July 29, 2019--Zwerling's Law

Because I invoked Godwin's Law occasionally during the 2016 campaign when friends would compare Trump with Hitler, the Nazis, and fascists such as Mussolini--the Law states that as a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Nazis or Hitler approaches--they accused me of helping to elect Trump because I "normalized" him. As a result, more than two years later, some are still not talking to me.

I contend now and told them then I was just taking Trump seriously, not boosting him, and if we didn't try to understand his appeal, the worst could occur. And, while many liberals tried to ignore or mock him, look what happened.

Now, of my own, here's a very different law--

Zwerling's Law states that for people older than 60, unless there is something urgent, one is not allowed to bring up medical issues until at least three other topics have been discussed.

I have been noticing that as we age together, with friends, barely after exchanging greetings, we are talking about our latest medical test results, Mohs surgery, blood-thinner side-effects, diverticulitis, cataracts,  and of course colonoscopies. Frequently we begin with colonoscopies.

It is only then that we turn to the latest Trump outrage, what we have been reading or seeing in the movies, or how Joe Biden's poll numbers are looking.

Even after not having seen Mary and Al for three weeks and beginning by talking about the sultry weather, almost immediately, violating my own law, I got us to switch to medical talk when I reported about a recent visit with my neurologist.

I should have invoked Zwerling's Law on myself.

It makes existential sense for folks my age to be most concerned about how our hearts, lungs, and bowels are holding up; but it doesn't necessarily make for snappy conversation.

January 16, 2018--Hitler

When I get an email from a friend who mentions Hitler in the subject line or makes reference to him in the first paragraph, I invoke Godwin's Law.

This is not classic Godwin's Law--an Internet adage that asserts that as a discussion grows longer the probability that someone will invoke Hitler becomes virtually certain--but a version of it: invoking it at the beginning of a hot interchange for the sake of preserving tender relationships.

The Law is not that evidence-based but still it has the ring of truth. 

In fact, nowadays, with autocratic Trump as president, in many encounters that involve him it is virtually certain that Hitler will be invoked by any or all parties early in the conversation. Or, more appropriately, since Trump resembles him in posture, behavior, and policies, he is compared to Benito Mussolini.

The latest example--

With a subject line--"Bring Him Down!"--a friend wrote just this to me:

"I think again--like Hitler he may be nearly indestructible until it is ALMOST too late."  

People most frequently invoke Hitler when backed into a corner and their argument begins to run out of gas. It's as if when evidence and logic fail, to have the last word they nuke the discussion, claiming Trump is just like Hitler or it's the same here as it was in Nazi Germany or fascist Italy.

In my view, when this occurs, since I do not see Trump (yet) to be our homegrown version of Hitler or Mussolini we are so irreconcilably not on the same page it's better to cite Godwin's Law and change the subject, log out, or ring off.

Tempted to say little in return, since this came from a close friend, I wrote back--

It will be about how self-correcting our system is. Trump's not quite Hitler (just a pathetic racist, which is bad enough) and conditions there and then versus here are not comparable.  

Among other things Germany had a collapsed economy and ours for most now is doing well for many. Then there are the critical differences between our histories and commitment to democracy as well as the structure of our traditions, institutions, and governing bodies. 

Our system of checks and balances should (hopefully) work to confine anyone with strong authoritarian tendencies or aspirations. 

On the other hand, there is also the thick centuries-long underlay of national racism and unfettered, predatory capitalism. And we have a disturbing history of know-nothingness, mass miseducation, and a saturated and banal popular culture that includes experiencing news as entertainment.

Halfway through I assume my friend nodded off but I thought, reprised here, he might like to read the whole thing.

June 6, 2016--"He's Not Hitler . . . But"

A very liberal friend sent me the link to an article by New Yorker staff writer Adam Gopnik with the ominous title, "The Dangerous Acceptance of Donald Trump."

The dangerous part is by now a familiar theme to writers on the left--he'll encourage Japan and South Korea to develop nukes of their own, he will trample on the First Amendment, he will not respect separation of powers, and so forth.

The acceptance part is newer and describes how Trump went from being regarded as a joke and an entertainer to being embraced by most of the Republican mainstream. On Friday, for example, House Speaker Paul Ryan came around to saying he'll vote for Trump in November.

Clearly not familiar with Godwin's Law which alerts us to how Nazi references pop up quickly during disputatious political discussions, toward the end of his piece, unable to resist, Gopnik writes--

"He's not Hitler, as his wife recently said. Well, of course he isn't. But then Hitler wasn't Hitler . . . until he was."

Impressive--three Hitlers in fewer than 25 words. Perhaps a New Yorker record.

But enough with the Hitler, Mussolini, and fascism references.

Trump is ridiculous and terrible enough without having to go there. And, electorally, labeling him a crypto-fascist only makes his supporters crazy and further motivates them to get out and vote for him, including dragging to the polls family members and friends who haven't voted for decades, or ever.

In the meantime, I'm losing family and friends who feel I have gone over to the other side. And saying that they don't just mean politically but also in sanity terms.

So here's what I propose--

For those of you who think my struggle to understand the Trump phenomenon (and can we at least agree that it is that, a phenomenon?) is a not-so-tacit endorsement of his candidacy (it isn't), let's make the following deal--

If once, if just one time Adam Gopkin or Robert Kagan or David Brooks or Paul Krugman gets out of his New York or Washington bubble and spends real time wandering around in Donald Trump's America, if only one time, after doing a lot of roaming and listening, really listening (putting aside their conformation biases), if after spending more time on Staten Island and Toledo than in Georgetown, the Upper Eastside, or the Hamptons, if after that they write one column, just one, that expresses understanding, compassion, and empathy for the sense of betrayal Trump's supporters feel, their fears and anger, the residual belief they retain in the American Dream (in spite of the evidence from their own and their children's lives)--and of course their resentments and xenophobia, if you can point me to that one article of that kind I will cease and desist writing as I have been about the remarkable ad disturbing ascendence of Donald Trump.

All confusion about what I have been attempting to do will end. I will stop writing about HIM. Please, point me to that one column or op-ed piece because I am weary and bored with myself when it comes to thinking about our politics. It will at once relieve and release me.

And while you're searching for that confessional article, see if you can find another from anyone on the left who fesses up to how privileged she or he is, how out-and-out lucky he/she is to have their lives. Particularly how since the 1980s they have been beneficiaries of conservative polices. Economic policies, for example, such as the current tax system that they publicly oppose, citing its contributions to growing inequality, but which over the last three to four decades has reduced their marginal tax rates.

See if they confess that they do not know anyone who has volunteered for military service. Family or friend. How they do not know anyone who has been killed or grievously injured in conflicts that they for the most part at first supported.

See if they confess that though millions struggle to pay for health insurance, they have gold or platinum polices supplied and largely or wholly paid for by their employers or by their own businesses.

See if they will tell us that their children for the most part are enrolled in fine colleges and that there is not much problem handling tuition. I doubt if Adam Gopnik has a child at Brown that she or he has incurred any student debt,

See if they acknowledge that not only aren't their homes underwater becuase they can't afford to pay their mortgages, but if and when they decide to sell them they will most likely experience a hefty capital gain. I, for example, have seen the value of our Manhattan coop apartment increase ten-fold in less than 25 years.

And if I decide to sell it (in my building, apartments on average sell at full asking price or higher in less than a month) I will pay only 15 percent in capital gains tax, down from Bill Clinton's 20 percent as the result of the Bush (Republican) tax cuts.

And if and when one receives a sizable inheritance, again thanks to Bush, up to $5.45 million will be tax exempt. A much higher tax-free amount than during the Clinton years. During his presidency only $600,000 was untaxed.

If one of my progressive friends opts to terminate a pregnancy, no matter where one lives, if one has significant savings, is mobile, and willing to pay cash, there is no problem having one in a safe medical environment.

My privileged compatriots and I also have done well in the stock market and for the most part, again thanks to the booming economy for the well-off and Republican tax policy, for our retirement we have secure 401(k)s and other forms of savings.

And, of course, like me do you doubt that Gopnik, Kagan, and Brooks have weekend houses to escape too and have no problem with car payments or gas prices?

Much of this I and they fear will be threatened if Donald Trump is elected. Aren't we as concerned about our own privileges as we are about cuts to Medicaid and food stamps?

Again, please send me links to confessions and acknowledgments of this kind. Especially if the self-assigned word hypocrisy appears, all right, just twice in 25 words. That too would be a record and better dispose me to those worrying about how, because of Trump, the Constitution is threatened and fascism is coming to America.

May 18, 2016--Zwerling's Law

Back on March 1st I posted a piece about Godwin's Law. Actually about Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies.

It stated that "as a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazi analogies approaches."

This intrigued me because I was finding that this was what was happening to me with growing frequency whenever I wanted to have a conversation about Donald Trump's political success (no matter what one thought about it or him). Before very long Nazi or Fascist analogies would manifest  themselves. Generally he would not only be labeled a demagogue (perhaps fair) but would also most frequently be compared to Benito Mussolini (in my view, over heated).

I was reminded of this yesterday when reading Charles Blow's op ed column in the New York Times, "Trump's Asymmetric Warfare."

It's actually a pretty good piece that begins with a reference to MSNBC's Chris Matthew's perception that Trump is difficult to attack because "conventional forms of political fighting won't work on this man."

Blow asks, "How do you embarrass an embarrassment."

Well and good, but Trump so clearly makes Blow crazy that he also said, "There is no way to sully a pig or mock a clown."

I'm OK with the clown reference because Trump is a very entertaining entertainer, but "sully a pig?" This goes for meaningful discourse in the paper of record?

Further, there is the whiff of Godwin's Law when Blow writes, "This had made him nearly impervious to even the cleverest takedowns, and trust me, many have tried [think poor Elizabeth Warren who tired and is now referred to by Trump, devastatingly, as Pocahontas], comparing him to everyone from P.T. Barnum to Hitler."

Blow cleverly doesn't say he agrees with this latter comparison. As a journalist, all he's disingenuously doing is reporting what others have said.

Oh really.

But Blow has more to say. Now about Trump's supporters. These, he claims, are people who "tire of higher-level cerebral function."

And concludes, "Trump's triumph as the presumptive Republican Party nominee is not necessarily a sign of his strategic genius [Blow also refers to him as a "simpleton"] as much as it's a sign of some people's mental, psychological and spiritual deficiencies."

Thus, Zwerling's Law--If Nazi analogies don't work, blame the victims.

In this case, the victims are those duped by Trump. To the likes of Charles Blow to support Trump by definition assumes one has been duped. There can be no other explanation. And so to be venerable to Trump's lies and manipulations, one has to be mentally deficient.

It is just this sort of arrogance too common among liberal elites that is ironically proving most helpful to Trump in his ascendancy. Perhaps all the way to the White House.

Charles Blow

March 1, 2016--Godwin's Law

Do you know Godwin's Law?

More formally it is Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies and was coined in 1990 by Mike Godwin, former general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation.

It states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches."

That is, if any discussion, regardless of topic or scope, goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Nazism.

Godwin's Law, when invoked, effectively shuts down the possibility of two or more parties continuing a discussion, even one that started out fairly benignly.

These days, Godwin's Law is working overtime during an increasingly contentious political season. We have candidates--exclusively Republicans--casually accusing each other of Nazi-like ideas and proposals.

Just last week, the reenergized Ted Cruz said that Donald Trump's preposterous promise to deport 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants was the equivalent of sending troops in "hobnailed boots" to round them up.

And I must say that in more and more of my attempts to engage in civil discourse with friends who have been critical of my paying serious attention to the campaign of Donald Trump--not endorsing him but seeing what can be learned about the current state of America from his disquieting run--that after two or three e-mail exchanges, the conversation gets shut down by friends comparing Trump to Hitler or more frequently Mussolini, to whom he does bear some physical resemblance. (Just as Ted Cruz looks so much like Senator Joseph McCarthy.)

I have attempted to push back against this use of Godwin's Law, but unsuccessfully. And as a result we stop talking about politics and agree to chat about the upcoming baseball season, which is fine.

But then, over the weekend, Donald Trump may have really stepped in it and as a result may have disqualified himself from any longer being considered a feasible candidate for the presidency.

When pressed by Jake Tapper on CNN to disavow white-supremisisit Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's support, Trump, who two days earlier had done so, hemmed and hawed, finally saying, actually lying, that he had no idea who Duke is and did not want to disavow anyone or any group until he knew for certain what they were about.

That latter point is not unreasonable except for one thing--anyone older than 50, anyone who knows anything at all about American social or racial history knows about David Duke. He is not some obscure figure living under a rock (though he probably does) but someone of great prominence who even ran for president back in 1988.

So, Trump was either lying and pandering to white-supremisist voters (unacceptable enough) or he really never heard of Duke--his ignorance is also beyond disturbing as is his craven attempt to blame his equivocation on a faulty ear piece--that he couldn't hear the question.

Beyond terrible.

But as bad as he is, he is no Fascist , no Nazi.