Various Thoughts XVII

Variations on a theme.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's become a frequent occurrence. Sports figures fall to their knees or link arms (or both) when the National Anthem is being played at the beginning of one of their games. They're exercising their First Amendment rights – their freedom of expression. I wonder if they display their love of the Constitution and kneel every time they hear the anthem, wherever they are and whenever it's played, or only when they're in the spotlight and can make a political statement (or are showing unity with their teammates). Does a football star kneel at a baseball game when the anthem is played and everyone is standing?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I heard on the radio that the Republican action on the ACA (“Obamacare”) will be defeated in the Senate. The merits of the original bill or the proposed replacement are not at issue here. What interests me is the voting in the Senate. The report stated that four Republicans would vote “no” and, joining all the Democrats, they would prevent the bill from passing. The Senate, and, to a lesser extent, the House of Representatives, is ruled by “Groupthink” rather than individual decision making. There is a party position to which all are expected to adhere. It's politics. The candidates for whom we voted based on their expressed opinions on a variety of issues, eventually vote in lockstep, supporting what the party favors and opposing whatever the leaders of the party oppose. There's no room for compromise. In this particular instance there are four Republicans who oppose their party's position. They shouldn't expect party support in the next election if they continue to think independently. All the Democrats are hewing to the line.

And that, sadly, is the rule. More and more supposedly independent “representatives,” our representatives, follow the instructions of party leaders instead of what they have promised to voters. Disregard of the party is of greater significance, and potentially more damaging, than disregard of the voters.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I used to think that fashion was a term that referred to clothing, changing annually according to the whims of designers. And it was strictly a matter of economics. By changing what was “in” each year, by building guaranteed obsolescence into every garment, it was possible to stop consumers – especially rich ones – from thinking for themselves. It became a competition. And what should have been choice based on individual preference became adherence to what had been accepted as “right,” at least at that time.

Now I realize that my view of fashion was too constricted, too limited. I had been considering the word while blindered. It's clear now that “fashions” – fads – exist in all fields. All that's required is that the individual let someone else decide what's “in,” and that failure to follow the fashion marks you as an outsider.

That's what has always been, and that's what we see all around us now. Certainly clothing fashions – even lower end, like baggy pants and garments that are torn – are involved (although among a different group from those who prefer Paris offerings) as well as slang, sexual mores, television programs, tattoos and the like. Most significant in my view is the readiness of people to protest whatever the “smart” people tell them is evil. Although the protesters are usually opposed to the “system,” they march at a moment's notice, often without any real knowledge about the particular situation to which they are objecting. But it's “in” to be part of the movement. And even more so to be arrested for “exercising your rights.” Especially if you're a lower level politician who needs the publicity to work his way up. It's in fashion to protest. It doesn't matter what the cause is. Everybody's doing it.

Fashions and fads permeate our society. And you'd better adhere to them or you'll be exposed on Facebook.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All of these are permutations of the effect that society and conformity have on the individual. And it's increasing all the time. Soon enough we'll all look alike and have the same opinions, or we'll be ostracized.

September 27, 2017

Politics And Entertainment

I never thought I'd mention Snoopy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Neville Chamberlain in the same sentence. (Actually I never considered the possibility at all, positively or negatively.) But now I've done it, and I won't mention them by name again. I will, however, write about some of the things that tie them together in my mind. And, I assume, yours. After all, every day the world seems to be getting smaller, and nowadays “we're all connected” (see https://www.pinterest.com/pin/569846159070661982/ for source. There are better references but the URLs include the name of the originator). I don't mean the telephone or social media. And I'm not alluding to six degrees. Our ideas are connected as well.

When I was growing up I enjoyed reading the comics. And I've continued to do so, though some of the changes have been, in my view, unfortunate. Over the years I've enjoyed Mutt and Jeff, The Katzenjammer Kids, Li'l Abner, Dick Tracy, Peanuts, The Lone Ranger, Bloom County, and numerous others. They were distracting, and often funny. I was entertained by them. Some of them may still exist, but they're not in my paper.

And I liked the popular music of my youth. And the movies. So when I watched Kukla, Fran, and Ollie on our antediluvian Dumont it was because I found it entertaining. The same was true when I went to the theater or, on rare occasion, a dance performance. I went to be entertained – not lectured.

That, as the saying goes, was then. It was a time when “first down” in a football game referred to the playing of the game, not the “honor” of being the first to kneel during the National Anthem. Respect the National Anthem and the flag now and you must be a racist. We live now, sadly, in a time when everyone is likely to be opinionated and every opinion is loudly expressed or provocatively demonstrated.

I don't want to suggest that the arts have not always been political to some degree. Artists, like everyone else, have opinions, but it wasn't always as obvious and “in your face” as it is now. Pogo was certainly involved, but his politics were gentler than those in Doonesbury, where anti-Republican rants are standard fare. And popular music has always contained examples of comment on the society of the time (eg We're in the money) but they were friendly and humorous as opposed to the hip-hop and”folk songs” which are in vogue now. (Instrumental music, like Shostakovitch's To October and The Year 1917 also “comment” on political issues and society at least in the composer's mind, but lacking “lyrics” they don't intrude.)

What strikes me about all this is that we're now living in a time when the most important thing anyone can do is make a point. And there is no arguing with that point if you're not to become an outsider. Everything is subsumed under the general headings of diversity and free speech. Nothing can exist except by making obeisance to these social gods. There's no such thing as a sports event, for example, without a political view expressed. Failure to follow the fashion of the times is likely to cause one to be sent to Coventry. We may honor and require diversity, but we demand uniformity in all we support – uniformity in our allegiance to whatever is the current dogma.

It doesn't matter what that is. Whatever is discussed must contain some favorable mention of the “right” position. Archie, no matter the view of bigoted dissenters, had to die defending a gay man. The New York Times must find fault with President Trump irrespective of the subject of the article. Rap “songs” frequently promote sex and crime – especially against the police – and their words are viewed as poetry. Opposition to transgender activity is clearly a proof of prejudice – for that is not the preferred view – and displays of interracial relationships are de rigueur. And we're intolerant of anyone whose attitudes or words differ from ours. They're wrong and don't deserve to be heard.

Diplomats have a different perspective. While I may not agree with their goals and tactics in general, there is one tool that they use that can be productive – at least productive of what they are trying to achieve, which may be ill-advised. It is compartmentalization. They can separate issues, and not require that unrelated matters be mutually dependent. Comedy and dance don't have to be based on politics; there needn't be concurrence on all matters before there is agreement on one. They can agree to disagree, and they can politely listen to arguments that may not correspond to their own ideas. They disagree, but they learn – at least about the views of those they consider their enemies.

One of the big issues of our time is the existence of “safe spaces” which are designed to exclude anyone with an unwanted perspective. Safe spaces make sense. But the goal must be to exclude rhetoric, posturing, required uniformity, and anything that promotes the merging of unrelated issues. We need to bring back entertainment that is entertainment, not a vehicle for political ideology. And we need discussion that is more than the promotion of a political view that isn't incitement to riot or to silence the opposition or to cause believers to deface their symbols. That's not free speech. It's propaganda.

October 1, 2017

A Different Drummer

I was born a couple of years before Pearl Harbor. I was the younger sibling. (Actually I was the younger brother. They didn't talk about siblings then.) My older brother became a Cub Scout soon after the war but that didn't last long. He didn't like it. As far as he was concerned it was too regimented. It may have been popular, but it wasn't for him. So he never became a Boy Scout, and neither did I.

It shouldn't really be surprising. Scout groups have rules. They have to. We need rules – shared and agreed-upon guidelines. They're integral to doing things. They're part of the teaching process. And war and the military created a worldview of conformity, so the returning soldiers and sailors were oriented to the kind of order prized not only in the military but, as well, in the society to which they returned. They knew that there had to be someone in charge and theirs was not to reason why. They had the responsibility of doing as they were told – of following orders. (I don't mean to suggest that they followed the Nazi example and followed immoral orders. They were accountable as human beings – as we all are – to rebel at illegal demands, but short of that they maintained military discipline. [The Nazis were similarly accountable on an absolute basis, but their education told them “No”; that obedience was the highest value.])

Rules are good things. They maintain society, especially in those situations when a rapid and predictable response is mandatory. A ship must have a captain; there can be only one chief surgeon in an operating room; and, as all those who had so recently been engaged in battle knew, someone had to be in charge if they were to keep casualties down and to prevail.

And they all had to be well trained. They had to know what to do instinctively if they were to act quickly. They had to be educated to the most efficacious procedures whatever the circumstances. They weren't robots – those weren't to be in widespread use for many decades – however education and regimentation were basic to every citizen's performance.

But things change. Like unruly teen-agers who are breaking loose from parental control, society broke loose from rules and constraints. At times people's actions were nonviolent and constructive as, for example, in the peaceful demonstrations for equal rights. At times, however, this was not the case. It is hard to forget the flag burnings, the riots, and the college takeovers that followed the exhilaration and unity of the 1950s. Some of the changes were well thought-out and aimed at advancement, while others were simply expressions of the rejection of society's rules, and of rebellion. And for many, the idea of rebellion was so attractive that no reason for it was necessary. Their goal was to spurn society itself, to have their own way – even if that way was wrong, and even if they had no particular goal.

If disobedience was an end in itself, however, it was unlikely to have value. Fortunately there have been many who were estranged from societal norms but who benefited us all through their rejection of the status quo. Those who “pushed the envelope” and “thought outside of the box” (two expressions which, although they illustrate an important concept, are so hackneyed as to be remnants of the “old” thinking) showed their rejection of old ideas by creating new ones. “We've always done it that way” simply wasn't good enough if they had a better way. Nothing is gained by being conventional, by staying in style, especially when rejection is fashionable simply for its own sake.

Henry David Thoreau, a nineteenth century American philosopher, wrote “If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” It's obvious that there will be no new thoughts if everyone follows the same drummer. And those with new ideas are invariably looked on as “queer ducks.” New thinkers are invariably out of step with the old. However that's often because they are far ahead of the rest of us.

Of course new thoughts are not necessarily good (but neither are the old). Yet they are what move us all forward and, while we should examine them thoroughly, we should welcome them. Or, as composer John Cage put it, “I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones.” Creative people, like Cage, march to a different drummer. They have new and unconventional ideas. (I'm not sure I like Cage's, but I agree with his sentiment – if the “new ideas” are thought out.) There's a common sentiment expressed by the intellectually lazy: “Don't reinvent the wheel.” It makes sense unless the wheel is not the best solution to the problem. And that's often the case, although it may not be recognized. To a very great degree we're held back by conventional thinking, even though we all try to use our minds to solve the problems we face. But however we may feel about our individual singularity, we don't stray far from the pack. (“I'm unique, just like everybody else.”) The more things change …

Perhaps the problem is our wish for equality. Perhaps by teaching to the lowest common denominator in order that no child be left behind, we don't emphasize the value of that different drummer and the importance of independent thought. We speak of diversity but we reward conformity. We call it “peer pressure” but it is really the desire of society to understand and control all its members. It's easiest when their thoughts and their actions are predictable, and when their ideas don't change. It's hardest when they're all thinking for themselves in an unpredictable way.

Different strokes for different folks? No. Different drummers. It's the difference between variation on a theme and innovation.