So What’s Up with Trump?

Barn in New Canaan CT, 2016

The media seem bewildered that our new president would spend so much time insisting that he won the popular vote. This is monumentally unsurprising, given that the man is a classic narcissist. An article in the Atlantic published during the campaign helps explain his behavior: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

Here is the important quote that ends the article:

“Who, really, is Donald Trump? What’s behind the actor’s mask? I can discern little more than narcissistic motivations and a complementary personal narrative about winning at any cost. It is as if Trump has invested so much of himself in developing and refining his socially dominant role that he has nothing left over to create a meaningful story for his life, or for the nation. It is always Donald Trump playing Donald Trump, fighting to win, but never knowing why.”

Donald Trump is out for himself, and will fight to win, whatever that means for him. It is therefore totally unsurprising that he would see the popular vote as a devastating loss that needed to be undone. The surprising thing to me is that he isn’t trying to lie his way out of this particular fact, as he has with respect to the inauguration attendance. How does he decide which facts are real and which can be safely discarded? Is he reading his base, or is he truly deluded about the facts? Probably a mixture of both. He is profoundly ignorant of and incurious about what’s going on outside the tiny and impoverished world of business and entertainment that he lives in.

Since his ideas are rooted in an imaginary world, he is going to fail repeatedly when his initiatives collide with reality. As failures and frustrations pile up, the many who followed him with strong reservations may check out and join some kind of opposition. Poll results may get worse, more victims of his rants and put-downs may summon the courage to oppose him. If this happens, he will become more and more panicked.

Enraging and cornering an extremely aggressive and powerful animal is a dangerous business. The disaster scenario would be something like this: as he antagonizes nearly every country except the Russians, we will become threatened on all sides. If Trump manages to stir up enough trouble (and he has made a great start in this direction) more Americans will agree with his version of the threats we face and go along with radical “solutions” to problems of his own invention. This is how wars start. But it is also the way you get everyone to work together: fear is a great leveler.

If somehow we skirt this disaster, we have two problems: how to rid ourselves of this pest, and what kind of trouble we will be in when he is replaced by a rampant right-wing ideologue who will get along famously with Congress. It would be ideal if we could somehow hook Trump off the stage with his ego intact, but I can’t see how that is possible – impeachment may be the only option, unless he decides to retire voluntarily.

In this scenario, no matter how he goes, he will leave behind a bitter divide between his die-hard followers and the rest of the country. If his followers fall into general disrepute, this might unite the rest of the country – probably a fond hope.

We need to focus our attention on Trump’s personality and use that knowledge to de-fuse this explosive man. I think belittling him will make matters worse. Instead, we should confront him with power comparable to his own, and that will require a leader of the opposition. It might turn out to be someone in his cabinet, like the Secretary of Defense, who sees disaster coming and does something about it.

The world is indeed a dangerous place, although not in the ways Trump believes it to be. The great threats we face are nuclear weapons, pandemics, climate change, water and soil depletion, ocean pollution, and species extinction. The threats people worry about are either symptoms of these underlying problems, or hot-button social issues that are utterly irrelevant to our survival as a species.

Can we worry about and deal with the real problems instead of those we imagine to be important? So far we have flunked the test.

 

 

 

Book Review: “The Gene”

This 500 page masterpiece by Columbia cancer physician and researcher Siddhartha Mukherjee traces the history of genetics science from ancient Greece through mid-2015. Mukherjee received the Pulitzer Prize in 2011 for his book on cancer, “The Emperor of All Maladies: a Biography of Cancer,” which Time magazine considered one of the 100 best and most influential works of non-fiction since 1923, and which was made into a PBS documentary by Ken Burns.

Mukherjee’s genius lies in his seemingly effortless ability to organize a bewildering maze of intersecting research programs and discoveries into a smoothly flowing story. Patiently, he reminds the reader of key facts from earlier in the story at just the point when you might lose the thread. There are practically no diagrams: he relies on his lucid prose and his ability to bring the protagonists to vivid life.

Through the narrative he weaves the story of his family, which was plagued by schizophrenia and bi-polar disease.

Do you believe there is a gene for specific behaviors or diseases? Are you confused about the “nature or nurture” debate? Are you aware of ethical implications of our very recently developed abilities to reconstruct the human genome? Did James Watson steal Rosalind Franklin’s findings? Do you want to know why we have half as many genes as corn or wheat? Can inheritance occur in other ways than the passing on of genes? Is “The Bell Curve” really racist? Did Craig Venter help or hinder the Human Genome Project? Is “junk DNA” really junk?

If so, read “The Gene.”

This book is a miracle: a fair, detailed, up-to-date story about a mindbogglingly complex subject that is almost a page-turner.

The 60’s Cough

Listen to recordings of live performances by pianist Sviatoslav Richter from the 1950’s and 1960’s and you will hear frequent coughs in the audience. I only heard Richter once, in Newark in 1960, but I vividly recall the coughing. He played Prokofieff’s 7th sonata, brilliantly and powerfully.

Today, it is rare to hear anyone cough in an audience. I wonder what was going on then. Was it bad manners, or bad air pollution, or radioactive fallout, or less effective medical care, or leaded gasoline, or something else, or some combination? I have no data on the dates when coughing was common in audiences.

Today’s cough is the cell phone.

What Would a Sustainable U.S. Be Like?

Ritterhof courtyard, Weingut Fitz-Ritter, Bad Dürkheim, Pfalz (founded 1785), watercolor and ink 1984

Despite our many problems, the U. S. is seen as a model of liberty, justice and prosperity. Many are rightly disturbed by accelerating income and wealth inequality in the U. S. Yet we ignore the profound inequality between our way of life and that of the vast majority of earth’s citizens. At best, we believe that everyone on earth should be able to live as we do.

This belief is self-serving nonsense. Earth’s resources are now being exploited well beyond a sustainable rate, especially its capacity to absorb pollution. As global population continues to grow, each person’s share must get smaller. If we truly believe in justice and equality, we would reduce our consumption of resources to meet a sustainable global average.

What would this mean? China uses roughly the same amount of earth’s resources as the U. S. It is also the same size as the U. S. Until recently, China was using resources at what optimists think might be a sustainable rate for the entire globe, assuming population growth slows rapidly. So using our fair share would be equivalent to adopting a Chinese standard of living.

Here’s the rub: China has more than four times our population. So bringing our consumption down to a sustainable level would amount to adding a billion people to our population without using any more resources than we do now. The share of my town, Norwalk, with a population of about 85,000, would be around 250,000 people. This is a truly ridiculous idea, yet it is the only fair and just solution.

Resolving the un-sustainability crisis requires cooperation, sharing, making do and doing without. That’s what I remember from my childhood during the Great Depression and WWII. It was hard, but it felt right. We could do with a large dose of that old medicine, to help cure us of the delusion that we can continue to live the way we do now.