By now, anyone who is paying attention to the US election is pretty shocked by the discourse and content of the campaigns. Americans and foreigners alike seem to be confused about what is happening, why it is happening and what will happen next. In this uncertainty, the cacophony of opinions is overly negative. It is easy to forget that these phases occur regularly in American history and that they are actually beneficial to society. They have helped make America unique in the world. For outsiders, it helps to remember that culture is complex and shifting. I could never expect my European friends to understand the full context of this election.
The first aspect is to understand the relationship between the American people and their government. Abraham Lincoln made one of the most famous speeches in American history and said we have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people". In most elections, the question is whether the government embodies these principles. But this election is different because American society is simultaneously debating who we are as a people. At the foundation of all the debates and accusations is a discussion about which values define American culture and society. Without answering these questions, a government is not possible.
So why now?
This election is the product of a string events, decisions and trends over the past two decades which have gone unresolved. When history books of the future write about early 21st century America, they will write about major shifts in international policy, social trends and economic activity. They will write about time in which Americans questioned their position on justice, equality, liberty, compassion, tolerance and solidarity, among others. Not only that, it will be a time when Americans even questioned the meaning of 'truth'. These are not simple questions and they take time, and even conflict, to find an answer.
I believe most Americans underestimated the level of reflection needed. I certainly did. After all, the last time US society faced similar questions was 50 years ago. What we have learned during the election campaign is that talking about the government was not enough, we needed to talk about ourselves.
Although this discussion has been long delayed there are a few key reasons why it is happening now. First, the government has failed to function over the last six years. This is understandable, it is a government of the people, by the people. If we don't know who we are, the government ceases to function. After six years, it was time for us to have a talk. The second reason is that the election process produced two archetypes of American culture. Clinton and Trump accurately embody the differences in American values (I'll get to Sanders later). But like all archetypes, they are the extreme examples of these differences. Clinton and Trump are not an accident, they are for the people. Watching them debate and discuss is simply watching millions of Americans trying to figure out who we are as a people. Each person sees a little of themselves in the discussion.
So why is it happening like this?
Most outsiders and many Americans are asking why the campaign is not about policies. Where are education, healthcare, Syria in the debate? But the point is that none of that matters now. For example, we cannot make a policy on Syria and Russia until we figure out what role we want to play in the world. We have to first dig deep and scratch at the wounds of the War on Terror, the deception that lead to the war in Iraq, how we feel about spreading democracy abroad, etc.. America did this after Vietnam, it is not completely new.
So for the most part the campaign is a character race, as it should be. This campaign has caused every American to question how they feel about issues like gender, race, globalization and capitalism. We are even questioning whether our constitution can survive in the modern era. It may seem hyped to debate a quarterback kneeling during the national anthem or whether Clinton did favors for donors, but these simple cases lead to fundamental questions. It is ugly, but it is also these fundamental questions which make it so fascinating and reflective.
We are watching a period of extremely rapid change in America.
What will happen next?
The presidential election has a deadline, but it seems clear that the discussion will not be completely finished by November 8th. But progress has been made. It appears we have dug deep enough that we are finding common values on justice and equality. Additionally, it looks like we are starting to find common ground on the negative effects of globalization. I believe this upheaval has been extremely positive for gender and race values as well as for dealing with poverty and opportunity.
For example, the video of Donald Trump on the bus has advanced society in terms of gender equality better than anything in the last thirty years. The campaign has united Americans around the principle that it is 'our' government. Progress will be made and the government will start to function again, albeit it with limits.
Unfortunately, the process will not be complete. One of the drawbacks of the system was that Bernie Sanders was eliminated from the discussion before we solved the issue of capitalism. We have not been able to finish this discussion and it will continue to haunt society until we have time to figure out who we are on this topic.
There is also the chance that things will get worse before they get better. Like most therapy situations, people only change when they have hit rock bottom. The last time this happened in American history, it took several assassinations, many murders (lynchings and college students), countless riots and beatings, a presidential resignation and a whole lot of cultural artifacts (music, movies, memorials, etc.) to find out who we are. Perhaps we haven't reached the bottom yet, but I am optimistic that we will find ourselves faster than our ancestors.
The end result
America will continue to be unique and will actually be better than it was before. The reflection hurts and it will probably continue to hurt, but it is healthy. It is needed. It is actually quite normal. America has never been stagnant, and it should never be. It is the land of permanent revolution. People change and when you are a government of the people, by the people and for the people, sometimes it is ugly.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
What's the story with guns?
So, there was another mass shooting in the United States. I am sure I am not alone when my international friends and colleagues start asking me about guns in America. "What do you think of them?" "Is it true that every American has a gun?"
Let's start by answering that what I think doesn't really matter (more later). And to quickly answer the second question, no... not everyone has a gun.
Guns in the US have a history as long as the country itself. It may seem absurd to most Europeans, but the right to have guns (bear arms) is written in the US constitution as part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the document. A little info: the constitution outlines the structure of the government, the amendments specify the rights of the people, like freedom of speech, voting, etc.
In other words, there is no state monopoly on violence in the United States like there is in Europe (and most other countries). We have to remember that the constitution was written in 1787, shortly after the American revolution. Perhaps armed citizenry was a method to prevent tyrannical government. Perhaps it was self-defense. Constitutional experts continue to debate.
So, let's fast forward a few hundred years. Like most of the Bill of Rights, the modern meaning of the right to bear arms is continuously debated in American politics and society. Mass shootings emotionalize the issue, highlight the challenges of this right and trigger a new round of debate. In the last decade, a series of these tragic events has meant that the discussion rarely stops for long.
The American population generally agrees that there is a problem. No one wants to see events like Sandy Hook. However, the opinions on how to solve the problem are greatly divided across a spectrum. We can basically divide the proposed solutions into four main groups across this spectrum.
Group 1: Arm Everyone to Protect Themselves
This group is on the far right of the spectrum and is best represented by the National Rifle Association (NRA). This group advocates removing all restrictions on gun ownership (except suspected terrorists and convicted criminals). They also advocate arming school teachers, judges, homeowners, etc. There is some disagreement within the group about types of guns, but most favor zero-restrictions on assault rifles and military-grade equipment. Additionally, this group favors laws which reduce permit requirements and 'carry' restrictions, such as 'concealed carry' meaning you carry your gun in public hidden under a jacket or in a purse.
The Arm Everyone group sees themselves as true patriots upholding the right written in the constitution. They tend to speak in 'good guy' versus 'bad guy' terms and have popularized the term 'responsible gun-owners'. They believe they protect the population by deterrent and claim there is a causal inverse relationship between gun-ownership rates and crime rates in certain areas.
Group 2: Reasonable Gun Ownership
This group acknowledges the right to bear arms and continues to view it as a valuable protection of individual freedom. They also agree with the first group that arms are a deterrent to crime. However, they argue for restriction on type and access to weapons. For example, they tend to favor background checks and controlled purchasing of guns. They also tend to think that military-grade weapons should be restricted. They agree with concealed carry but also agree with gun-free zones, like churches, schools and courts. In general, they view gun crime as a failure to enforce current gun laws. They don't disagree with the 'good guys' versus 'bad guys' theory, but they favor effective controls to ensure that 'bad guys' don't get access to weapons. Like Group 1, people in this group agree with the statement, "Gun don't kill people, people kill people."
Group 3: Tighter Restrictions and Tracking
Whereas Group 2 believes that current laws are enough, but that enforcement is lacking, this group believes that current gun laws do not go far enough to ensure reasonable gun ownership. Additionally, this group tends to favor national regulation and laws, compared to state and local level laws. This group advocates a national gun registry, mandatory training, licensing, etc. They also agree with tighter restrictions on types of weapons. Compared with the previous two groups, this group does not see this as strictly a 'people problem' they also believe the amount and type of weapons in American society enables violence.
Group 4: State Monopoly on Violence
Finally, we get to the left side of the spectrum. This group thinks that the guns amendment of the constitution is outdated. This group favors a more European-style approach with strict restrictions on gun sales, ownership, storage and type. This group views gun crime and mass shootings as a 'gun problem' and that disarming America is the only guaranteed solution to reducing violence.
The debate...
Like most populations, most Americans would agree with one of the two groups in the middle. But also like most populations, the extremes gain the most attention due to their passion and stance. Because the issue has become so emotional, it is more difficult to find a balance. The discussion tends to repeat itself. The Arm Everyone Group believes that any gun regulation is part of an agenda by the State Monopoly Group to ban guns step-by-step.
But there are two other aspects which confuse the debate. First is whether gun laws should be made at the national or state level. Currently, gun laws are determined by the states and the trend is toward more relaxed purchasing and carry laws. The result is a range of different state laws and licensing requirements. Second is that the issue is a constitutional issue. Remember, this right is in the Bill of Rights, next to freedom of religion, speech and proper trial. Guns are now linked with individual freedom.
What will happen next?
In the near future nothing will change. The debate is too polarized and no group controls enough popular opinion or political power to change anything. Mass shootings will continue to be a regular occurrence in the United States as they have been since the late 1990s.
Personally, I am in Group 4 after seeing the effect in Germany of a state monopoly on violence, balanced with sport and hobby interests. I view the guns section of the constitution to be outdated, like sections that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for taxation and representation. But I also believe that changing the right to bear arms amendment is impossible in my lifetime.
But change is always present in the US and gun control laws will probably change in the next decade or two. I do not expect them to become more relaxed because they are already quite open. I also feel that these mass shootings will slowly push people toward tighter restrictions despite the efforts of the Arm Everyone Group. It will just take more time. American opinion tends to swing like a pendulum, first one way a bit too far and then back the other way a bit too far.
So, like all issues in American society. It is much more complex than it appears.
Let's start by answering that what I think doesn't really matter (more later). And to quickly answer the second question, no... not everyone has a gun.
Guns in the US have a history as long as the country itself. It may seem absurd to most Europeans, but the right to have guns (bear arms) is written in the US constitution as part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the document. A little info: the constitution outlines the structure of the government, the amendments specify the rights of the people, like freedom of speech, voting, etc.
In other words, there is no state monopoly on violence in the United States like there is in Europe (and most other countries). We have to remember that the constitution was written in 1787, shortly after the American revolution. Perhaps armed citizenry was a method to prevent tyrannical government. Perhaps it was self-defense. Constitutional experts continue to debate.
 |
| The single sentence that is cause for all the trouble. |
The American population generally agrees that there is a problem. No one wants to see events like Sandy Hook. However, the opinions on how to solve the problem are greatly divided across a spectrum. We can basically divide the proposed solutions into four main groups across this spectrum.
Group 1: Arm Everyone to Protect Themselves
This group is on the far right of the spectrum and is best represented by the National Rifle Association (NRA). This group advocates removing all restrictions on gun ownership (except suspected terrorists and convicted criminals). They also advocate arming school teachers, judges, homeowners, etc. There is some disagreement within the group about types of guns, but most favor zero-restrictions on assault rifles and military-grade equipment. Additionally, this group favors laws which reduce permit requirements and 'carry' restrictions, such as 'concealed carry' meaning you carry your gun in public hidden under a jacket or in a purse.
The Arm Everyone group sees themselves as true patriots upholding the right written in the constitution. They tend to speak in 'good guy' versus 'bad guy' terms and have popularized the term 'responsible gun-owners'. They believe they protect the population by deterrent and claim there is a causal inverse relationship between gun-ownership rates and crime rates in certain areas.
Group 2: Reasonable Gun Ownership
This group acknowledges the right to bear arms and continues to view it as a valuable protection of individual freedom. They also agree with the first group that arms are a deterrent to crime. However, they argue for restriction on type and access to weapons. For example, they tend to favor background checks and controlled purchasing of guns. They also tend to think that military-grade weapons should be restricted. They agree with concealed carry but also agree with gun-free zones, like churches, schools and courts. In general, they view gun crime as a failure to enforce current gun laws. They don't disagree with the 'good guys' versus 'bad guys' theory, but they favor effective controls to ensure that 'bad guys' don't get access to weapons. Like Group 1, people in this group agree with the statement, "Gun don't kill people, people kill people."
Group 3: Tighter Restrictions and Tracking
Whereas Group 2 believes that current laws are enough, but that enforcement is lacking, this group believes that current gun laws do not go far enough to ensure reasonable gun ownership. Additionally, this group tends to favor national regulation and laws, compared to state and local level laws. This group advocates a national gun registry, mandatory training, licensing, etc. They also agree with tighter restrictions on types of weapons. Compared with the previous two groups, this group does not see this as strictly a 'people problem' they also believe the amount and type of weapons in American society enables violence.
Group 4: State Monopoly on Violence
Finally, we get to the left side of the spectrum. This group thinks that the guns amendment of the constitution is outdated. This group favors a more European-style approach with strict restrictions on gun sales, ownership, storage and type. This group views gun crime and mass shootings as a 'gun problem' and that disarming America is the only guaranteed solution to reducing violence.
The debate...
Like most populations, most Americans would agree with one of the two groups in the middle. But also like most populations, the extremes gain the most attention due to their passion and stance. Because the issue has become so emotional, it is more difficult to find a balance. The discussion tends to repeat itself. The Arm Everyone Group believes that any gun regulation is part of an agenda by the State Monopoly Group to ban guns step-by-step.
But there are two other aspects which confuse the debate. First is whether gun laws should be made at the national or state level. Currently, gun laws are determined by the states and the trend is toward more relaxed purchasing and carry laws. The result is a range of different state laws and licensing requirements. Second is that the issue is a constitutional issue. Remember, this right is in the Bill of Rights, next to freedom of religion, speech and proper trial. Guns are now linked with individual freedom.
What will happen next?
In the near future nothing will change. The debate is too polarized and no group controls enough popular opinion or political power to change anything. Mass shootings will continue to be a regular occurrence in the United States as they have been since the late 1990s.
Personally, I am in Group 4 after seeing the effect in Germany of a state monopoly on violence, balanced with sport and hobby interests. I view the guns section of the constitution to be outdated, like sections that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for taxation and representation. But I also believe that changing the right to bear arms amendment is impossible in my lifetime.
But change is always present in the US and gun control laws will probably change in the next decade or two. I do not expect them to become more relaxed because they are already quite open. I also feel that these mass shootings will slowly push people toward tighter restrictions despite the efforts of the Arm Everyone Group. It will just take more time. American opinion tends to swing like a pendulum, first one way a bit too far and then back the other way a bit too far.
So, like all issues in American society. It is much more complex than it appears.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Who controls America?
I get many questions and comments from my international contacts about American policy and motives, or lack thereof. The questions cover a large range of issues including immigration, gun control, local laws, business practices, health care, foreign policy (mostly military use) and education.
In nearly all cases, I can draw the conversations back to one basic question: Who controls America?
I have heard many theories in my time abroad. In most cases, people believe it is the President. But I have also heard opinions that it is business executives, lobbyists, bankers, 'the rich', Hollywood, media moguls, the oil industry, and even 'the Jews'.
It is interesting to me what I don't hear. I have never heard Congress, the Supreme Court, the States, local government, the military, ethnic groups, unions, farmers or retirees, all of whom might be considered power structures because they represent large portions of the population and have influence. There seems to be the assumption that America is controlled by a small group of individuals, but all disagree on which group it is.
So what is my answer to who controls America? No one. The United States is controlled by the people.
In Marxist theory, there is the term permanent revolution. It has been used in various forms by socialist theorists and political leaders to describe the ongoing struggle needed to achieve the perfect society. They argued that such a struggle was impossible in a capitalist society. But I would argue that the United States is perhaps the best example of a country which lives in permanent revolution. It has always sought to achieve the perfect society and it clearly experiences an ongoing struggle.
Although many issues may appear from afar one-sided or the machinations of a select group, in reality debates are much more complex. There is no power in the US without checks and balances. Every institution has a monitor. Every movement has a counter-movement. Every point has a counter-point. And this equilibrium does not only exist at the national level. It is present everyday in neighborhoods, towns, cities and states. Nor do these debates cut cleanly between the two national political parties. In such a diverse nation, opinions are wide-ranging and nuanced.
Naturally, times occur when one side of the issue achieves the upper hand and guides decisions in their direction. There are also power structures like the presidency, business groups, lobbyists, ethnic groups, labor, etc. which are able to set the agenda, meaning they determine which questions are the highest priority. But there is no group which can exercise complete control; power is simply too diluted.
I prefer to highlight the exceptions to show why 'control of the few' is flawed.
If banks control the US, why do we have Dodd-Frank and Sarbannes-Oxley?
If business controls the US, why haven't we reformed the H1B visa? Why do we still have the EPA and the Clean Air Act?
If media moguls control the country, who are they? Which side are they on? There is a media outlet for every possible opinion.
If lobbyists control the government, which lobbyists? Is the NRA, is it AAPR? Is it the telecom industry? Why was net neutrality preserved?
[In case you are wondering, here are the largest spenders on lobbying.]
If religious moral conservatives control the nation, why do we have legalized gay marriage and decriminalized marijuana?
Again, it is natural that one side of the debate achieves the upper hand temporarily. Perhaps this is the biggest misconception I see. People seem to believe that the current situation will remain forever. But in a nation like the United States, this is simply not the case. Opinions change, groups change, the debate shifts. We are witnessing one of these shifts currently in the presidential election.
Sure, we can probably point to the NRA's lobby clout as a reason why stricter gun controls have not been enacted. But we cannot assume it will always be so. A century ago it appeared that business magnates controlled the nation only to see it shift during the Progressive Era. Our ancestors experienced the darker side of majority rule in the form of legalized discrimination only to see it change. Deregulation of business has been overturned by 're-regulation'. Isolationism gave way to international engagement. Social programs ebb and flow with the tides of the people.
So, my advice to my international friends and Americans alike is the same. The issues, policies and motives are not static because no one is really in control. The nation is controlled by 321 million individuals with unique perspectives, organized into shifting groups, locked in a constant struggle to create an unobtainable future - the perfect society. As observers, we should expect change, it is the one constant.
In nearly all cases, I can draw the conversations back to one basic question: Who controls America?
I have heard many theories in my time abroad. In most cases, people believe it is the President. But I have also heard opinions that it is business executives, lobbyists, bankers, 'the rich', Hollywood, media moguls, the oil industry, and even 'the Jews'.
It is interesting to me what I don't hear. I have never heard Congress, the Supreme Court, the States, local government, the military, ethnic groups, unions, farmers or retirees, all of whom might be considered power structures because they represent large portions of the population and have influence. There seems to be the assumption that America is controlled by a small group of individuals, but all disagree on which group it is.
So what is my answer to who controls America? No one. The United States is controlled by the people.
In Marxist theory, there is the term permanent revolution. It has been used in various forms by socialist theorists and political leaders to describe the ongoing struggle needed to achieve the perfect society. They argued that such a struggle was impossible in a capitalist society. But I would argue that the United States is perhaps the best example of a country which lives in permanent revolution. It has always sought to achieve the perfect society and it clearly experiences an ongoing struggle.
Although many issues may appear from afar one-sided or the machinations of a select group, in reality debates are much more complex. There is no power in the US without checks and balances. Every institution has a monitor. Every movement has a counter-movement. Every point has a counter-point. And this equilibrium does not only exist at the national level. It is present everyday in neighborhoods, towns, cities and states. Nor do these debates cut cleanly between the two national political parties. In such a diverse nation, opinions are wide-ranging and nuanced.
Naturally, times occur when one side of the issue achieves the upper hand and guides decisions in their direction. There are also power structures like the presidency, business groups, lobbyists, ethnic groups, labor, etc. which are able to set the agenda, meaning they determine which questions are the highest priority. But there is no group which can exercise complete control; power is simply too diluted.
I prefer to highlight the exceptions to show why 'control of the few' is flawed.
If banks control the US, why do we have Dodd-Frank and Sarbannes-Oxley?
If business controls the US, why haven't we reformed the H1B visa? Why do we still have the EPA and the Clean Air Act?
If media moguls control the country, who are they? Which side are they on? There is a media outlet for every possible opinion.
If lobbyists control the government, which lobbyists? Is the NRA, is it AAPR? Is it the telecom industry? Why was net neutrality preserved?
[In case you are wondering, here are the largest spenders on lobbying.]
If religious moral conservatives control the nation, why do we have legalized gay marriage and decriminalized marijuana?
Again, it is natural that one side of the debate achieves the upper hand temporarily. Perhaps this is the biggest misconception I see. People seem to believe that the current situation will remain forever. But in a nation like the United States, this is simply not the case. Opinions change, groups change, the debate shifts. We are witnessing one of these shifts currently in the presidential election.
Sure, we can probably point to the NRA's lobby clout as a reason why stricter gun controls have not been enacted. But we cannot assume it will always be so. A century ago it appeared that business magnates controlled the nation only to see it shift during the Progressive Era. Our ancestors experienced the darker side of majority rule in the form of legalized discrimination only to see it change. Deregulation of business has been overturned by 're-regulation'. Isolationism gave way to international engagement. Social programs ebb and flow with the tides of the people.
So, my advice to my international friends and Americans alike is the same. The issues, policies and motives are not static because no one is really in control. The nation is controlled by 321 million individuals with unique perspectives, organized into shifting groups, locked in a constant struggle to create an unobtainable future - the perfect society. As observers, we should expect change, it is the one constant.
Introduction
The identity of an ex-pat is complex and dynamic tug-of-war between home and hometown. For many, they elect fully adopt the culture, values and behavior of their new home, consciously shedding their past. For others, clinging tightly to their upbringing enhances their uniqueness in their new world. They reject many aspect of their new country.
I am somewhere in the middle. I feel my Midwestern past has made me successful in life, but embracing my German lifestyle enables me to enjoy this success.
This site allows me to reflect on what America looks like from here. It helps me understand what being an American today means. It also lets me investigate why some things appear so inconsistent with my definition of the United States.
Some background...
I have lived in Germany more-or-less continuously since 2002. I work internationally and I trade on my identity as an American. It is important for me to maintain that identity, for my career certainly, but more importantly for my own self-value. I have never considered becoming a German citizen and I doubt I ever will.
My daily life is a strange mix of both sides. Although my wife is German and my children feel little pull toward the US, we live a very Americanized lifestyle. I follow events in the US closely, from the local news of Kansas City, my hometown, to popular media, trends and national debates.
So, over the next weeks and months, I plan to add articles examining aspects of American today and how they appear from afar. In some cases, I may sound out-of-date. My memories are of a country nearly 15 years ago, and America is nothing if not dynamic. In other cases, I may be able to add a unique perspective or context to the daily ticker of headlines. Perhaps that adds something and others find it useful or thought-provoking.
I am somewhere in the middle. I feel my Midwestern past has made me successful in life, but embracing my German lifestyle enables me to enjoy this success.
This site allows me to reflect on what America looks like from here. It helps me understand what being an American today means. It also lets me investigate why some things appear so inconsistent with my definition of the United States.
Some background...
I have lived in Germany more-or-less continuously since 2002. I work internationally and I trade on my identity as an American. It is important for me to maintain that identity, for my career certainly, but more importantly for my own self-value. I have never considered becoming a German citizen and I doubt I ever will.
My daily life is a strange mix of both sides. Although my wife is German and my children feel little pull toward the US, we live a very Americanized lifestyle. I follow events in the US closely, from the local news of Kansas City, my hometown, to popular media, trends and national debates.
So, over the next weeks and months, I plan to add articles examining aspects of American today and how they appear from afar. In some cases, I may sound out-of-date. My memories are of a country nearly 15 years ago, and America is nothing if not dynamic. In other cases, I may be able to add a unique perspective or context to the daily ticker of headlines. Perhaps that adds something and others find it useful or thought-provoking.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)