James Comey, and the complexity of values

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 22 April 2018

I don’t know whether to admire former FBI director James Comey or feel sorry for him.

Last June I sat glued watching Mr. Comey testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. It inspired me to write an essay about what was going on, revealed by his testimony.

This essay is more about Mr. Comey as he morphs, unwittingly, into “committing sociology” (a derogatory phrase originated by columnist George Will). Mr. Comey’s remarks, ahead of the release of his book, make many sociological claims about American values.

Here is just a brief part of an interview that captures what Mr. Comey has been saying recently:

STEVE INSKEEP, NPR: Why have you focused in some of your comments on what you view as the moral fitness of the president to be president?

JAMES COMEY: Because I'm very worried that — and one of the ways I hope to be useful is having people realize that there's something above our normal fights. We fight like crazy in this country about guns and about social issues and taxes and immigration. And that's as it should be, and it's always been that way. But there's something we all have in common, which is a core set of values that is us as America — right? — freedom of expression, freedom of religion, rule of law, equal protection of the laws, the truth. We hold these truths to be self-evident. It's the fourth word of that sentence.

My initial reactions to Mr. Comey were: is he just now realizing this; has he been living in a cloister? And, he sounds like a conservative.

So, what about Mr. Comey’s sociology? He is asserting that a society must have in common a core set of values, a kind of glue, that holds a society together; a common sociological view, from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century.

As research into societal values continued there were some inconvenient findings that posed a serious problem for Mr. Comey’s view of the necessity for a “core set of values.” And that finding and reality is that whatever core set of values one might identify for a society, individual members of that society do not necessarily hold them. They might hold one or two, or even the entire core, but individuals differ from each other in terms of their values and from the “societal core set.”

We sociologists also know that individual values are reflective of the company folks keep and are around. So, significant social groups have individuals that share (some) similar values. Religious folks share some values that non-religious folks do not. Catholics share values different from Protestants. Liberals share values different than conservatives. But, even within those groups, there are differences. See how conservative Catholics are responding to the liberal Pope Francis.

What are values? Sociologically, values are broad abstract principles that we internalize and then guide our decisions about what is good or not. So, one American value is freedom. Whatever increases freedom is usually a good thing among Americans. But so is security. We value security in our homes and so forth but those values actually conflict. Conflicting values is not unusual either.

Also from 19th century sociology we come to a different understanding of “deviance” or behavior that violates the norms and values of a group. It’s deviance from those norms and values that is shaking Mr. Comey. Deviance can play a very positive role in reasserting societal values. Why? Because our response to the deviance can reinforce the rightness and goodness of those values. So, if Mr. Comey were one of my students, I’d point out that President Trump is not so much a threat to our values, but he is a deviant to them (truth, justice, and the American way). As far as a threat, however, if Americans don’t respond to punish the deviant (punishment for President Trump might be to ignore him) that suggests those are not strongly held or important values.

In short, deviants are not the threat but an opportunity for us to reassert “our” values. The threat lies with non-response to the deviant. Or, it’s an indication that the values are not perhaps widely held (or held anymore). And that Mr. Trump is not viewed as a deviant and not violating closely held societal values.

One value that I do think is quite American is “winning.” And that is not enshrined in our Constitution, but no question, America likes winners and punishes losers.

Faith in democracy shaken by economic inequality

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 21 January 2018

I believe that increasing economic inequality in the United States may be undermining our values supporting representative democracy. 

In October 2017, Pew Research Center published a 38 nation study on support for democracy (http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/).  The US data suggests that Americans, as much as anything we ever do agree on, overwhelmingly support representative democracy.  Such high levels of agreement suggest this is an American value. (This shouldn’t be surprising).  However, only 51 percent of Americans indicated they trusted the national government to do what is right for the US and even fewer, 46 percent, are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the United States.  Maybe high levels of distrust and dissatisfaction are characteristic of those who highly support representative democracy.

Twenty-three other nations who either had the same or more support for representative democracy  were similar (76-85 percent supporting).  These are nations who we can say share our values with respect to representative democracy.  Ten of the countries differ from the United States in showing more trust and more satisfaction with their national governments than the US (I define more as showing at least 56 and 51 percent trust and satisfaction).  The rest are either similar or show significantly less trust and satisfaction.  What accounts for these differences in nations with similar political values?

Pew offers little comparative analysis regarding these differences except that higher income countries tend to be more supportive of representative democracy, and those whose party is out of power are less satisfied and less trusting.  But, that doesn’t explain countries with political divides, like Germany, Sweden, and Canada who still highly trust and are satisfied with their national governments. 

Seventeen countries are considered high-income by Pew so I focused my comparisons there, although I eliminated those countries that did not enjoy at least 70 percent support for representative democracy.  I compared two measures of economic inequality, one focused on income inequality and another on wealth inequality.  A Gini coefficient varies from 0 to 1.0; scores closer to one indicates greater inequality and the closer to 0, greater equality.   I used two calculations of the Gini (using different data sources), one from the World Bank and the other from the CIA.  Wealth inequality, notoriously hard to obtain current data for, is from 2000 and calculated by the National Bureau of Economic Research.  Both charts can be found here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

The two Gini coefficients for US income are .41 and .47 while for wealth it is .84.  Four countries, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden, show similar support (or more) for representative democracy and also are high income, developed countries but show much higher trust and satisfaction in their national governments.    Their Gini coefficients for income inequality vary from a low of .25 to a high of .34.  Similarly for wealth, they vary from a low of .65 and a high of .74.

Other developed, high income countries with similar support for representative democracy and similar trust and satisfaction with their national governments to the US are Australia, Israel, Japan, and the UK.  This group shows more income inequality than the previous group, Gini coefficients ranging from .32 to .43 but with wealth inequality about the same, .55 to .70.  To me, this suggests that there may be a tipping point where economic inequality, the data here suggests income inequality specifically, begin to undermine trust and satisfaction with a country’s national government, even when representative democracy is still highly supported.

There are five other countries with high levels of support for representative democracy (at least 70 percent) but who are low (35 percent or lower) on trust and satisfaction with their national governments (France, Greece, Italy, South Korea, and Spain).  Generally, these countries show similar levels of income inequality as the previous group of countries but more wealth inequality.  It is also important to note that each country with the exception of France was facing significant scandals or economic troubles during the time of the survey.  France was conducting a national election for president which might affect the trust and satisfaction data.  Examining trends of inequality leading up to time when Pew conducted this study might tell us more.

One thing stands out.  The US is the most unequal among the high income countries.  And only about half its citizens trust or are satisfied with the national government.  Which future is preferable?  The political climate of Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Canada, or France, Italy, South Korea and Spain?

Ends justify the means

As I wrote about a month ago, the futility of torture is the inevitable conclusion. And a month ago, I was thinking that as more information dribbles out that more Americans would show their moral indignation and begin demanding some accountability. Instead, very little outrage and even the defense of none other than Dick Cheney, the spouse of Lynn Cheney, who writes children's books, justifies the torture with, "it works."

Frank Rich in a NYT op-ed peice does a good job of capturing the blase response from the public. Therein lies the triumph of terrorism; not that it terrorizes us into hiding in our homes, but rather it turns us into that which we claim to not be. the article is here

Yet, as I read Rich, I cannot help but think back to one of my earliest takes on the entire "war against terror," that the Bush Administration didn't believe enough in our justice system, in our constitution to deal with terrorism. We couldn't rely on our legal standards, our constitutional safeguards to fight terrorism (or to keep "us" safe). Even our legislative process was suspect. Only police power, a police state, could keep us safe and win the war on terrorism.

Even the fantasy "24" scenario, the ticking time bomb, would/should we torture to get information to save those lives, is one which is used to argue against our laws. If such an unusual situation occurred, we have means to deal with it. The legal system can try the torturer(s) and a jury of their peers can decide guilt. Even now, it seems, that the Dick Cheney defense, "it worked" and then the counter, "no it didn't" seems to miss the point. It doesn't matter if it worked or not, torture is against our values, our morality, and our laws. Either change the laws, scrap the values, overturn the morality, or let our system do its job.

If the authorizers of torture (and those who participated) want to defend their illegal and immoral acts, let them in a court of law. Let them show the information....shouldn't matter, but then OJ got off and that is because the prosecutors did a poor job....as it should be.

The biggest casualty, as I see it, is the complete undermining of our system of justice by the Bush Administration and from what I can see, it continues under the Obama Administration. What a shame.

A nation of laws, where even the powerful are subject to justice if they break the laws is the defensible America. Arguments of ends justify means is the argument of a police state.

Can we sustain our dependence on personal cars?

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 12/28/2008



I’ve owned 12 cars. I expect to have a couple more before I’m finished. Whether people are willing to admit it or not, cars are more than just a means of transportation. Were cars just transportation, then we would not have so many colors, so many types, so many brands, and so many options. Cars are an extension of our living rooms, a status symbol, and part of our identity.

Are personal cars as the primary means of transportation for Americans, “sustainable?” I admit, up front, that I hope the answer is yes.

“Sustainability” is not such a new idea, though it is getting increased attention these days. The most widely used definition of sustainability is the one used by the UN, adopted in 1983: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

It is easy to show the “irrationality” of relying on personal cars as the primary mode of transportation in the US or anywhere else. The current system is not sustainable as the recent flirtation with $5 gasoline showed us. Two key American values, convenience and freedom, are likely to make any radical change very difficult. Cars embody both of these values, perhaps more than any other product does (cell phones an exception). Cars give us the convenience and freedom to move about when and where we want. Never mind the incredible expense, both personally and socially, of this method of transportation. Automobile accidents kill about 40,000 to 50,000 Americans every year. Personal cars led to dependence on foreign oil and warps foreign policy in a way that nothing else does. All this and more in the name of convenience and the freedom to go 0-60mph in under ten seconds.

It doesn’t seem possible that we are going to sustain personal cars without some changes. Dependence on foreign (expensive) oil is what has our attention this time. We didn’t learn much from the 1973 oil embargo. Less than 10 years after that we were buying SUVs (stupid useless vehicles). The real threat to sustaining our love affair with cars is global warming. About half of carbon emissions come from our tailpipes.

According to figures compiled by the Sightline Institute (http://www.sightline.org/maps/charts/climate-CO2byMode), a single rider in an SUV is the worst contributor to tailpipe born greenhouse gases, 1.6lbs of CO2 per passenger mile. Carpooling with one other person reduces that figure almost in half (the extra passenger is not carbon free but the increase is very small). The two person SUV contributes about the same amount as a local transit bus ¼ full. A solo rider in a passenger car contributes about 1.2lbs of CO2 per passenger mile. Adding one car pooler brings the contribution down to about that of a Prius (Toyota’s electric-gas hybrid vehicle) with a solo driver.

Based on this, the solution is to reduce greenhouse emissions from our cars by just switching to hybrid vehicles. We could get even more reduction with the next generation of hybrid vehicle, the plug-in hybrid. This vehicle stores enough energy to run the car without the gas motor for between 20 to 50 miles. An oft cited statistic from a 1990 US Dept of Transportation study, is that 70% of Americans drive less than 33 miles per day. I wonder if that statistic is still true today, but even if the daily drive has increased to 50 miles, that is still a lot of miles covered without emitting carbon from our tailpipes.

The plug-in hybrid has a “long tailpipe,” however. The energy to run it is coming from electric generating plants. As we move toward more and more wind and solar energy, that long tailpipe becomes less of a concern. How fast are we moving?

Electric cars are not as convenient as our current cars. Think of how many times you forget to charge up your cell phone. A day without your cell phone is different than a day without your car or the amount of gas used due to forgetting to plug the car in.

Based on my and my wife’s daily drives, a plug-in hybrid would work for us. Based on the life cycle of our cars, assuming a suitable model is available, we could buy one in the next two years and the second one in four to five years. If that is average, is that fast enough to reduce carbon emissions to a sustainable level? Across the world? Unfortunately, I doubt it.

Patriot or Trader?

My title is meant to be provocative. I have no doubt the answer is patriot. A couple of days ago the Washington Post printed a column by a former interrogator working in Iraq. Complete article here (you should read it)

Why do I say patriot and not rrader? Because:

I'm not some ivory-tower type; I served for 14 years in the U.S. Air Force, began my career as a Special Operations pilot flying helicopters, saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, became an Air Force counterintelligence agent, then volunteered to go to Iraq to work as a senior interrogator. What I saw in Iraq still rattles me -- both because it betrays our traditions and because it just doesn't work.

Not only is torture a betrayal of our American traditions and it doesn't work..it makes things worse:

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

Then should we conclude that those who authorized the use of torture have American blood on their hands?