Isolationism is not an option: Lessons from Munich, Saigon & Kabul

"Be careful with what you wish, because it can become true"

The fall of Kabul and the collapse of Afghanistan shows several of the unavoidable consequences of being a global power:

1. You can't "opt-out" 
2. Safety can only be achieved through strength
3. You cannot negotiate with totalitarian extremists
4. You cannot "build" institutions for others
5. You must trust but verify
6. Powell Doctrine, Truman Doctrine, Monroe Doctrine, TR doctrine are all proven true 
7. Blockades, permanent military occupation, and immigration control are the lesser of evils against evils
8. "Multinational government" doesn't work, economic globalization combined with strong military power and alliances does.
9. There is no shame in being a global power. There is shame in appeasement and self-blame
10. Ignorance is lethal. Pandering to ignorance and conspiracy theories must be criminalized. 

I can expand later on all these 10 points, but they are self-explanatory. 

Churchill, FDR, JFK, Thatcher, Truman, Reagan did the right thing in confronting all-out the enemies of the West.

The enemies of the West are also the enemies of the basic principles and freedoms that its foundations:

1. Rule of law
2. Division of Power
3. Checks and balances
4. Independent Judiciary, Monetary authority
5. Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

Those 5 elements cannot be negotiated. They must be defended and imposed at any cost. There is no "pacific coexistence" with regimes or civilizations that don't share them.

A House Divided – Again – By Vaccination Rates

 

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."  Abraham Lincoln June 16, 1858

“The common and continual mischief's of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the 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 find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion.”

George Washington, Washington's farewell address: delivered to Congress on September 19, 1796 

History repeats, but not always as a farce, as Marx had it. There seem to be secular themes in the US and other countries that come back in rather dramatic ways.

160+ years ago, Abraham Lincoln warned for the first time that “a house divided cannot stand.” That was the last, desperate warning before the Civil War that still reverberates in the North-South cultural divide.

Back from a road trip across seven states -Illinois, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida- I noticed the differences between the world of the big cities and small-town America. I found most of those differences enriching and valuable. But also noticed how easily they could be exploited by populist politicians to sow divisions for political gain. The cemeteries and battle sites I found along the 1,300 miles of my trip reminded me that this happened before.

This time history repeats in dramatic form. Almost one million Americans died during the 1861-1864 Civil War, and 608,000 have died already during the 2020-2021 COVID 19 pandemic that is still in course. The final count might be very close, primarily because of the “house divided” factor.

The current house is divided by politics once again. This would not be news but for a dramatic, life-threatening factor: vaccination rates.

Although Trump could take credit for speeding the development of new vaccines,  it must also take responsibility for encouraging vaccine avoidance in the states that voted for him. County by county, the vaccination map reproduces the 2020 election map. Unfortunately, the infection rates -90+percent among non-vaccinated- also reflect the partisan divide. And that is a lethal difference when the new Delta variant starts to spread in the United States.

I cannot avoid remembering George Washington’s warning against partisan factions. I already wrote about his farewell speech, prescient of the Civil War. Back then, populist politicians and politics turned the partisan division into a deadly war between Americans. Now, once again, toxic populist politics -fanned by the speed and reach of social media conspiracy theory networks- are exposing unnecessarily millions of Americans to a deadly virus.

Lincoln’s advice stands even more prescient than Washington’s. A house divided -half vaccinated and half not- cannot stand in the war against a virus that can mutate and reinfect almost endlessly unless checked by vaccination.

Hard as it is to believe in the 21^st century and in the country that developed the vaccines against the disease, the United States runs the risk of losing thousands of lives unnecessarily.

Blaming the Internet or Facebook for vaccine avoidance deflects responsibility from those who should be criminally accountable for spreading conspiracy theories, rumors, and false information. That buck stops right at the table of former President Mr. Donald J. Trump, who still could use his significant influence to encourage vaccination among his followers. He seems so far too busy disputing the 2020 elections and campaigning for a return in 2024.

The alternative is much less effective and painful: a combination of fear of dying and the negative self-selection of death will undoubtedly do the hatchet job.

Looking for a silver lining is very difficult. Perhaps if there is a lesson to be learned -as it happened after the Civil War- we can hope it will last for a couple of generations, which -as Ronald Reagan said of freedom- will be that far from extinction.

Immigration's long view: welfare state or open borders? you can't have both.

In a first, unforced strategic error, the Biden administration reversed critical policies instituted by the Trump Administration to control immigrants' flow.  The reversal not only was hurried but plagued with ambiguous messages such as "don't come... now".

The response was a colossal and predictable surge:

"U.S. Border Patrol agents made about 97,000 arrests of migrants crossing the border illegally in February, the highest monthly total since 2019 when there was also a surge in U.S.-bound migration. Record numbers of unaccompanied minors crossing the border have posed the greatest problem for U.S. immigration authorities."

Biden was forced to use a Trump-era COVID resolution to justify sending back thousands of unaccompanied minors illegally smuggled from Central America to the border and put VP Kamala Harris in charge of negotiating a temporary halt with Mexico and Central American governments.

Milton Friedman explained almost 50 years ago the fundamentals to think about immigration policies between underdeveloped neighbors and a high-income society with a large welfare state like the US.:

The current crisis proves Friedman right by way of the absurd. Opening the border to poorly defined "asylum-seekers" is the equivalent of inviting millions across the border to come to a Black Eye Friday sale.

The long view of the problem is clear: immigration can be managed much better only through an internal agreement between special interests represented by both Democrats and Republicans. 

Extremist, simplistic fixes such as "building the wall" or "humanitarian asylum" not only don't solve the problem but exacerbate it. 

Border control -as Biden has learned the hard way- is a first priority and necessity and top-rated demand in the border states exposed to uncontrolled inflows of migration managed and promoted by a mix of human traffickers, failed states, and political extremists.

For all his harmful and insulting rhetoric, Trump addressed that claim. Biden's reversal shows that moderates understand reality much better than extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. Immigration policy is neither an academic debate nor a campaign bumper sticker.

The welfare state party can do better to serve it by keeping control of the border before negotiating a true migratory reform that serves and prioritizes US stakeholders.

Long view trends: The Sunbelt turns Democratic, the Midwest might go Republican, will Populists go with Trump ?

 

Like Sarah Palin in 2008, Donald Trump's populism has become a deadly boomerang for the old GOP. 

Populist leaders and party rules and principles make odd and short-lived marriages. 

Trump's 2016 narrow victory over an out-of-touch Hillary Clinton might have been grossly overstated as a sign of a trend towards conservatism and republican values.

Except for his tax cuts and deregulatory measures, Trump's nationalistic and protectionist policies fit better with Bernie Sanders' Left-wing democrats than with orthodox Milton Friedman-Ronald Reagan republicanism.

The underlying demographic trend shows a fast migratory transformation, explained in detail by Nate Silver.

Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and Texas are moving towards the Democratic party, as millions of college-educated Californians and Midwesterns move towards the Sunbelt states looking for lower taxes, affordable housing, and more efficient government. 

Republicans' success in state government has attracted liberal voters that are already turning the tide towards a more progressive, minority-friendly type of politics than Trump's populist version of the Republican party.

Trump's three consecutive defeats between 2018 and 2020, losing control of the Senate and the White House are the price for extreme polarization and catering to a steady but not expandable segment of the traditional Republican electorate: white, non-college-educated voters in traditional protected industries.

If Trump keeps veering to the Far-Right his populist agenda and doesn't check his personalist impulses, he will put in jeopardy GOP governors and senators' tenure in the states that are turning demographically and culturally to more progressive politics.  Such fracture would make possible a Harris 2024 presidency, in the same manner as Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton defeat Bush 41.

Future trends are clear for both traditional parties to be aware of: republicans must move back to the center to keep chances with a new, younger, better educated, and more diverse electorate moving to formerly "red" states. Democrats must take account of their slim 2020 victory in such states doing the same and moving away from Sanderism and the Gang of Four.

So far, both parties seem to be uncertain and in a process of internal divisions.

US After Trump (3): A return to normalcy?

 

All the signs indicate that Trump's Alt-Right populism has reached its limits. Trump's constant aggression and lack of civility towards those who criticize him or don't seem to be part of his 2016 base has set a low ceiling to his chances.

Fear-mongering is a weak strategy against a moderate, well-known rival with a 47-year long track record -in addition to a two-term VP stint during the still popular Obama Presidency-.

The coronavirus pandemic has dissipated the doubts about the need for universal, affordable healthcare coverage, including pre-existing conditions such as Covid infections that will continue to spread in another or perhaps two more waves before a vaccine can set an end to the pandemic ordeal.

Most Americans know that the economy's outlook will not be very different with a Biden or Trump's presidency, but healthcare and pandemic management will. And on those accounts Trump is evidently on the wrong side of the events. 

Still under the impact of the pandemic, the country is eager for a return to some sense of normalcy and civility.

War on Cops: Just another lost war

A growing wave of unrest is pushing back silently against the campaigns for defunding police departments based on blaming the police for the growing violence against black lives and black communities based on charges of "systemic racism" that cancel any possible request for confrontation with actual data.

Scholar Heather McDonald has been for decades publishing such data, which reveals that over 80 percent of black lives are taken by black-on-black crime and -more critically- than most black community members want more and not fewer police to keep them safe from shootings and looting.

The last piece of evidence was provided by the parents of an actual victim of police abuse, Jacob Blake, who denounced publicly the looting and property destruction that destroyed Kenosha, Wisconsin property and businesses 

This self-defeating campaign of protests during the pandemic has handed President Trump a winning card in the coming elections. Polls show that protests that work as a perfect cover for looting are overwhelmingly unpopular and play in the hands of President's Trump "law & order" campaign theme. Black voters are mostly moderates (43%). Also, white suburban voters are increasingly worried about the looting, arson, and violence of street protests.

Systematic violence against property across all major cities in the United States is the perfect argument for re-electing the current incumbent.  

New York and Chicago are already reeling from looting, violence that challenges the rationalizations and denial of progressive rhetoric and fuel a mass exodus of millennials and tired liberal taxpayers to "law & order" cities.

War on cops is another self-defeating form of cultural wars. Reality will correct those who engage in them harshly.

US After Trump: Millenials Coming of Age (Part 2)

Millennials are reaching homeownership age, that stage beyond college politics and free-spirited idealism to enter the realities of paying off student debt and family home mortgages. In five more years they will be also paying for their children's education.

Much has been said about the M generation, and most could be wrong or at least outdated. Coming of mortgage age has taken longer -thanks to the many tankings of boomers' roller coaster  economy- than the two generations before. But as older millennials hit their 40s, financial responsibility, taxes and jobs become priorities.

The view from this perspective is certainly sobering: record student debt maturing right when the economy rolls down in a likely record recession; low rate-mortgages fueling a binge of homeownership and a forced flight from overtaxed, overpriced and overcrowded coastal "liberal blue" urban centers to affordable and safer "conservative red" small(er) town-America.

This migration will likely have several consequences that should be the basis for realistic assessments instead of rosy or gloomy projections of the past.

1. Millennials will become more tax-conscious and government-averse
2. Blue cities will lose population and political and economic power, turning red
3. Red cities will turn "bluer" in social and cultural politics but will remain "red" in economics
4. Multicultural happy talk will be replaced by realistic nationalism and protectionism
5. Left-wing populism might swing to right-wing populism

Progressives used to consider the party of the future as much as conservatives were the party of the past. There is a role-reversal going on already, as small businesses and cities struggle with unintended consequences of protest rallies -so popular in college years- run in their own hard-paid backyards and shops.

Conservatives used to spell "doom and gloom" and fear for the future but might now have to deal with a more positive message for a new generation dealing with debt, poor economy and broken government.

It's time to look to the present with the perspective of a new generation.

US after Trump - Millennials coming (part 1)

For those taking the long view perspective -that of generational changes in voters and workforce- the 2020 elections have a different meaning. Both candidates are over 70 years old -well into retirement age-. Both are white, anglo Saxon men raised in the urban states of the East Coast. 

Trump's "base" is a dwindling, less mobile, non-college-educated sample of what was the majority of America around 1950. They have been pictured in countless books since "Hillbilly Elegy"

and in many documentaries like 'American Factory, that explain how China took over jobs and even companies from the Rust Belt during the past 20 years, killing middle-class "union jobs" by way of technological revolution and global supply chains.

The reality is -or shall we better say will be- that the United States has become more diverse in the past 20 years and will become even more multicultural and multi-ethnic in the coming 20.

No matter how much (some) Trump supporters howl "they will not replace us" or wear MAGA hats, their hope for a return to 1950 is as futile as the fixation of equal old-timers in the Left with the politics of the 1970s.  

Neither 78-year-old Bernie Sanders nor 74-year-old-Donald Trump will be inactive roles within the next 5 years. 

Progressive governors and mayors have left the "blue" states with such heavy levels of taxation, public and student debt that a solid migration of millennials is changing the demographics -and politics of formerly known "red states" such as Utah, Arizona, and Texas.

Some move for increasing costs of living

Pandemics and remote work have made other Millenials more mobile and eager to escape expensive urban decay and stressful levels of social conflict

Progressives can't claim victory either: millennial migrants are turning more conservative as they become financially strapped with student debt and start their own small businesses away from the corporate rat race tracks.

It's time to look at how 2030 or 2040 US will look like rather than imagining that Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders' "retro" politics will dictate the future.

And those are indeed the good news.

Post -Pandemics II: A Long View Approach (2)

The Munk Dialogues and Debates produced a series of high-interest interviews to explore Post-Covid scenarios.  Financier Mohamed Al-Erian,  foreign affairs expert Fareed Zakaria, "big picture" writer Malcolm Gladwell, economic historian Niall Ferguson, China experts Victor Gao, David Li, and Henry Kissinger produced a variety of valuable insights from different angles.

Mohamed Al-Erian emphasized the long-lasting effect of the pandemic over the global economic system and the re-globalization or reconfiguration of global value chains as a result of the pandemic experience. In Al-Erian's view, the re-globalization will involve nearshoring to reliable partners with higher health and communication standards and reciprocal trust.

Malcolm Gladwell points to a different but critical angle: the key importance of looking to the weakest link in the world and local societies and economies instead of focusing on the "competitive advantages". The weakest links such as healthcare capacity and prevention, poverty, and welfare networks are likely to stay front and center.

Ian Bremmer added a critical insight regarding the relocation of global value chains: "just-in-case" criteria will not be sustainable. Stronger links based on mutual agreements and reliable partnerships will have priority over mere cost-cutting or universal coverage plans.

Fareed Zakaria pointed out the rise of China as a global factor but also with increased pressure and challenges to meet health and trade requirements

Niall Ferguson, Henry Kissinger, Victor Gao, and David Li debated the role of China, with the Chinese defending the strong points and the Brit and American pointing to China's weaknesses.  

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.