Cancel your Cable News - And your Social Media "Feed"

Once upon a time, there was "news" in-network news and professional journalists like Walter Lippmann, Edward Murrow, Walter Cronkite, or Jim Lehrer. 

CNN  -the first Cable New Network that covered 24/7- had news around the world, delivered by independent, professional journalists and sources.

Those were the days of reporters -not commentators- such as Bernard Shaw and Wolf Blitzer

Even Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War I checked the news in CNN instead of relying on his "Baghdad Bob" because in those early days CNN offered information, not opinion or commentary.

There were, of course, op-ed shows and even debates, on both sides of the political spectrum and with solid arguments, such as CrossFire

Or debates such as Baldwin vs Buckley:

Then came the Clinton years and Fox channel and cable news became partisan mouthpieces of each one of the two main political parties: CNN and MSNBC for Democrats and Fox Channel for Republicans. 

Twenty years into the 21st century, there is no more "news" in the news network. Just endless, 24/7 partisan "talking points" delivered by the media equivalents to a Press Secretary.

The rest of the world disappeared from US news. So did the rest to the United States other than what matters for campaign strategists. Cable news became a 24/7, endless "yellow pages" of political ads.

Is time to turn them off and get some news. You can try C-SPAN, BBC, Bloomberg, CNBC (finances are still outside the partisan range) Reuters, and all the other international sources now available online.

Save money. Save sanity. Get some actual news. Drop Cable "News" Networks.

Campus "Unsafe Zones" - How to Defend Freedom from "Social Justice" Agendas

Please take some time to watch the video that precedes this paragraph. It shows in full display the experience of students and faculty in current US campuses.

"Safe zones", "political correctness" and historical revisionism defeat the purpose of higher education. 

The "higher" in "higher education" stands for the respect for free-thinking regardless of its direction and content. Higher education is about learning how to think, not about learning what to think.

Under the guise of "safe zones", "critical thinking" and "social justice" extremist and intolerant minorities regularly impose their views, suppress dissent, and -more dangerously- use peer pressure, student debt, and faculty job stability to blackmail and coerce into silence.

Philosopher and Portland State professor Peter Boghossian has found an interesting way to fight back. It consists of letting students speak out and communicating their views through the same social media used to bully dissenters.

It seems a promising way to restore the "higher" purpose and spirit in higher education.

Trump's Katrina

History repeats itself -unfortunately not always as a farce but as a new, avoidable tragedy-.

George W. Bush's colossal blunders in Iraq and Katrina ended in embarrassing political ostracism.

But it was Katrina what doomed his Presidency

Donald J. Trump faced in Covid 19 pandemic a manifold-Katrina moment and -like the 43rd president- failed victim to a mix of hubris, incompetent staff, and superficial judgment.

In Trump's case, this is compounded by his own tendency to oversell and cater opportunistically to his Far Right base instead of addressing the problem.

Populist leaders tend -as Churchill put it- to "do the right thing once they exhausted all the alternatives".

Trump's presidency fate is less relevant for our long-view perspective than the pattern of historical repetition it reveals.

The price of forgetting historical experience is too high.

The Wrong Side of Pandemics: US and Argentina - Learning from Uruguay

A global pandemic is a unique opportunity to test social performance and to measure the cost of ideological dogmatism and political posturing.

Donald Trump in the US and Alberto Fernandez in Argentina put their bets on extremes. The former went to extremes to keep the economy "open" in the hope that it would pay off. The latter did the opposite, betting that closing the country indefinitely would abate the virus and give his government votes in midterm elections.

Both populist leaders catered to their Far Right and Far Left constituents blowing ideological whistles like "freedom" not to wear masks or "state protection" to keep people locked and controlled.

Both have failed spectacularly and will probably pay in the coming elections.

Two "long view" lessons:

1. Reality is not a bumper sticker or a hat. Balance wins in the long run over bluster.
2. Popularity is ephemeral, mistakes permanent.

Uruguay provides a good example of success based on balancing healthcare with sensible economics and civil liberties.

Left and Right are Wrong

The constant use of "Left" and "Right" as disqualifiers by President Trump and his political antagonists reflects the use of extremist views and politics of fringe minorities to dominate the political discourse and polarize voters in a now endless election cycle.

What is "Left" and "Right"?

The terms originated in the National Assembly's seating arrangements at the time of the French Revolution in 1789. 

Those sitting on the left-of-center benches were against nobility and monarchy. Those on the Right favor them or at least of gradual change. Using violent tactics, those on the Left initially prevailed. They included the revolution leaders, such as Robespierre and Marat, and many others that came paradoxically from nobility or clergy. They instituted rigid censorship of their rivals and, one by one, sent them to execution in the guillotine. At the peak of this process, known as The Reign of Terror, more than 20.000 "traitors" were summarily executed.

It didn't take them too long to start fighting and killing each other. Marat was assassinated in his bathtub, Robespierre in the guillotine. And even the guillotine's inventor, the homonymous monsieur Guillotine, felt the blades on his own neck.

After all the bloodbath came a dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte, who restored monarchy with his own relatives and partisans, giving way to the revenge of the "Right" wing and a decade of wars and imperial conquer in Europe that ended with Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo not before crowning himself emperor of France.

It didn't take them too long to start fighting and killing each other. Marat was assassinated in his bathtub, Robespierre in the guillotine. And even the guillotine's inventor, the homonymous monsieur Guillotine, felt the blades on his own neck.

After all the bloodbath came a dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte, who restored monarchy with his own relatives and partisans, giving way to the revenge of the "Right" wing and a decade of wars and imperial conquer in Europe that ended with Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo not before crowning himself emperor of France.The Framers of the United States Constitution noticed the lessons of the Left and Right-wing bloodbath in France and explicitly designed a Constitution to prevent what Madison called "the tyranny of the majority" by instituting checking powers and term limits.

Far Left and Far Right politics represented by different varieties of communism and fascism caused WWII and the ensuing Cold War when the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco rose to power after the Great Depression, instituting their own "Terror": the nazi Holocaust, the Soviet Gulags and "Cultural Revolutions" that according to most historians caused between 100 and 200 million deaths between 1932 and 1992.

Today, "Left" and "Right" wing politics are present in diverse forms, such as:

1.     Identity politics and racist movements -from Birthers, Tea Party, and Q-Anon on the "Right" to Antifa, La Raza, and BLM on the "Left"

2.     Culture wars expressed with tribal symbols  such as MAGA hats, Confederate Flags, taking down monuments, or re-writing history

3.     Nationalistic, jingoistic movements such as MAGA, anti-immigrants, and Black Power demonize those looking different and set one set of minorities against each other.

These fringe, half-baked ideologies are used by both political parties as "bait" to attract frustrated voters through a toxic flow of 24/7 propaganda in Cable News networks and social media. 

Campuses and churches have been captured by the Far Left and the Far Right as grassroots institutions to indoctrinate followers. 

"Left" and "Right" wing categories are both wrong and toxic, as they are designed to separate rival camps in perpetual wars between absolute concepts of "good" and "evil" taken from religious war into politics. 

"Left" and "Right" wing politics are exactly what Washington described as "faction" and "parties" in his farewell advice. 

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

Left and Right are Wrong and un-American.  

Who Wins Culture Wars ?

"Culture wars" usually erupt in election years, fueled by politicians trying to make up for the lack of ideas and alternatives.

Left-wing activists engage in tearing down monuments -from General Lee to Columbus-,  replacing flags and defunding the police. Right-wing activists wrap in Confederate flags, march with torches chanting against those who want to "replace us". 

Who can win "culture wars"? 

Did racism, fascism, and communism disappear after defeat in the battleground and sanction in the public speech? Does "political correctness" change minds? 

Did racism and segregation ended with the Civil War? Affirmative Action? Electing the first black President?

The answers are self-evident, but let's go a step further:

What are we supposed to do with the losers in cultural wars?   What are they? Where do they go? How do they live the rest of their lives? 

"A house divided cannot stand" means that winners are supposed to exterminate losers? Exile them? Take away their First Amendment Rights? 

Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and  Paul Kagame led their countries out of civil and cultural wars to long and peaceful processes of reconciliation and integration.  The United States, South Africa, India, and Rwanda lost millions of lives in those wars and came out stronger thanks to this approach.

Facing an uphill battle for reelection, President Trump focuses his campaign on engaging in culture wars, assuming that this was what helped him win in 2016 -a curious concession to his most ardent critics on the Far Left and his own party-. 

The country, meanwhile, has much more important things to care for. It looks at an epic economic downturn, a raging pandemic, and an overwhelmed healthcare system. 

If Trump wins reelection, he will face a much more divided country than the one he found. If he loses, bitterness and division will remain for a long time as an obstacle for his successors.

The 40 percent of independent voters and the critical swing states will vote based on the future, not the past. 

The past cannot be changed nor forgotten. It must be studied with respect and an open mind to learn from it lessons that can only be applied to the future. Those lessons will be different for different people, times, and circumstances. That's why museums and monuments must stand in place no matter what the opinion of the day is. Sometimes as a reminder of heroism, others as Holocaust or September 11 memorials, to remember atrocities. Heroes for some will be always villains for others. Napoleon and Cesar. TR and FDR. Churchill and Cromwell. 

Some monuments will always have opposite meanings for different groups. There is no way to escape this contradiction. It's up to civility to accept "freedom for the thought we hate" - and move on.  Certainly, the military that fought for an abhorrent cause -like Generals Lee or Rommel- can be at once seen as heroes or villains. Removing their existing monuments will not change that perception. It might more likely intensify the sentiment on each side of the argument and invite revenge and reciprocation, not change and coming together. 

Monuments to controversial historical figures or concepts will always be exposed to public protests and rallies against whatever they represent that is at the time unacceptable for some. There is always the recourse of legislative action to remove them. That is very different from symbolic lynching or mob-driven takedowns.

Adding new monuments is an entirely different thing. There, contemporary citizens can come to a democratic vote that will not close the argument either but will at least feel fair. Once the monument is up, posterity should just leave it that way and make all the arguments and demonstrations against it without defacing it or removing it, or destroying it.

It might sound inadequate, but it's better than the alternative of "quicksands history" that revisionists propose.

Should Egyptians bring down the pyramids in revenge for Pharos' slave-owning tyranny? Should Romans destroy Caligula's and Nero's statues? 

There is no final conclusion for history. Historians are not judges. Retroactive justice is no justice at all and expressly outlawed in most judicial systems by statutes of limitations and the concept of double jeopardy.  

Perhaps the US can learn from Rwanda, the scene of a horrific genocidal war. 

The "losers" were judged by their contemporaries in their villages and sent to formal justice only when crimes were proven. As in most civil wars, the "war crimes" involved killing among neighbors and relatives for ethnic reasons. 

Asking for ethnic origin was banned. There will be no Hutus and Tutsis, but Rwandan. And Never Again Rwanda keeps reminding coming generations about the dangers of engaging in "culture wars".

In less than one or at most four years Donald Trump will be an ex-president, as all the 44 before him and those who will come after.

Culture wars are a losers' sport.

Post-Pandemics: A Long View Approach

What will be the shape of the post-Pandemic world? 

One serious difficulty for answering such a question is that we are still in the middle of the Pandemic progression.

Lockdowns -total then partial- and emergency economic and social measures -induced coma for entire industries, colossal monetary stimulus and rescue plans for the duration, closed borders, exceptional trade barriers- cannot -and shouldn't be extrapolated.

Emergency, war economies are not valid foundations to build any serious strategy. Just think of September 2001 travel restrictions, the 5 or 6 bubble bursts in the last 20 years. TSA controls in airports didn't change air travel nor the current restrictions will. Duration will not change the fact that there is no alternative to globalization.

Looking at realistic options can be more productive. Let's make a shortlist of what is likely to come after a vaccine and effective treatment is in place -most likely by mid-2021-:

1. An inevitable bounce-back of all major and previously healthy OCDE economies with key differences in shape (V, U, L, W), course (2 or 3 rounds of open/close), and pace (from China's fast to EU and Latam slow)
2. A new "space race" for vaccines and prevention with large expansions of healthcare spending and investment that will relocate government spending and redirect private,
3. Restructuring of global value chains replacing unreliable partners -China beware- that can't control their domestic practices and epidemic issues with others that can. -Opportunities for Southeast Asia, Oceania-
4. The reinvention of business models factoring health and sanitation. 
5. "PTSD"- scared customers changing habits and preferences in critical ways for several industries: (1) travel, tourism & hospitality (2) food (3) entertainment (4) travel (5) leisure (6) workplace (7) education (8) retail (9) real estate -particularly commercial- and (10) urban development (a trend away from high-density, public transportation)
6. Inflationary risks
7. Government debt & public spending

E-performance will likely stay at least 60% of the current level of replacement for knowledge and "white collar" work. E-learning will enter a new level of maturity and the higher education equation will veer away from "campus" and "real estate" towards the lower-price point, learning experience-focused options (global faculty, local application, flexible options)

Like a meteorite falling into Earth altered the climate eons ago, the pandemic will determine winners -the Amazons and Zooms that will thrive after capturing market share-; fast learners -the Ubers able to reinvent and/or exploit new opportunities and "Empresas" -those industries tied to high-maintenance, rigid models and high sunken costs such as tourism, hospitality, travel, and food-.

It's time to look around, and then, to look inside and start thinking anew.