Flashback – A Different Kind of Lobbying

This 2016 entry was prescient, especially in light of current events with so many organizations caving to the dictates of various activists and pressure groups. A small number of those actually aggrieved pick up support from followers motivated by a need to feel relevant and morally superior. With these dupes in tow, tiny minorities exert disproportionate political and economic pressure.

Here are the thoughts from four years ago:

[Political lobbyists are the target of a lot of disapproval, and deservedly so. Big corporations, unions and  interest groups pay them to persuade lawmakers to pass laws or propose regulations that favor them.  They contend that these activities keep lawmakers informed on the subtleties of certain industries to reduce the number of unintended consequences, because Congress cannot be experts on everything.

On the other hand, most of the population has the impression that these meetings and lunches are little more than legalized bribes for the rich to disproportionately influence government, an attempt to bring “government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.” The auto industry and banks get their bailouts. The military is given weapons they haven’t requested and don’t want. In short, to lobby is to try to get your way without regard to what others want or what is best for the country.

But there are other activities almost the same as lobbying that most people either ignore or consider healthy. This came to mind when I saw a news story from England, but the type of behavior is certainly not foreign to Americans. In fact it’s quite common.

The controversy arose over the new five-pound note. When vegans and vegetarians discovered that the new tougher and more waterproof bill was made from a plastic polymer containing small amounts of tallow, derived from animal waste products, they took to social media demanding a change. They called the use of even a small amount of animal products disgusting. Their rights were being trampled. Since they were not going to eat the pocket money and the contents were by-products of a food production process, stuff that would be thrown away, it’s hard to see how any harm was done. It’s not like more animals were being slaughtered. Yet some circulated a petition, gathering over 40,000 signatures, demanding that the contents be changed.

It’s so easy to click a box or sign an online petition. And you get to feel good about yourself for caring about an issue that’s important to a minority. You get to stick up for the underdogs, the victims, people whose beliefs were not considered when the government tried to make their paper money more durable.  But 40,000 signatures represent less than one-tenth of one percent of the UK population and only about 3% report being vegetarian. Does this make a difference?

This behavior is repeated nearly daily in America. People will protest slights against groups they aren’t members of. The protests are based on the theory that if they can get a large enough turnout and enough press coverage, they can influence national, state and local policy. The lure is the same – be a savior, do the noble thing, occupy the moral high ground; feel good about yourself for defending the rights of the victims and the marginalized, even if those rights never existed before and in some cases where the victims aren’t even human. That’s how they get huge, vocal crowds or thousands of signatures when the issues affect only a few. (What's worse, the claims are often based on bad science, a warped understanding of history or emotional appeals.)

We have seen this mindset recently protesting a pipeline in North Dakota, defending a mountain lion that was killing cattle in California, supporting workers who took on obligations without the necessary financial resources and solving a bathroom problem that few knew existed. This is all about pressure on lawmakers. Adults throw a group tantrum to get attention.

It’s also so easy to vote, as the people in Massachusetts did to require that chickens and pigs live in larger cages. Those in favor of happier chickens spent almost $5 million on small demonstrations and other means to publicize the animals' need for more comfortable accommodations. Those arguing that such changes would raise the prices of eggs and bacon, hitting the poor especially hard, could only raise $300,000 to try to make their point. The chickens won and the humans lost, because the emotional appeal of reducing what was portrayed as suffering for the animals drowned out the appeal of helping the poor afford food. So voters went home from the polls feeling smug about making a difference.

Some of these causes are worthy of attention; many are trivial. But it's exactly the same outcome as traditional lobbying. Based on the theories that past behavior predicts future behavior and that behavior rewarded is behavior repeated, I predict that the future will yield more of this free lobbying.  Lawmakers will feel pressure from all sides, as every special interest exerts as much pressure as they can, if not through monetary donations, then by demonstrating in the streets and on social media. Those groups always attract supporters with the promise of feeling fulfilled, compassionate and morally superior.

Is this different kind of lobbying any healthier for the country than the first? We will see.]

That was my feeling in 2016. It has (as I predicted) escalated as activities in Seattle, Minneapolis, Kenosha, Portland, Washington DC and elsewhere are portrayed as peaceful protests despite vandalism, looting and rioting. But beware that the latest protests may mimic a more sinister movement.

 

Consider this news from the UK: A British-Indian Muslim convert, skipped bail in 2014 to join ISIS in Syria. He wrote later online: “When we descend on the streets of London, Paris and Washington the taste will be far bitterer, because not only will we spill your blood, but we will also demolish your statues, erase your history and, most painfully, convert your children who will then go on to champion our name and curse their forefathers.”

Flashback – Rights

Here are some ideas about our constitutional rights from an entry four years ago. The same problematic behaviors have been even more evident since then. 

[Thinking about how people behave toward the rights of others lately can become very confusing.

About six weeks ago leading up to the [2016] election, there was quite a bit of talk about exercising your right to vote. Public service ads appeared on TV about how important it was to vote and how your vote made a difference. As is usually the case around election time, some volunteers worked with car pools and vans to make sure all voters were able to get to the polls. Some continued to subscribe to the argument that requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls was a burden and discriminatory. In short, many people came together in an effort to make it as easy as possible for everyone interested to exercise their right to vote.

We also have a right to bear arms, yet I have seen no efforts to make it as easy as possible to buy a gun. In fact the opposite is true. Exercising this right is burdened by several requirements: background check, waiting period, etc. Where are the people who will drive me to the gun show or the firing range if I have trouble getting there on my own? – The idea of this seems silly. There aren’t television ads encouraging people to exercise this right, and most comments are to the contrary. Two rights receive opposite reactions.

We also have a right to trial by jury and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be a right everyone is in favor of for themselves, but objects to for others. If law enforcement or courts do not do what citizens think they should have done, based on knowledge of the case picked up from the news or social media, the protesters begin demanding “justice.” Sometimes they even ignore the crime victim’s or their family’s pleas for calm and patience as the process plays out.  

We also have a right to free speech. Supposedly you can say what you want to without repercussions, particularly from the government. But students at various universities protest against the appearance of outside speakers because what they say may be offensive or not correspond with their worldview. Students are supposedly in college to learn. Sometimes their ideas are wrong, and sometimes it’s just educational to understand another’s point of view. Instead, they protest demanding a cancellation of the event, or they attend to heckle the speaker already having made up their minds that the person is evil or offensive. When confronted with the idea of freedom of speech, they smugly argue that the First Amendment only applies to government interference.

It has gotten to the point where a few universities have adopted the Chicago Principle, originated at the University of Chicago. It holds that if the speech or written statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. This action tries to move the focus from some vague notion of offense or anticipated offense to one of learning.

And it’s not just students. Society bans the use of certain words by certain people, and they can only refer to them by their initials, even when discussing the word itself. Many people feel they must consider their word choice very carefully for fear of committing an inadvertent offense or micro-aggression. If you refer to America as a melting pot, you are demeaning someone’s heritage and traditions. If you refer to our Forefathers, you are subjugating half the population. And on it goes. Political rallies have become scenes of name-calling and accusations rather than of debate and the post-rally walk to the car features fighting in the streets. 

Critical thinking leads to the conclusion that we don’t treat rights the same. Some are encouraged, some defended, some ignored, some opposed and some applied selectively. Isn’t that worth considering?]

Flashback – Does Luck Have a Half-life?

This takes us back almost seven years to the minimum wage protests at fast food restaurants. The question is whether people learn to change behavior when they are bailed out from predictable consequences. I have long argued that the reason you can’t raise a family on the minimum wage is that no one should start a family if they can only get a minimum wage job. Bad luck is not forever.

 

People who caught a bad break certainly should be helped, but behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Irresponsibility rewarded breeds more. Over the past seven years a lot of irresponsibility has been rewarded. Here are my 2013 comments:

[More protests are breaking out around the plight of fast food workers unable to survive on the minimum wage. They are demanding a wage increase to $15 an hour. The news has presented the arguments pro and con, but have usually given more time to the protesters, sometimes, as in this CBS piece, picking out one as a kind of “poster child” for the cause. The hidden problem is that minimum wage, unemployment extensions, food stamps and other proposed government solutions ignore behavioral factors.

A primary argument in favor of this issue tells us that all these people are less fortunate, that they need a helping hand to get back on their feet, that "there, but for the grace of God,” go we. They completely ignore well-known wisdom that behavior has consequences. We are presented with the argument that every one of these fast food workers is merely down on his luck or a victim of a bad economy, and that the situation has nothing to do with consequences of behavior. This unbelievable scenario is widely accepted by otherwise rational people. The media and many politicians never challenge it.

This leads to an interesting comparison: In other circumstances, how do caring people really act? If your teenage son sits on the sofa all day playing videogames, ignoring homework and refusing to do his chores, do good parents excuse the behavior and cover for him? Do they pass it off with, “That’s OK; he’s going through a tough time”? Even non-parents know the answer. Good parents will institute consequences for this poor behavior, knowing that if they don’t, life and reality will later institute much harsher consequences. Teenage sons can be very difficult, but good parents anticipate with a pattern of similar, consistent reactions to deal with natural childhood resistance and laxness. That’s how caring people act. They don’t always come to the rescue – behavior that makes the rescuer feel powerful, but often causes long-term harm to the one rescued. When the bad situation is a bad break, sympathy and a leg up are appropriate. If the son is mugged and loses money, parents may reimburse him for the loss. If he loses it gambling, that’s the consequence of bad behavior. Bailing him out is inappropriate, dulls the impact of the consequence and no learning occurs. (For an extreme example see the recent case of "affluenza" in Texas.)

Returning to the case of minimum wage employees, especially those presented by the media and never challenged, we must ask if it was bad luck or consequences that contributed to the situation. If it’s luck, then some temporary help is appropriate, because bad luck does have a kind of half-life or statute of limitations. A little help can turn things around, but caring people do not bail out from consequences. That only fosters more problematic behavior.

Even in these seemingly innocent human-interest stories the determination requires only a few simple questions. Where did those two or three children come from? Where is the father (or fathers)? What contribution is he making? If none, why not? Did the workers finish high school; were drugs ever involved; are they applying for better jobs, are they looking for ways to increase skills, etc., etc.? What is the long-term plan, if any? (CBS later reported that their "poster-child" example turned down promotions more than once because it didn’t fit her preferred personal schedule. Another news story told of a kind social worker repairing at minimum cost the car of a woman who hasn't been able to work in 5 years due to a neck injury. She can't work, but she can drive?!)  

Looking at the situation through the behavioral lens would probably determine that many of these people are not victims. Many are living with the consequences of earlier choices. Should caring people run to bail them out, labeling them all as “less fortunate,” as the compassionistas would have us believe? Not only do they not learn and grow, but the next generation, poised to make the same mistakes, sees no example to discourage them from following the same path. So, the current, non-behavioral approaches, which lump them all into the same category, lead not to solutions but to perpetual problems.]

Columbus Day vs. Indigenous Peoples' Day

It is easy to see why Columbus is considered a fool and a scoundrel. He miscalculated the distance from Europe to Asia. He brought new diseases to the Americas, or at least led the way so others could spread those diseases. After he arrived, he murdered and plundered, or at least led the way so others could do the murdering and plundering.

 

If he had not discovered America someone else would have done so later, likely with the same results. The only difference would be in the names of some streets and cities. It has become very popular to criticize figures from the past by applying today’s knowledge, values and standards of behavior, but apparently that’s where we are. 

 

However, if we are going to hold Columbus accountable, it’s only fair to take a closer look at the suggested alternative holiday name and hold those people to similar standards.

 

Some facts come from this publication from the University of Arizona. “Indigenous populations engaged in warfare and ritual violence long before European contact.” They were not the innocent, peace-loving people of recent depictions.

Another source continues, “Contemporary accounts from both European and Indigenous sources reveal that the pre-Columbian world was a place where slavery, trafficking, sexual exploitation, oppression, and even genocide was commonplace prior to any European contact.”

A Harvard University site includes a history of slavery by indigenous people. “Slavery existed in North America long before the first Africans arrived at Jamestown in 1619. For centuries, from the pre-Columbian era through the 1840s, Native Americans took prisoners of war and killed, adopted, or enslaved them.

 

After the arrival of European settlers, such behavior continued. “Comanche were specialists in torture, they were also the most ferocious and successful warriors — indeed, they became known as ‘Lords of the Plains’.” They are described as “imperialist and genocidal” relative to both neighboring tribes and white settlers. “When they first migrated to the great plains of the American South in the late 18th century from the Rocky Mountains, not only did they achieve dominance over the tribes there, they almost exterminated the Apaches.”

 

The Smithsonian Magazine tells of the practice of black slavery by the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole tribes. “The Five Civilized Tribes were deeply committed to slavery, established their own racialized black codes, immediately reestablished slavery when they arrived in Indian territory [after forced resettlement], rebuilt their nations with slave labor, crushed slave rebellions, and enthusiastically sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War.” One native chief in Mississippi owned a plantation of “15,000 acres” and had “400 enslaved Africans under his dominion.”

 

Can we hold all Native Americans responsible for the brutality and mistakes of a very few and cancel their holiday, when most of them were just trying to live their lives as best as they could? That doesn’t seem fair, but it’s exactly the same treatment the police have been getting lately. Not to do so smacks of selective outrage.

 

As a solution we might take page from the British calendar and change the name to October Bank Holiday – except don’t get me started on those evil bankers!

Energy Stupidity

Perhaps stupidity is too strong a word. Perhaps it’s a combination of ignorance, impatience, an inability to foresee all consequences and a tendency to let emotions override critical thinking. This is not an example from America, but a powerful lesson.

 

US News reports, last weekend in Luetzerath, Germany "hundreds of anti-coal activists staged protests in and around a mine in western Germany.” This is part of an ongoing series of demonstrations against coal mining and the use of coal power plants. “Environmental groups oppose the German government's decision to allow the mining and burning of coal in the country until 2038.” They believe that would be too late to meaningfully affect climate change.

 

This activity is just the latest of many protests against both mines and power facilities. Here is a headline that one outlet labeled the top environmental story of 2017: “Thousands protest German coal use.” I also found news items about similar demonstrations from June and December 2019 and earlier this year. There is no doubt that this recent protest will not be the last.

 

So far it seems reasonable. Coal burning pollutes the air. Phasing it out will clean the air and remove greenhouse gases. Maybe they have a point, except…

 

In 2011 in the wake of the Fukushima accident and with 70 percent of the population opposed to nuclear power, Angela Merkel announced that Germany would close all 17 of its nuclear reactors by 2022. At the time a science reporter for Time wondered how Germany would meet “increasing energy demands while also tackling climate change” as they “shun any low-carbon energy sources, no matter how troubling.” (Nuclear energy is not low-carbon; it’s zero-carbon.)

With the plan in place “to curb greenhouse gas emissions but at the same time...shut down all of its nuclear power stations, which in the year 2000 had a 29.5 per cent share of the power generation mix,” Although Germany has been moving heavily toward renewables, where does the power to fill the need between now and 2038 come from?

The Asia Times earlier this year noted, “Germany now generates over 35% of its yearly electricity consumption from wind and solar sources” with thousands of wind turbines and over a million photovoltaic installations. “Unfortunately, most of the time the actual amount of electricity produced is only a fraction of the installed capacity. Worse, on ‘bad days’ it can fall to nearly zero.” That leaves 65% or more unaccounted for.

Forbes lists a few problems with this rapid transition. It imposes increased direct and indirect costs on German businesses and consumers, who already pay “among the highest electricity costs in the world.” The “landscape is being ruined by unsightly wind turbines” virtually everywhere, and the supply from these sources “varies dramatically in the course of a day or week.”

 

Finally, a McKinsey report from last year, that one German newspaper described as “disastrous,” stated that the current “transition to renewables, poses a significant threat to the nation's economy and energy supply.” At times the country’s grid was close to a total blackout and had to be stabilized by short-term imports. The implementation lags its completion goal by eight or more years.

 

Germany has major problems with all aspects of their renewable energy transition, made worse by the added gap from closing their nuclear plants, plus protests against a coal power industry needed to take up the slack. What else are they supposed to do in the interim, attach generators to exercise bikes and ask citizens to generate their own electricity?

 

Unfortunately, instead of learning from the German experience, other European countries, including France, with 58 nuclear power reactors producing nearly 72% of their electricity, plan to follow their lead. 

 

Critical thinking has taken a backseat to emotional reactions. Nuclear power has always been a safe and pollution free energy source. “The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining.” Modern technology is superior to the plants built years ago. And engineers in France are recycling spent fuel to avoid the need for massive radioactive waste sites. If fluke accidents drove decision making in other arenas we would be riding horses and be forbidden to have a swimming pool or a bucket of water in the backyard (among many other things).

 

In short, the German people have turned their back on a viable pollution-free alternative and then launched protests against the only industry able to take up the slack during the transition – maybe not stupid, but certainly not smart.

Flashback – Chicken Protests

Back in 2015 I wondered if Americans ever stop to appreciate how well off we must be when some people have the time and energy to demand better living conditions for chickens. We have progressed from stressing about putting food on the table to stressing about whether that food had a happy life. Americans only 50 years ago would have been scratching their heads in disbelief.

A second point is that a minority can coerce, bully and guilt the majority into acquiescence either as a PR attempt to appear kind and caring or to just put a stop to the tantrums. This tactic has grown in popularity and success over the past five years. 

Here is the original message from five years ago.

[Recently I read about people protesting for the better treatment of chickens so they can have a more pleasant life before they are killed and served up at fast food restaurants.  Here is one version.

The emphasis was on fast food industry because they have more economic clout than individuals making choices at the grocery store. It also gives protesters the opportunity to force their values on everyone else. Concerning any issue, note how easily that a minority of fanatics can impose their will on a majority of relatively indifferent citizens. They care; you don’t; you lose.

What struck me about the chicken story was a point of perspective. Does anyone, or indeed the protesters themselves sit back and think about what a luxury it is to be concerned about the living conditions of chickens? These are not your property, chickens you rely on to provide a livelihood. They are not pets, favorite chickens that live in the backyard and provide you with eggs. These are stranger chickens, ones that you never interact with until their remains appear in the freezer section of the grocery store or in the nugget box.

How many problems have we been able to solve to move the welfare of stranger chickens to the top of a priority list, important enough to change our buying habits or even give up our time to try to influence others? We must have enough food, shelter from the elements, a happy and healthy family, a wide circle of friends, job security, enough money in the bank for future emergencies and be at peace with our faith or conscience. In short, a person has to be pretty set in life to have the luxury to be able to worry about the living conditions of stranger chickens! That is pretty wonderful!

Of course, even those who are so set up in their own lives might care about the living conditions of other human beings, the poor in the inner cities and overseas, and the neighbor who needs a hand or just a kind word, before chickens. But people are free to make choices. 

It is important, though, when we make those choices, to remember how lucky we are to have the freedom and luxury to make them.]

Wanted: A New National Anthem

The New National Anthem Committee is accepting applications. The current anthem has several flaws that must be addressed.

First, it is very difficult to sing. Second, the only verse that is usually sung is far too long. This becomes obvious by the fact the fans at sporting events get bored and restless, unable to maintain an attitude of respect and reverence toward the flag and country all the way to the end, whooping and hollering well before the last note has sounded. Starting criteria will be: easier to sing and shorter.

The current anthem is also objectionable for other reasons. One passage in the third verse, a verse most Americans didn’t even know existed until a controversy arose a few years ago, is by one interpretation objectionable and does not reflect twenty-first century values. (Note that this interpretation did not reflect twentieth century values when the anthem was adopted either, but general ignorance of its existence rendered the issue moot for over 80 years.)

The lyrics are about a war, sometimes called the second war for American independence. But the subject of war, any war, can be offensive to some.

Furthermore, the author, also a lawyer, had a mixed background. Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, but freed some of his slaves in the 1830s, paying one ex-slave as his farm foreman. He publicly criticized slavery and gave free legal representation to some slaves seeking freedom, but he also represented owners of runaway slaves.

When submitting a possible replacement anthem, this is important to remember. It is no longer acceptable to have wrong values and reform or to make a mistake and apologize. Every accusation of wrongdoing is tantamount to guilt in the court of public opinion with no statute of limitations. Mistakes or misstatements 30, 50 or 200 years ago have the same force as if they had happened yesterday. There is no forgiveness, so the work of any author submitted will be judged first by the purity of the author’s actions and reputation.

Finally and needless to say, the inclusion of the word “God” will lead to objections and immediate disqualification. Also, the use of words like “Free” and “Brave” are discouraged, as they are anathema to a society nearly devoid of responsibility, where the first instinct is to “sue the bastards,” or at least find someone else to blame for the slightest problem. Offense, supposed injury and victimhood get attention and sympathy; whereas personal responsibility, which used to be considered heroic based on previous American values and culture, is discouraged. Free and brave don't reflect the ethos of the time.

In short, avoid trying to be aspirational lest it be branded as being unrealistic and unrepresentative.

Send submissions to the New National Anthem Committee. Include email address and street address, the latter in case the Committee finds anything in the submission offensive or  objectionable in any way so that next time we are in your neighborhood we can vandalize your property and call it exercising our free-speech rights to protest.

Searching for (More) Ways to be Offended

On the day before last Halloween I wrote about how careful everyone must be in the choice of theme or costume so as not to offend.  Some schools and universities were cancelling events or changing them to exclude costumes to accommodate the hypersensitive.  It has come to the point where people are searching for ways to be offended, and everyone else must be constantly vigilant.  If they don’t already have some kind of celebrity or platform, they can always turn to social media to air their complaints and blast the offending party.  I noticed further examples in the following weeks.

The third stanza of the national anthem is offensive.  “California's NAACP is pushing for state lawmakers to support a campaign to remove ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ as the country's national anthem.”  According to the state NAACP president, it’s racist, and kneeling or sitting is an appropriate protest.  But it happened the other way around.  The real news was that the protests actually “led her to look at the lyrics of the anthem - finding a little-noticed third stanza.”  No one cited that as a reason until this woman dug deep to search out offensive matter with a reference to slaves and hirelings.

Was it the intention of the poet to demean or degrade anyone?  I looked it up.  “It doesn’t appear that Francis Scott Key ever specified what he did mean by the phrase [about slaves and hirelings], nor does its context point to a single, definitive interpretation.”  It’s offensive only if you take the initiative to look it up and decide to interpret that way.

On the other hand, some choose to be offended by those who kneel during the playing of the anthem.

Then there is the Washington Post headline from May 2016: “Some in the news media are still offended by Redskins name, even if Indians aren’t.”  They continue to take it personally despite findings from a “Washington Post poll indicating that the vast majority of American Indians aren’t offended by it.”  This probably applies to many non-Native Americans not in the media as well.  It’s really cool to be offended on behalf of someone else even if they are willing to let it drop.  It is the sign of a truly caring person – moral superiority rules!

From there we turn to Chicago where instead of the news media being offended, the shoe is on the other foot.  “Now in her eighth month of pregnancy, Kristen Nicole, co-anchor of Good Day Chicago on FOX32, says that three women sent her emails complaining that the sight of her baby bump was ‘offensive.’”  Wow, don’t be pregnant on TV, you might offend someone.  Apparently fat-shaming is forbidden, but pregnancy-shaming is fair game!

Finally we turn to news out of Boston where a mother is “furious” that a New Hampshire mall Santa refused to accommodate her daughter because he was allergic to her service dog.  She went home and took to Facebook complaining that her daughter’s visit with Santa was ruined, saying of the experience, “It was horrible” and “It was awful.”  Local news picked it up, because a story like this brings tears to the eyes of viewers.

When the mother finds out that it was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act that states “allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals,” she’ll probably sue Santa and the mall for “damages.”  (Her daughter might sue her later when she finds out the truth about Santa.)

Has the perspective of Americans, their ability to differentiate between the trivial and substantial, gone bonkers?

Mourning Doves

A mourning dove sits on top of the roof making an owl-like hooting noise.  Wikipedia tells me he is trying to attract a female or trying to draw his mate to the nest.  I wonder if he ever gets tired?  Hoot, hoot, hoot, all day long – and he really means it!  It doesn’t, however, make any difference to me or anyone else passing by.  He can hoot his little lungs out, but we’ve heard it all before.

Sometimes you hear people compared to sheep.  One person makes a new discovery or decides what’s cool or uncool and the rest follow along without taking time to evaluate how it affects their lives.  Lately though, I think people are becoming more like mourning doves.  Instead of hoot, hoot, hoot, we hear things like “Build a wall” or “He’s a bigot.”  They’ve already done the sheep thing, following the lead of a few in Washington who then depend on them to pick up on the mourning dove routine.  You see, the sheep only get to vote every couple of years, but the mourning doves get to hoot all day on whatever rooftop becomes available.  They really mean it, but we’ve heard it all before.

Two problems come from this behavior.  The first is the violence and the second, the lack of closure.

When a flock of mourning doves comes together to hoot for their particular cause, they never seem to notice that baboons have infiltrated their ranks, pretending to be doves.  Baboons are not doves and are not satisfied to sit and hoot.  They are fighters that often must display their dominance through physical force.  All would be calm if the exchange were confined to the doves hooting.  Everyone chants their mantra and goes home.  But the baboons will have none of it and take the first chance they get to lash out at the rival troop.  That gives the baboons hiding in the other flock an opportunity to engage in something more stimulating than hooting.  Chaos ensues.

The second problem is the lack of closure – nothing gets solved by chanting at each other and especially not by fighting in the streets.  These are not nuanced arguments based on data.  These are hoots (with a few creative variations) based on anecdotes and personal prejudices with no room for compromise and no appetite for debate.  We are right and you are wrong! – Hoot, hoot, hoot.  We are moral and you are not!  God is on our side!  And they are so busy hooting; they don’t even realize how much their behavior has in common.

The whole thing sounds pretty uncivilized, but this seems to be what America has come to.  People would rather be right than have a relationship or get anything done.  It’s not about finding a solution; it’s about shouting down or defeating the other side because they are evil.  And proving we have a truly representative government, Washington reflects the same behavior.  They don’t engage in physical fighting themselves, though we’ve seen it happen in other countries; but they delight in the chance the violence gives them to point fingers.

Unfortunately, from time to time the hooting is rewarded when it becomes loud enough to intimidate a company or lawmaking body.  Occasionally the decisions turn out to be right, but not because they are based on clear thinking.  So this normally unproductive, but sometimes risky dynamic continues.

(For perspective, here’s a definition from Wikipedia: “Jihad is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.”  We are right; we are moral; you are not!  Hoot, hoot, hoot!  Scary.)

A Different Kind of Lobbying

Political lobbyists are the target of a lot of bad press, and deservedly so.  Big corporations, unions or other interest groups pay them to get the attention of lawmakers and to persuade them to pass laws or propose regulations that favor their particular industry or group.  Some say that these activities keep lawmakers informed on the subtleties of certain industries.  Better understanding of the dynamics can reduce the number of unintended consequences and those in Congress cannot be experts on everything.

On the other hand, most of the population has the impression that these meetings and lunches are little more than legalized bribes for the rich to disproportionately influence government, an attempt to bring “government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.”  The auto industry and banks get their bailouts.  The military is given weapons they haven’t requested and don’t want.  In short, to lobby is to try to get your way without regard to what others want or what is best overall for the country.

But there are other activities almost the same as lobbying that most people either ignore or consider healthy.  This came to mind when I came across a news story from England.  It is about behavior in a foreign country, but the type of behavior itself is certainly not foreign to Americans.  In fact it’s quite common.

The controversy arose over the new five-pound note.  When vegans and vegetarians discovered that the new tougher and more waterproof bill was made from a plastic polymer containing small amounts of tallow, derived from animal waste products, they took to social media demanding the contents be changed.  They called the use of even a small amount of animal products not cool and disgusting.  Their rights were being trampled.  Since they were not going to eat the pocket money and the contents were by-products of a food production process that would be thrown away otherwise, it’s hard to see how any harm was done.  It’s not like more animals were being slaughtered.  Yet some circulated a petition, gathering over 40,000 signatures, demanding that the contents be changed.

It’s so easy to click a box and sign an online petition.  And you get to feel good about yourself for caring about an issue that’s important to a minority.  You get to stick up for the underdogs, the victims, people whose beliefs were not even considered when the government tried to make their paper money more durable.  But 40,000 is less than one-tenth of one percent of the UK population and only about 3% report being vegetarian.  Does this even make a difference?

This behavior is repeated nearly daily in America.  People will protest slights against groups they aren’t even members of.  The protests are based on the theory that if they can get a large enough turnout and enough press coverage they can influence the national, state and local policy.  The lure is the same – be a savior, do the noble thing, defend the moral high ground. Feel good about yourself for defending the rights of the victims and the marginalized, even if those rights never existed before and even if the victims aren’t even human.  That’s how they get huge, vocal crowds or thousands of signatures when the issues affect a small minority.

We have seen this mindset recently protesting a pipeline in North Dakota, defending a mountain lion that was killing cattle in California, supporting workers who took on obligations before they could earn enough money to support those obligations, and something about solving a bathroom problem that few knew existed.  This is all about pressure on lawmakers.  They throw an organized tantrum until they either get there way or run out of energy.

It’s also so easy to vote, as the people in Massachusetts did to require that chickens and pigs live in larger cages.  Those in favor of happier chickens spent almost $5 million with small demonstrations and other means to publicize the animals' need for more comfortable accommodations.  Those arguing that such changes would raise the prices of eggs and bacon, hitting the poor especially hard, could only raise $300,000 to try to make their point.  The chickens won and the humans lost, primarily because the emotional appeal of reducing what was portrayed as suffering for the animals drowned out the appeal of helping the poor afford food.  So voters went home from the polls feeling like they had made a difference.

Some of these causes are worthy of attention; some are trivial.  But it all sounds like exactly the same dynamic as traditional lobbying to me.  Based on the theories that past behavior predicts future behavior and that behavior rewarded is behavior repeated, I predict that the future will yield more of this free lobbying compounding the problem.  Lawmakers will feel pressure from all sides, as every special interest exerts as much pressure as they can, either through monetary donations to campaigns, by button-holing at the capitol or by demonstrating in the streets and on social media, as those groups attract supporters with the promise that they will feel fulfilled, compassionate and morally superior.

Personally, I don’t think this second kind of lobbying is any healthier for the country than the first.  But we will see.