Dan Erwin

Should Trump Go to Jail?

A few weeks ago, when my houseman was cleaning for me, we engaged in a conversation about whether Trump should go to jail. Now I should say that my guy has worked for me for years and I have a terrific amount of respect for his insights. He graduated from St John’s prep school, an institution for which I have a lot of respect. Which means he knows how to analyze and think.

He asked whether I thought Trump should go to jail. I was very thoughtful about my response, responding rather slowly—out of verbal character--and saying, “I don’t know. I’m not sure.” An obviously unexpected response, he jumped in and said that he thought Trump should be made accountable for his crimes. I responded, “I agree, but I’m not certain that he should go to jail.” He stopped vacuuming, raised his eyebrows, rather surprised, and asked, “why not.” My answer was again slow, but direct: “I don’t know what the consequences might be. I’m fearful of the consequences of jailing him.”

It's always political
Given my background in history and political science, I’m well aware that political actions, like jailing an ex-president, always have multiple consequences. But lots of ordinary behaviors also have multiple consequences. And there will always be political considerations. Remember, whenever any decision will impact two or more people, then the decision is political. Even in your family. So, here’s a simple family narrative that, hopefully, explains unintended consequences and my concerns about political process..

Israel vs. Hamas Is Best Understood as a “Waiting Game”

Understanding social reality is especially important for managing long time career success. Though the term is not regularly used in business, reality structures are nothing more than a mental framework that helps people understand and interpret the world around them.  Over the years I’ve found that reality structures can differ between one corporation and another. The 3M reality differs significantly, for example, from the Ralston Purina reality. 3M is strongly oriented to research, while Ralston is strongly oriented to marketing. The consequence is that research behaviors get a lot of attention at 3M, and little at Ralston. You get my gist.
In this post, I want to introduce you to a major social reality that operates in many different contexts.

The “waiting game”
“Waiting game” is a social reality in which one or more participants withhold action temporarily in the hope of having a favorable opportunity for more effective action later.

Why Does “Weird” Work So Well?

When Tim Walz called Donald Trump and his worldview “weird,” it got terrific, immediate attention. It also launched a thousand memes. I suspect it may have also got him the job of Kamala Harris’ running mate. As a rhetorical specialist, a guy who’s always asking why some words and ideas work and other’s don’t, I was extremely curious about why “weird” worked so very well.

To no surprise, that brilliant Columbia linguist, John McWhorter, weighed in on the answer in a NYTimes article. He pointed out that, historically, the term has been around for several centuries and over time it has changed its meaning. In Shakespeare’s use of the term it meant “ghoulish” and “frighteningly odd.” Today it just means “peculiar.”

“Weird” is a part of the language that isn’t taught in our schools, but should be. The novel is usually omitted in grade school. That’s one of the reasons it stands out. It wasn’t in your grade school vocabulary lists. It’s like one of my favorite terms that new Americans don’t understand—“duh.” A word that’s used when something is said or written that’s disgustingly obvious—and often a take-down. Any fourth-grader would know that, but a new immigrant wouldn’t get it.

McWhorter points out what I suspect is the real power of the term “weird.” There’s no workable comeback, other than “no, I’m not weird.” And as you peobably know, some denials just don’t work.

Surprising Research on Racial Voting

As a general rule, most people think that race and anti-race determine voting patterns. Many voters on the left thinnk that supporters of Trump are motivated by racism. One Psychologist recently said that "as a nation, we must face the possibility that a large segment of the white population harbors strong racist and bigoted beliefs."

But is that really true?

A meta-analytic study out of the University of Amsterdam (Netherlands) disputes that claim. Meta-analytical studies are the analysis of many different studies on a question. And the question is very important for today's presidential race. With Vice-President Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate for president, are voters motivated by race?

The Amsterdam study included results from 43 experiments, based largely on US participants and including 305,632 participants. 

The authors concluded, "On average the political underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minorities citizens is unlikely to be caused by voters." Overall, race doesn't play a substantial role in voter decision about candidates. The study also indicated that it fits with other evidence that voters show a slight preference for women candidates.

I can hear a lot of people disagreeing with those conclusions. But that's what 43 different experiments reveal. It becomes more obvious that Western democracies are working toward "historically unprecedented levels of egalitarianism." It fits with the fact that about three years ago my 60 year-old daughter married a Liberian--a former student of hers. And absolutely no one gives a damn--other than the marriage is meaningful and happy. I, for example, think he's just a delightful guy! It's no different what-so-ever than the easy comment of my thirty-plus year-old coach  made, when asked about his family, that one of his brothers is gay. It's just ho-hum.

Swearing Is Actually a Verbal Shortcut

In my previous posts on swearing, I took the easy route in talking about the left and right hemispheres, saying that the right hemisphere is the emotional side and the left is the reasoning side. To a significant degree, that’s just pop psychology. It’s very clear that the two hemispheres work in tandem. They’re closely connected—they’re interconnected and they collaborate. Both hemispheres automatically talk to each other.

If you’ve had some science courses in college, you know that you have an amygdala on both sides of the brain and that they’re connected and that they talk to each other. The two are a major processing center for the entire brain, including both hemispheres.

It’s been hypothesized that one of my grandsons has thinner connections between the two amygdala and that’s why he’s had some difficulty with abstractions and interacting with people. However, with a lot of support, counseling and coaching, he’s gone on to graduate from college and interact fairly easily with people.

A Call for Community: UCBerkeley

In an intriguing and very human response, two Berkeley profs--an Israeli and a Palestinian--got together to write a call for community. Though brief, I want publish the note from the Chancellor, Carol Christ and the two faculty.

October 12, 2023
Chancellor Carol Christ sent the following message to the Berkeley campus community Thursday afternoon.

We are increasingly concerned by the growing prevalence of online threats, doxxing and harassment connected to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. We decry any calls for violence in any form or support for terrorism as we continue to mourn the loss of innocent life. We understand this rhetoric is creating deep fear and concern among many members of our campus community. With that in mind, we want to share an extraordinary message, written by two of our faculty, one who is Palestinian and one who is Israeli:

To our students,

We are two professors on this campus who disagree, vehemently. But we have always treated one another with respect and dignity. We love this campus with its diverse communities and all of our students and are heartbroken to hear of incidents of near violence between students in recent days. We will not...

Best Political Quote of the Year. . . Gretchen Whitmer

In an extensive article, perhaps thinking about a future presidential run, the New Yorker had a long and enlightening article by Benjamin Wallace-Wells on Whitmer. The current governor of Michigan, Whitmer is one tough, very smart lady. But she's not the only Democrat in the State. Both houses are also Democratically run--creating a very thick Blue Wall and knocking the DeVos family out of much of their power games for extreme Republicans.

She understood well that the low turnout of 2016, which gave Trump the state, was not about a radical turn to the right, but about "low voter turnout."

Whitmer's wins suggest a different story about the Midwestern heartland.

Rumors of Conspiracy Are a Normal Part of History

Not just national or international history. Even my own history. As a twenty-year old rumors of conspiracy terrified me. No longer. History provides me with a healthy antidote: Richard Hofstadter.

I graduated from college in 1959, a few years before Richard Hofstadter's essay on The Paranoid Style in American Politics came out in Harper's. As an associate in a Pasadena (California) church, the conspiracy theories of the John Birch Society were driving me nuts. One of the promulgators of conspiracy, a retired naval officer and member of the "society" was teaching in adult classes. The senior minister, a swell guy, but utterly gutless, let it go on and on. I was a history major, so I was familiar with American conspiracy theories. I was amazed how many in that well-educated, upper-middle-class church were believers in the process. . .

So You're Actually a Research Expert. . . Who Gives a Damn?

Back in 2017, I wrote a blog on the loss of expertise, picking up on the expertise of Dunning-Kruger and the more recent response of Tom Nichols. Nichols warned that we are moving toward the collapse of any division between professionals and laypeople. Given my recent experience, we’re no longer “moving toward,” but we’ve arrived at that collapse.

A few weeks ago I was asked by a coffee crony, a professional in planning (not a classical research specialist) to look over a psychiatric study dating from 1970 on “Characterological Deterrents to Economic Progress in People of Appalachia.” Before I opened a page, I remembered my bias against much “psychiatric research," built on the fact that most of them are technically, merely medical professionals who work off models in their field. Diagnostic specialists, not research specialists. It was obvious from the get-go that the writer had no understanding of theory construction, had no competency in critical thinking, was unaware that by the time of his study the model had been discredited, was unaware that he was drawing suspect conclusions, had no understanding of his implicit assumption, an assumption that was identical to Adolf Hitler’s orientation to the Jews--the notion that certain people and races are inherently sub-human. BTW, the majority of PhD’s also lack significant background in theory construction. They just use the typical theory from their discipline for their own research.

Here’s where I got an ear-full. ..

To the Givers Go the Riches: The Hidden Dimension of Work—and Life Relationships

Today’s political world would often have you believe that it’s the “getters” who have success—not the “getters.” But that’s a short term bias. And admittedly a few politicos seem to have success on that basis. But what you’re seeing is the gross exception not the everyday reality. The percentage of successful “getters” is very small, even though that few get a lot of attention. American writers love to call attention to the exceptions: it makes for great reading and sells a lot of copy. 

Just common sense
The people who look at the big picture recognize that a few of the getters succeed, but they know it’s a damned few. And that a terrific percentage of “getters” are very unhappy, frustrated people down deep. It’s just common sense that the givers make the great contributions to our communities—not the getters. The problem with that statement, however, is that common sense has become a rare ingredient in most cultures. And for a number of documentable reasons common sense has become a rare commodity in today’s world. It’s that loss, too, that drives all the craziness, fake facts and conspiracy thinking we stare at or listen to nearly every day.

The major reason common sense has gone the way of the dodo bird is the unique siloing of the universe since WWII. We’ve got academic silos, business silos, industry silos, religious silos, political silos, class silos, economic silos, race silos--and most people talking to themselves. No wonder the crazies are able to stir up manure by the ton load. If you know your history and literature, you know that silos have always been around, limiting and rejecting a common worldly sense.

The example that often comes to mind is

The Big Issue Is Not Guns or Gun Control

I grew up with guns. My father had a locked cabinet full of guns: shotguns and a couple pistols. Since he went hunting much of the year during the last years of his employment and well into retirement, he was very familiar with their use. He was a farm boy from the Western Kentucky tobacco country and well-versed in their safe use. They were always locked up in a cabinet—and the locks were very sturdy. Not to protect his family, but to make theft very difficult for burglars. I used my grandmother’s 22 rifle on several occasions while I was in college at Murray State. I went hunting with my dad a few occasions but never carried or used a gun on those trips. My trip was solely for the purpose of spending time with my dad and listening to the howling of his “black and tans” chasing racoons or his beagles chasing rabbits.

Here are some key  findings about Americans’ attitudes about gun policy, drawn from recent surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup (2021).

*Four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 30% who say they personally own one.

*Personal protection tops the list of reasons why gun owners say they own a firearm.

*Attitudes about gun violence differ widely by race, ethnicity, party and community type.

*Roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019.
*Americans are divided over whether restricting legal gun ownership would lead to fewer mass shootings.

Candidly, the basic issue is not primarily gun control, but governance. Dealing with policy has been shown to be a losing issue. Here, finally, is the research on who actually controls policy—or to restate the issue: who actually governs. We aren’t much of a democracy.

Although there are hundreds of studies on the subject of governance, the latest and best work is by Princeton and Northwestern scholars, political scientists and long-term experts on the issues. They work from a huge body of evidence—some quantitative (the statistics), some historical (to make sense out of the statistics), and some actually observational.

The authors of the study reveal that there are “four families” of research: elected politicians, the economic elites (Wall Street and major Hedge Fund directors), interest groups (tending to be millions of ordinary people with differing interests and personal drivers), and biased interest groups with differing targets.

What makes this study highly useful is the existence of a unique data set, compiled over many years, by one of the authors: Martin Gilens. The study is especially interesting to me because it is not focused on gun research, but on a related issue: who controls public policy?

Well, take a guess.