV-4 compliant
Cheaper than a minivan
Everyday, everywhere

Who knows, legally? All four are real!

If you see this view in Mexico, you should:

Look for the hidden tope
Have gassed up earlier
Watch out for cows disguised as tumbleweeds
Check for the motorbike about to pass you on the right

Only (3) is wrong. Mexican cows don’t bother with camouflage.

The cross street you are approaching is ______; you should ______:

One way to the right; turn right only
One way to the right; turn right if that is where you want to go
real; stop and ask for directions
whatever; do you

The legal answer is (1). (2) is a real answer. (4) is always correct. (3) is a trick: you never, never, NEVER ask directions in Mexico. Mexicans want to be helpful. They will offer directions even if (1) they don’t understand you, (2) they don’t know where you want to go, or (3) they don’t know where the destination is.

This shows:

Room for more riders
Mexico invented ride-sharing
Sear belts are theoretically required
Nothing to see here

Probably (2), and long before smart phones!

How did you do? If you tried to keep score, you have already failed! In Mexico, scores are arbitrary and you have missed the point. If you guessed (most of) the real answers, consider yourself ready to drive here.

“Licenses? We ain’t got no licenses. We don’t need no stinkin’ licenses!”

Passing a final test

As we’ve now lived here more than four years (how time flies under a facemask!), Judy and I have experienced most of the peculiarities of expat life in Mexico. And by peculiarities, I mean those little distractions, annoyances, or absurdities that make you go “what the . . . ” before shrugging your shoulders and finishing the thought with “solo en México” (only in Mexico).

There was the driver’s test–on computer–wherein it didn’t matter how we answered, we still passed. The time that we got a red light at customs and got to unpack our entire luggage, one item at a time, and explain what it is and why we have it, which of course coincided with my wife importing a year’s supply of make-up. The time the government refused to reimburse the temporary importation visa for my US car, and wanted me to prove I still had the car in the US, when it had never entered Mexico.

As you may have noticed, these events all involve government bureaucracy. Now, we have had many good stories to tell about visas approved, licenses renewed, taxes paid. But those stories are boring; the fun ones involve the trouble. So many went smoothly, some went poorly . . . and then there was SIMAPA.

SIMAPA stands for the Sistema Municipal de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado (de Chapala), that is the municipal water and sanitation authority. And in my opinion, they are the gold medalist in the bureaucratic olympiad. Before I explain why, it is fair to note that water has a history in Mexico, and that history plays a part. Being an arid country, water has always been a scarce resource. Those who had access to water often used it to control the poor, to seek advantage over rivals, or simply to lord it over those without access.

So as Mexico went through its various wars of independence and revolution, access to water came to be seen by the people as a fundamental right: and so it is, in the Mexican constitution. It is so fundamental that access to water cannot be totally shut off even if the recipient does not pay for it. Water bills are sometimes paid collectively by a home-owners association, and talk to any HOA board and you’ll find stories of owners who haven’t paid water dues for years. You can reduce the flow to some small amount, but you can’t shut it off; and that goes for the government, as well.

Likewise for sewage. If you’re hooked into municipal sewer lines, there’s an initial fee for accessing, and a yearly fee. But here’s the rub: there’s no way to shut the sewage flow off. So again, non-payment is a problem.

Our condominio (roughly, our development) has its own well, so we don’t use SIMAPA for fresh water. But we are hooked up to the municipal sewer lines. Our house was built in 2012, and round about late 2019 our condominio received notice from SIMAPA that, “hey, y’all are hooked up to the sewer lines, but you haven’t paid anything, so please do so.” My wife dutifully took a copy of the e-mail down to the local SIMAPA office, where she explained (in Spanish) that we needed to pay. The ladies working there looked at the e-mail (in English), looked at our address, then explained we didn’t have an account, so we could not pay. At that, they went back to their busy desks. One might assume a municipal authority would be interested in receiving seven years of back payments; one would be wrong (in Mexico).

Time passed and the quarantine hit, and since our sewage kept flowing away, we sort of forgot all about it. Finally we talked with a neighbor who reminded us we were supposed to go to the SIMAPA office and ask to “start an account.” The magic words (in Spanish) were not “pay a bill” but “start an account” and we needed a copy of our identification papers and a copy of our deed. We collected the pesos (in cash, naturally) and all the documents and copies and went back to SIMAPA.

Round Two began as a replay of Round One. We said we needed to start an account, but the SIMAPA ladies checked their online records and assured us we didn’t have an account. Yes, we knew that, but we produced our documentation and they threw up their hands and called the supervisor, who spoke English–up to that point, we had engaged in Spanish. The supervisor reviewed our deed copy and explained it was not an official copy, so we would have to return with an official copy in order to start an account. One might assume a municipal authority would be more interested in collecting now nine years of back payments, and was there really a problem in Mexico with people showing up to fraudulently pay OTHER PEOPLE’S DELINQUENT SEWAGE BILLS? One would be mistaken.

Weeks later, we collected an official deed copy, the pesos, copies of every bill and identification we could muster, extra copies of all these, and went back to SIMAPA for Round Three. We entered the office and cheerfully greeted the SIMAPA ladies; Judy even complimented one woman on her embroidered blouse (smiles all around). We explained that we did not have an account, but we needed to start one and pay our arrears. The SIMAPA ladies quickly checked online and confirmed we did not have an account (*sigh*–an unsettling déjà vu descended on us).

The supervisor reviewed our official deed, then used it just to provide our address to the woman at the keyboard. She began the (apparently) laborious process of opening a new account. Now everybody should have an account, but one felt like this was the first time an account had ever been opened. There was discussion about how to enter the address, how to print the bill, and even (no kidding) how much to charge us. The supervisor even asked us if we had an e-mail from the condominio stating what the charges were for this year! Wasn’t SIMAPA the ones who determined the charges, I thought? I told him “no” initially, but Judy checked her account and did find it.

They proceeded to develop a receipt, but I could see the supervisor and the lady on the keyboard were a little concerned by the size of the bill. It was, after all, for many years, and I am sure they have had some surly customers come in and go ballistic over a large bill. I told them they had approximated the bill for us once before, so we were ready for it, which seemed to alleviate their concerns. I even joked that we only wanted to pay our bill, not purchase all of SIMAPA (I got a little smile for that Dad-joke).

Finally, we paid the bill, got signed originals of the account statement, and went on our way, safe in the knowledge we were no longer sewage outlaws.

Solo en México.

Frames of Reference

Ever take a good hard look at your frames of reference? By that I mean the experiences, education, travel, lifestyle and intellectual pursuits that are not necessarily unique to you, but frame how you process and make sense of what’s going on around you. Some might call them your biases, but I think that’s a little too pejorative: we all have them, so why automatically think of them as negative?

For example, I grew up in a small town in the Midwest. I had a frame of reference that people were basically honest and friendly, schools were competent, the local authorities honest, and opportunities abounded. Americana 101. I also believed large cities were dirty, and people there were rude or potentially violent. Their schools were ramshackle. Their police might entrap you. Their government was corrupt.

I eventually lived in or near big cities, where I confirmed everything I previously held about them! I also learned the big cities were cosmopolitan, held cultural treasures, and had even more opportunities. And small towns could be somewhat provincial; imagine that!

The entire concept of generational cohorts (think “The Greatest Generation” or Baby-Boomers, Gen-Xers, Millennials) involves frames of reference. People who go through the same major events (say WWII) at around the same age tend to develop a common way of thinking. It’s not universal, but it is useful as a way to generalize about them. My grandmother, who survived the Great Depression as a young woman, always kept on hand a large supply of canned goods and other things, and retained a profound distrust of banks. Those characteristics were common among her generation, and persisted long after the cause for them ended: for example, when banks became federally insured.

What about your unconscious frames? If you grew up in the States, you most likely imbibed an English cultural frame. Which does not mean an understanding of English History; good heavens no! Most Americans think The War of the Roses was a 1989 divorce flick. No, I mean an English view of history and culture. France and the French: weak, decadent, presumptuous. Spain and the Spanish: corrupt, untrustworthy, nefarious. Germany and the Germans: autocratic, efficient, and of course Nazis. China and Chinese: inscrutable. India and the Indians: Servile. England and the English: indefatigable, educated, and enterprising. Hmmmmm, one of these things is not like the others! Where did Americans, who originally had little contact with many of these countries, get these stereotypes, some of which were contradicted by early American experience (France and Spain sided with us in the revolution against England)?

Frames are hard to identify simply by introspection; new experiences–or encountering other frames–make it easier. As an expat, I often laugh at some aspects of the US history I once learned: all about Plymouth Plantation and the English colony of Jamestown. Only after living in Latin America did I stop and reconsider that the Spanish settlement of St. Augustine, Florida, was forty-two years old when the English got to Jamestown, and the only reason Jamestown survived was the Spanish decided not to attack it.

As an expat, you bring a lifetime of frames to your new home. Expect police to be well-paid, well-trained public servants dedicated to the rule of law? Government to be efficient and transparent? Law to be impartial? Depending on where you land, maybe, maybe not. The reverse is also true. Where you once might have experienced people judged implicitly by their skin color, you might find those judgments applied to shades, or accents, or even facial structures!

Whether for good or ill, frames exist and affect us everyday. For expats, identifying your frames may be critical to whether you can ever fit in your new community. Change in cultural frames happens slowly, and almost never by external forces (I’m thinking the pacification of Germany and Japan as exceptions that prove the rule). When you come from somewhere else, you’re free to observe, to comment with courtesy, but most of all to respect the new culture. It may welcome you, but you sought it; it didn’t seek you.

What ails America?

It seems like Americans agree on few things these days. Perhaps the one thing almost all Americans agree on is something is wrong in America. Even there, the agreement is only skin-deep: progressives and conservatives have decidedly different opinions on what is wrong, yet agree that something is wrong.

For conservatives, America has lost its moral bearings, forgotten its past, and seems dead set on atomizing into various victim-groups competing for an ever more debt-fueled federal largess. Progressives see a people unwilling to remember its failings, unable to accept new rights claimants, blind to racism, sexism, and ever-greater economic inequality. For the moment, I’m willing to stipulate that both are correct, and at the same time, totally irrelevant. Why? Because both are focused on symptoms, not the problem.

America is unique among nations because it is a nation based on a notion. That notion is a complex mix of individual liberty, collective responsibility, and the right to be left alone. It was heavily influenced by English common law and traditions, and deeply embedded in a Judeo-Christian background. I would characterize that background as America’s Soul. The Founders, from a variety of religious backgrounds, were clear:

Washington: Religion is “a necessary spring of popular government.”
Adams: Leaders “may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” and “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Franklin: “the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth–that God governs in the Affairs of Men. . . . I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel.”

I am not engaging in the tiresome “is America a Judeo-Christian nation?” argument. I am stating that the notion that is America rests upon a Judeo-Christian heritage, which is now only tenuous. The Deism that animated so many of the Founding Fathers was a Christian heresy (technical term, not derogatory). Their ‘Watchmaker’ God was not Zeus; He only makes sense as a derivative of Yahweh. And that connection is practically lost today.

The notion of America has changed subtly over time. Jefferson foresaw a nation of land-owning farmer-gentlemen. Lincoln envisioned a born-again Republic free from its original sin. Roosevelt sought solidarity among the classes and the birth of a world power. Reagan proclaimed the triumph of that power and renewed personal freedom.

All different, all variations on a theme.

The American people are once again in the process of debating that theme. During our recent visit to the States (grandkids & vaccinations), Gallup released poll data showing, for the first time, Church membership in the United States fell below fifty percent. As recently as the turn of the century, almost seventy percent of Americans belonged to a Church, and the decline since has been precipitous. This is something new: the theme is up for discussion, but so is the background.

The answer is not simply a call to return to the pews (as much as I would welcome that). America experienced a series of Great Awakenings, Protestant revivals that corresponded to various American crises. But today’s problem is not simply the dramatic decline in American Protestantism, but the deeper loss of any American connection to its Judeo-Christian heritage.

“Who cares about religion, anyway, can’t we just live by the Golden Rule?” That rule exists in nearly all religions and cultures, so I would respond with “how has that worked out for the world so far?” Its secular limits are many and obvious: “others” not defined as people, the narcissist who expects to be taken advantage of, the problem of scale. The Judeo-Christian elaboration on the Golden Rule provided means to address these problems, and provided a check on the way we respond to each other’s disagreements. That people at times violated these rules no more invalidates the rules than a murder invalidates the crime of murder.

This all plays out in complex ways, across a spectrum of issues. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion was a rational attempt to avoid favoring one religion over another in order to avoid the religious wars which plagued Europe. Extended today to the relationship between religion and unbelief, it becomes untenable: you can’t interpret law to be neutral to both a positive concept and its denial. This has lead to increasingly complex and contradictory Supreme Court rulings, wherein individuals seek more restrictions on religious activities and various faiths seek more and more exemptions from existing law.

Shorn from the Christian dictum to “care for your neighbor (and who is your neighbor?),” conservatives feel free to ignore family separations and leave the old and sick vulnerable to pandemia. Progressives discover a new Gospel. In their telling, Jesus says to the rich man, “Go, support a huge government program for the poor, use the right #hashtag, and you will inherit the Kingdom of God.”

Science advances apace, but in what direction? Moral questions of whether we should do something are pushed aside in favor of simple utilitarian answers. Scientists in California and China teamed up to create chimeras: embryos that are part monkey, part human. They claim to be addressing the need for more organs to transplant, and deny any ethical issues. Should we follow this science?

The absence of Christian charity in our exchanges should be obvious: it is why we often immediately question the motives of any who disagree, characterize any transgression as evil (I would say mortal sin), and refuse to offer or accept simple forgiveness. Our American system of government is full of checks and balances, and therefor it requires compromise to function. But now both sides seem more interested in scoring points or dominating, not cooperating.

I could cite a thousand examples, from hate crimes to tax policy to road rage to immigration to, well, you get the point. America is losing, perhaps has lost, its Soul. It wasn’t the fault of any faith, political party or movement. It wasn’t simply the aggregation of a trend by millions of individuals deciding just to sit home and watch the NFL on Sunday. It happened over a long period of time, mostly as a result of neglect: a simple lack of understanding of the role our Soul played in the notion of the nation of America.

Am I overstating the role of Soul? Look at the Presidents we most admire, and see how they all intuited, and used, our reliance on Soul. Lincoln, himself not a Christian, was the greatest practitioner: calling on God time and again, citing our better angels, readily pulling memorable quotes from the Bible. Roosevelt’s “nothing to fear” line directly mirrors “Be not afraid” while he characterized the New Deal as “the path of faith, the path of hope, the path of love.” Reagan constantly borrowed the optimistic view characteristic of Christianity.

As Lincoln so well put it, “‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’. . . I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.” Americans face a choice: what is to be our Soul? There has to be an underlying principle to our notion of a nation, one that all Americans can accept. Just as not all 18th Century Americans were Protestants, our new Soul need not be the creed for every American, but it must be accepted by all.

I recently watched an entertaining debate between Alex O’Connor, a well-followed British atheist who runs The Cosmic Skeptic YouTube channel and Bishop Robert Barron, the prolific Catholic apologist of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Word on Fire.

Two hours long, and with some high-fallutin’ words!

During the debate, O’Connor noted that as an atheist, he has an advantage in that he need not put forward a rival worldview, but only need point out inconsistencies in the faith-view; the onus was on those who believe. This is absolutely true in such a debate, but I believe the opposite pertains in the argument over America’s Soul. There, the existing connection (to Judeo-Christian beliefs) has been challenged, so the onus is on the challengers: what comprehensive, attractive and feasible concept do you propose?

If we were a nation based on race or ethnicity, this discussion would be unnecessary. But as a nation based on a notion, we must not only have the discussion, we must come to a conclusion. Arguing against the Judeo-Christian background is not enough; in the end, what holds US together?