NO WAY TO PICK A PRESIDENT

A year before the election the news is dominated by the presidential race, and has been for months. Nowadays campaigns begin years before the election date and cost huge amounts of money, so it is no wonder that politicians spend more time running for office than they do actually governing. While Republican candidates have engaged in an endless series of debates, the current occupant of the White House has all but given up on governing in favor of campaigning. The chronic campaign produces two results- a dysfunctional government and elected officials who are good at campaigning rather than governing.

Permanent campaigning is a relatively recent development largely due to primary elections spread out over many months and geographic locations. Primaries are a result of the efforts of the progressive movement in the early part of the twentieth century, but only became decisive in 1960 when John F. Kennedy used them to prove his viability as a candidate and win his party’s nomination. But it is worth noting that Kennedy did not even declare his candidacy until January of that year. Nowadays it has gotten to the point where the next campaign begins the day after election day. We are subjected to all politics all the time. Is there any way to end this electoral cacaphony?

Contrast this with Britain, where campaigns are brief once elections are called. I am not suggesting we adapt a parliamentary system, but rather find some way to limit campaigns to a set time in order to end constant campaigning. There are of course parties with a vested interest in extended campaigns, including the media, campaign consultants, pollsters, fundraisers, political junkies, and activists. But how long should we allow the system to be hijacked by these groups? 

One way to reform the process would be to have candidates nominated by elected officials such as members of congress, the Governors, and representatives of state legislatures. Who after all best constitutes the party if not elected officials? This would likely produce better candidates who would also be better able to work with other elected officials. Those having the respect and  confidence of their peers would be in a better position to lead the country. Primaries also give too much weight to activists who are ideologically rigid, when government of necessity requires consensus and compromise. Would scrapping the primaries not limit the chances of outsiders? Not necessarily. Dwight Eisenhower was nominated and elected president despite never having served in public office. Generals were often nominated in the 19th century long before primaries. Any charismatic figure who could garner support could be nominated, but for the most part we would be better off with public officials who are known to others holding office. We might, in the process return to some of the character displayed by our first five presidents, who would find openly seeking the presidency unseemly, relying instead on the regard and respect of their peers. 

Under these circumstances campaigns would be much shorter and the cost of elections much lower. It would also give rise to people whose main talent is not in raising money and running for office, but in governing effectively.

ON WALL STREET

The City of New York finally evicted the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors from their encampment, never mind that most of the institutions they were protesting are no longer located on Wall Street but in midtown or elsewhere. While they expressed little in the way of a coherent platform, one recurring theme is that banks and corporations have too much power. This will come as a surprise to virtually every CEO in the country since they do not see themselves as all that powerful, but instead feel they are constantly under siege by shareholders, competitors, consumers, and the government. Their decision-making space is constrained by all these factors.

Then there is the 1% that presumably controls everything. But the people in the 1% are no different from the 99%, and in fact are in a place where most of the latter would like to be. Nor are the 1% a fixed elite with anything in common, and have themselves mostly emerged from the 99%. The make-up of the 1% is very fluid. I used to be part of the 1% but now I’m not. Those who currently compose it have worked at climbing the ladder of success, but on the other hand this doesn’t mean they are a pure meritocracy, since luck, focused ambition, and networking ability have at least as much to do with it as talent. Furthermore, rather than being any kind of reactionary force, most would like to think of themselves as “progressive.” Thus a majority of the 1% voted for Obama, who raised the most money in history from Wall Street and even now he has raised more money from bankers than all the Republican Presidential candidates combined. On this basis alone they deserve to get shaken up a bit and continuing Republican resistance to any increase in taxes on them makes no sense. 

Another alleged evil is “greed.” Many people do in fact have good reasons to be angry at “Wall Street,” but greed is not one of them. It is more a case of people being told over the years to make “secure” investments like GM and Citicorp only to see them fizzle- in other words poor performance handling 401(k)s that have gone nowhere for years. But this is more a matter of incompetence than chicanery. The truth is that a lot of the people in charge of things at this time are not very good at what they do. We live in an age of mediocrity not meritocracy. This is true of celebrities as well as CEOs. Is much of this “talent” overcompensated vis a vis everyone else? No doubt, but this does not justify class warfare. Taking something from one person does not make another richer. 

Nostalgic 60s leftists in the media have been sympathetic to the protests, for which the term “occupation” has been attached. But to refer to this phenomenon as “the occupation” is a very sick parody of the real thing, which occurred during World War II. My parents were stuck in Greece for the duration of the war owing to the Nazi occupation and saw a third of the population of Athens starve to death. That’s was the real occupation, not this gathering of clueless miscreants. 

I can’t get too excited in opposition to these demonstrations. From a policy standpoint they are vacuous, and participants clearly have no understanding of economics. They reject hierarchy and order, and favor a vague mix of anarchy and socialism. But they do not represent a serious challenge to authority and their actions are relatively mild. After all anarchists in the past assassinated President William McKinley and in the 1920s set off a bomb on Wall Street. Today we see nothing of that magnitude. 

Although these protestors have little in common with the Tea Party, one thing that stands out across the board is a general disillusionment with elites. This attitude is well founded, given the extent to which the people in charge have mismanaged things. It is increasingly difficult to believe that this is the best we can do, but any changes requires improved mass perception of quality.  In truth we can and must do better, and for elites to justify themselves they must rise above the pervasive mediocrity of our age.

A POST-MATERIAL WORLD?

Even as medical advances improve the length and quality of life there may be parallel developments. We may eventually co-exist virtually, not in the sense of silly game avatars, but in full consciousness. This would mean essentially transferring one's consciousness for an indefinite period, or as long as the power stays on. Initially there will be stages that have already begun, such as using sensors to duplicate physical movement on a computer screen. The next step would be to communicate sensory responses to another person so that it would be possible to make love on line for example, although this would still be mimicry. But suppose it would be possible to somehow be wired in communicating directly from your brain.  There are profound consequences to this. 

First, you could be a different version of yourself, putting your best self forward. By that I mean the age at which you are physically at your peak accompanied by the wisdom you presumably have gained over the years. Or you could use an image of say Clark Gable or Marilyn Monroe. Or you could be a dog. Or you could visit the equivalent of another place and time, or roam the stars. The possibilities are endless. Second, you could duplicate your self, your consciousness. That presupposes that there is an actual mind that is more than a product of our bodies; if not there would at least be a representation of it. Although the consensus in mind science is that our mind is a product of our bodies and the world in which we live and nothing more it may not matter since it would be possible to construct one, or even the whole idea of heaven. Third, you are free from the limitations of the physical world and can link with others in ways we can hardly imagine. For example, it would be possible, when networked with others, to expand consciousness and intelligence exponentially. 

Thus there is physical longevity on the one hand, which must bump up against the limits of nature, and the possibility of an electronic existence that would make our current digital life seem as primitive as the dinosaurs. We cannot know what direction physical evolution might take but the “mental” may diverge significantly. If this were to be possible more people would opt for a virtual existence that eventually seems real. The potential relative immortality might be appealing, although even the universe is not timeless and will come to an end. It is possible that there is some intimation of this prospect in the developed world given the decline in birth rates. 

It is likely that some people, perhaps those with strong religious convictions, may opt for a "natural" life and eschew the virtual. But it is also possible that these worlds, the virtual and spiritual, may eventually converge. On the other hand it is also possible that those who opt for the virtual may just be postponing an even better afterlife. Whatever the case, the prospects for a post-material world make our petty conflicts and concerns seem lame.

TURNING BROWN EYES BLUE

Barely a week has gone by since I had a total shoulder replacement but I am already able to type fluidly on a remote keyboard. The shoulder is the latest technology, made of metal and plastic, and is indicative of other parts that may eventually be replaceable. In this connection there is a story today about a doctor who has developed a technique that can turn brown eyes blue by using a laser. The laser essentially burns away brown pigmentation, but the process cannot be done in reverse so that eye color cannot be changed back. Brown is the default state in nature but there are about five hundred million people with blue eyes, all descended from a single ancestor who had a genetic mutation 10,000 years ago. They may soon be joined by others using this process.

Our bodies are becoming increasingly malleable as medical science progresses and it will be interesting to see what else can be changed. This will be accompanied by more genetic programming of the fetus to be rid of childhood diseases, if you view it positively, or produce "designer babies" if you view it negatively, and many ailments that plague us later in life may be attenuated in advance rather than through subsequent treatments. This will mean healthier and longer lives for those coming into the world. The rest of us will have to settle for medical attention, whether through drugs or surgery.

The only problem with these developments is the cost and who is going to pay for it. Logically a life-threatening organ replacement should be covered; a cosmetic procedure like changing eye color should not. Such continued advances will occur unless the government interferes with them and decides what constitutes health care for everyone. But whatever changes occur physically, imperfect human nature will remain the same in the brief moment in which our species has existed.

SHAKESPEARE WROTE HIS PLAYS

There is a movie being advertised that is based on the premise that Shakespeare did not write his plays but instead was a front man for someone more sophisticated, presumably the Earl of Oxford. This is an old theory that might work as fiction but it is not history. Indeed the film makers are doing to Shakespeare what he himself often did to historical figures- fabricating nonsense to make good drama. The theory is based on the assumption that someone with Shakespeare's ordinary, middling background could not have written so well.

But Shakespeare in fact is relatively middle-brow, and certainly in his own time, produced popular entertainment. But as the language has become more and more antiquated, and thus more difficult, it has been lifted to an intellectual level that is not there. I have often thought that non-English speakers may get a better read on Shakespeare because it is unlikely that he would be translated into arcane language.

Shakespeare had an undeniable gift for language and the stage, but this does not require a higher education and there is nothing miraculous about this. What does show through is a vague understanding of history that is not well-developed. When Shakespeare relies on sources like Plutarch he is relatively on the mark in, say, Julius Caesar, or Antony and Cleopatra. His historical figures are otherwise pretty consistently distorted, i.e. Richard III was not a hunchback, and often reflect Tudor propaganda.

Shakespeare is one of the most well-known persons in history even though parts of his life may be obscure, but the absence of information does not support fanciful conjecture. Given the passage of enough time things that we know to be true today may become hazy in future reference. Shakespeare had remarkable gifts, but his work does not require that he be an aristocrat. Shakespeare wrote his plays.

DON'T DRIVE IN NEW YORK

It now costs $11.50 to enter New York City from anywhere further west and that will soon rise to $15.00. Imagine having to pay that every day. Never mind that the bridges and tunnels being tolled have long since been paid off. Once you enter the city, due to the anti-car mentality of the Bloomberg administration, there is virtually no free parking any more but plenty of bike lanes. To park on the street you have to pay the meter, or otherwise park in an exorbitantly expensive garage. It's not as bad as London but it's getting there. Where I live there is unnecessary alternate side parking four days a week, which means you have to go out and move the car every day or otherwise double-park for hours for the few minutes that the street sweeper actually passes by. Then there are the exclusive bus lanes, which leaves one lane open for everything else, and a heavy fine if you're caught intruding, although cabs constantly fly in and out of the lanes. The message is clear. Cars are not welcome even if they are sometimes necessary. This all may seem strange to the rest of the country, but you've been warned- don't drive in New York.

AIR TRAVEL TODAY

I can remember a time when travel used to be fun. It was once possible to take a helicopter run by New York Airways to the airport from atop the Pan Am building near Grand Central Station in midtown Manhattan. Everything about jet airline travel then was “futuristic;” the airport, the aircraft, even the attire of the stewardesses. Now everything seems dismally past. The city banned the helicopter, Pan Am is gone (now the MetLife building), and routine travel has become an inconvenient ordeal. Once there was no onerous security screening and you could roam freely. It was also easy to catch a last minute flight. I remember one time missing a flight on American Airlines. I was able to simply walk over to United Airlines using the same ticket and catch their next flight to the same destination. There were also more direct, nonstop flights. Now you have to go through a “hub” and often wait around to change planes, hoping your luggage also made the same transfer.

The days of convenience and service are long gone. Once the airlines all provided meals and snacks, and baggage was considered an integral part of the trip- so much so that it would never have occurred to anyone to describe it as free. Now the airlines impose additional charges for every conceivable item, and ticket prices have been substantially inflated to the point, where, on my last ticket purchase taxes and fees were one-third of the price. A good deal of this has come about because of enhanced “security,” the passage through which can be a major nuisance. (I’m sure I could find a million other people who’d love to join me in stomping the “shoe bomber” to death).

Overall this is one area where life was definitely better thirty to forty years ago, and actually more modern. Something has gone terribly wrong with aerospace. Back then we were walking on the moon. Now we can’t even get to the International Space Station on our own. Then the future seemed a sure bet to be even better, with ever increasing improvements. Instead everything is essentially the same in many respects and far worse in others. Anyone who has lived through this regression cannot fail to be disappointed. Where once a trip to the airport was an occasion for wondrous joy, now we try an avoid flying as much as possible. We need to take a really hard look at this situation and come up with some solutions that will at least get us back to where we were, if not better.

PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY?

At various times there have been proposals put forth to privatize Social Security and/or invest proceeds in the stock market. This is a nonstarter, both politically as well as logically. Rick Perry may be an appealing candidate, and aspects of Social Security may in fact resemble a Ponzi scheme, but he has simply handed Democrats the perennial fearful campaign club of wanting to get rid of Social Security. This has been a dream of many libertarians, but it is factually untenable. The market has gone nowhere over the past ten years, and losses are quite possible even with “secure” blue chip investments; just look at GM or Citibank. When your 401(k) has gone nowhere in ten years it is sobering and necessitates a reconsideration of potential Social Security changes.

This does not mean that Social Security is not in need of some reform, such as amending the cost of living adjustment, but the fact is that Social Security is not in that much trouble. It is Medicare that is the big problem in terms of covering projected costs. Social Security is solvent and only needs minor adjustments to stay that way.

People should definitely save and invest for retirement, but through their own private accounts, such as IRAs, as they do now. These are tax advantaged and more should be done to encourage people to establish these accounts. Longer term the stock market should yield a good return, but there is no guarantee. Social Security is more like a basic floor, on top of which other resources should be prudently accumulated. Certainly Social Security can provide a better return through compounded interest over time to everyone’s account, but the stock market is too unstable to be a serious alternative for Social Security trust funds.

NEVER FORGET

These were taken from a ferry headed to Ellis Island for an engagement I had there. I have many photos of the towers under construction at various stages I used to take from a pier in Brooklyn, and I'll post them when I find them. There are so many memories from the foundation of the towers, to many meetings in the buildings, dinners and drinks on the top floor, and of the sweeping view of New York harbor, not to mention the small church where I was married, which was obliterated.

Ten years on and 9/11 resonates just as painfully as it did in 2001. It is a wound that may never heal, even with the death of Bin Laden, as the struggle continues to play itself out. 9/11 is a dividing line in time, from which there is a clear before and after. I recall the night of the millennium and how magnificent celebrations around the world occurred without the slightest thought of terrorism. The innocence of that moment is gone forever, as we live in a world of unending wariness and security precautions previously unimaginable. In this there is no end in sight as we must remain ever vigilant, even as we have largely decimated Al Qaeda and the city and country bounced back. The cost in blood and treasure has been enormous, as war continues in remote outposts in Afghanistan. So much of the burden of our security rests on so few shoulders, unlike past conflicts, and indeed never have so many owed so much to so few. We must never forget the front line troops and their sacrifice, and all those innocents who perished on that awful day. Thus we must keep those images vividly in mind, as awful as they are, so that we never forget. It is not something to "put behind us," as some would have it, bu to remember always. Never forget.

YOU CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT

There are serious warnings about a potential terrorist attack as we approach the anniversary of 9/11, which resonates strongly here in New York. When, where, or how is unknown, but clearly a high degree of alertness is warranted. Hopefully the perpetrators will be apprehended and stopped before they can strike, as has happened many times before. But as Margaret Thatcher once said, we have to be right every time; the terrorists only have to be right once. That said, where you are when something bad happens is purely a matter of luck in being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Some people move, or think about moving to get away from everything. In these parts no place is farther away from it all than upstate New York or Vermont. Yet these very places are still struggling with floods caused by excessive rainfall, with all the attendant inconveniences like lack of power and ruined possessions. Who would ever have thought that a hurricane could impact Vermont, or that upstate could be seriously flooded? If you aren’t safe from perils there it’s hard to think of anywhere you can be. In Texas the opposite conditions prevail, with drought and wildfires burning out of control. The point is that disaster can strike anywhere, and the extent you are affected or threatened is purely chance- of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Why does a hurricane land in one place and not another? Why is one area impacted while another remains undisturbed? There is just no way to know. Of course there are places where such events are more likely and building and rebuilding in their wake makes no sense, but as to what can happen unexpectedly at any given moment we are largely clueless.

But the same is true of good things, like winning the lottery, because, as they say, “hey, you never know.” If there’s any solace in all of this it is that while you’re unlikely to win the lottery, you’re also unlikely to be at the center of a calamity. There are always some very lucky people for whom everything goes right, just as there are some very unfortunate people who experience the worst of things. However, most of us will never likely experience either extreme, but at most will endure inconveniences in life. So next time you grumble about a power glitch or an airline trip think of those who have lost everything, including their lives, and consider yourself fortunate, if not lucky.