They Would Recognize The Music

 They Would Recognize the Music

Beyond Inclusion: Ownership and Belonging on the Journey to Pluralism

MG Kaplan

January 23, 2023

 When we talk about diversity and inclusion, as we have for a couple of hundred years in the U.S., in some form or another, the focus is usually on the groups that have been excluded, whether that exclusion has been in legal ways, overt bigotry, or more subtle behaviors.  This focus makes sense, of course, because these are the groups that have been, or are, suffering from a lack of full inclusion, and they are often viscerally aware of their exclusion.  When the focus is on the traditionally included groups, as it sometimes is, it is usually on their advantages or privileges.  This also makes sense, because when we have advantages, we tend not to see them, and thus there is little awareness or energy to drive change, so the goal to increase awareness of privileges is important.  This basic dynamic has been playing out likely for centuries,  and certainly in the U.S., as each issue of difference emerges into our public discourse.  Essentially, it is the push for change from excluded groups against the resistance to change from included groups.  Though these dynamics are predictable and understandable, they are becoming less sustainable in our polarized society, particularly as we become even more diverse, and power becomes more distributed across more diverse groups.  We need a new way to think about ourselves as a diverse society.

The truth is, we are becoming more and more diverse.  Our racial demographics are remarkable, as we near a point in about 20 years where only 50% of the U.S. population will be white.  Although it doesn’t always seem like it, we are also becoming more inclusive, with social attitude surveys showing a significant improvement in tolerance and acceptance of all kinds of difference.  Diversity and inclusion are not guaranteed by each other, but they sometimes work together.  For example, gay, lesbian and bisexual people, though always present and likely in similar numbers across time, are more visibly and practically present in our culture (and thus we are more diverse in this tangible sense), and this is because our culture has become more inclusive.  We are more diverse by age, family/parental status, national origin, culture, first language, and many other categories.  This diversity comes from both inevitable demographic changes but also from a more open, inclusive culture.  We are making progress, but as is our history, that progress is paralleled by a reactionary element, and given the amount of change, the reactionary counterforce is quite powerful right now.  Moreover, all of this is exacerbated by an increasing globalization of communication via the internet and social media.  We are in a period of time when change is deep, fast, and multi-faceted, and the dynamics of human diversity are right in the middle of it.

Thus, we need a new and more resonant path, one that doesn’t replicate the past but instead brings us towards a more manageable place in the future.  Our patten of primarily focusing on the inclusion of excluded groups is not enough.  We should not be directing our efforts primarily toward correcting past wrongs, though we can’t ignore them and pretend that past wrongs have no impact today.  Rather, we must create a new vision for inclusion that speaks to more people.  We can see today what happens when we splinter, when we argue over who is the most victimized, when we polarize into various identities.  This does not mean we shouldn’t focus on reducing bias and discrimination; in fact, we will probably always have to take individual and societal action to create more equity, fairness and justice.  Despite progress, there is too still too much bigotry, bias and unfairness, and we should keep working to reduce it.  However, in a larger sense, we need a societal effort that is embraced by more people, a socio-cultural push for pluralism, where there is room for multiple life experiences and perspectives¾even if these are not shared by all or even by a majority¾and where we all can see the benefit to ourselves of our diverse society.  We need to foster not just inclusion but a sense of belonging that emerges from pluralism, and is broadly felt.  Unfortunately, in today’s world, we fight for our viewpoint to win, defining belonging in an insular, zero-sum sort of way.

Virtue signaling has become the norm today across the political spectrum.  We search for and amplify every utterance that might be seen as biased to prove how wise, in touch, and “woke” we are.  Being “woke”, which at its essence is about being aware and not in denial of bias and bigotry, is a good thing, but not so productive when attached to notions of being morally superior.  I would rather that more of us who define ourselves as woke would look at ourselves more closely, and spend time trying to connect with those less aware, rather than judging them as morally inferior.  We also try to prove our belonging to our “tribe” by spouting lies and ungrounded conspiracy theories in a way that is cult-like, irrational, and destructive, with the focus on “owning” the other side.  I would rather that those who want to “own the libs” would instead take ownership for creating a diverse, inclusive society that works.  This bi-partisan virtue signaling achieves nothing, and only demonstrates our collective insecurity in who we are.  In a quest to feel like we belong, we achieve just the opposite, as we feed divisiveness.  We will never create a diverse, inclusive, and pluralistic society¾ one in which a strong majority feels a sense of belonging¾if we aren’t able to foster a broader sense of ownership in the whole endeavor.  Fortunately, we have a history and framework via our laws and Constitution, and very compelling historical rhetoric of values that does speak to our need to get it right.

My professional work involves helping organizations leverage their diversity, become more inclusive, and foster a sense of belonging.  A few decades ago, the focus was on just getting more diversity, but now there is a lot of diversity, so that focus is on how to make it work.  Healthy organizations know this work is essential to their success.  There is an analogy, various forms of which have been described to me by others, that goes something like this:  “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance.”  This is a useful analogy because we often think that the presence of diversity automatically creates inclusion; it doesn’t.  However, inclusion by itself isn’t enough.  “Belonging” is the new framework many organizations are starting to embrace.  In a recent conversation, I suggested adding an extension to the diversity and inclusion metaphor, as follows: “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance; belonging is recognizing the music when you show up to the party.”  We don’t all have to like all of the music all of the time, but we should recognize it as collectively ours.  It is not enough to be invited to someone else’s party and asked to dance.  We need to all feel like it is our party, and that we fully belong, that even if we don’t love the music, we see ourselves somewhere in the lyrics or the tune.   Incidentally, American music is a good example of this kind of belonging.  In the December issue of the magazine, Hemispheres, author Justin Goldman writes about his trip to Appalachia and the mid-south.  He describes a musical tradition inclusive of many different kinds of people and traditions who connect to each other through their music, and collaborate to create something that is unique and in which they can see themselves.  American music is perhaps the most powerful analogy for leveraging our diversity to create something better, richer, and fuller, that we can all relate to and have a sense of ownership for.  We need a stronger sense of ownership for our unique social experiment of intentionally bringing together a diverse and ever-changing population.  We need to recognize our national metaphorical music - the lyrics, tunes and harmonies of our ever-changing culture.  This is a path of ownership and belonging that can emerge in a truly pluralistic society 

The non-pluralistic alternative is what we see now:  a fight for who is right and who can dominate, a battle to be the “one-up” and not the “one-down.”   There will always be power dynamics in any society, most certainly in a diverse society, but these dynamics need to ebb and flow and not be the primary social dynamic as they seem to be now.  As change accelerates, we need more shared ownership for a pluralistic outcome.  This has to be done in our collective spaces, in the civic institutions that bring us together around our shared interests.  Three areas of activity could promote this sense of shared ownership:  1) a re-articulation of our national proposition and our shared interest and values in continually creating a diverse country that works; 2) public policy that puts the collective interest over the interests of specific groups, not in ways that ignore group-based discrimination, but in ways that speak to and positively impact more of us; and 3) participation in civic institutions that focus on our collectiveness.  Every day, all over the country, there are opportunities to come together and pursue shared interests.  This happens in workplaces, in local governments and committees, in school boards and in a variety of other institutions.  If this feels boring and bureaucratic, just think about music, about social clubs, sports groups, etc.  I’m on my town’s conservation commission.  When we meet as diverse groups around shared interests, the result is better ideas and shared ownership.  When we own something, we usually work hard to make it succeed.

In 2026, we will celebrate 250 years since our independence, a time when we articulated a powerful set of values that we then set into action.  Due to various social and demographic forces, we are now possibly on the verge of realizing those values and aspirations.  Let us not stay stuck in our tribes, especially now.  Do you have a sense of ownership of our collective social experiment called the United States of America?  Why or why not?  What are the values expressed in our national framework that you can connect with?  How can you express that connection in your interactions with other people?  While I am optimistic about where we are headed, it will not happen without action and participation by many.  How can you help?

Tom Hanks, Please Don't Stop Playing Gay Characters

MG Kaplan

Sept 7 2022

Tom Hanks’ recent statement reported in New York Times Magazine (July 14, 2022), that he wouldn’t play his gay character in the movie Philadelphia if it were being made today, contains a contradiction at its core. While likely his intent is to be inclusive, the impact is one that if applied broadly, would interfere with progress towards inclusion and pluralism.  Hanks says the audience wouldn’t “accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy.” The argument appears to be that a straight character can’t play a gay character because 1) a member of the dominant or majority group (heterosexual) can’t understand the life experiences of a member of the subordinated or minority group (gay), and 2) it takes away an opportunity for a gay actor, who’s roles may be limited by bias and discrimination.  While there are truths in both of these arguments about the challenges of operating in a diverse society, the inherent opportunity is missed.  The U.S. has a core strength built into our system:  diversity is what feeds our creativity, and creates our resilience.  The more we push ourselves to work with and across difference, the stronger we become.  The world’s most diverse democracy, constituted to create equality and opportunity, should aspire to become more inclusive and pluralistic.   

Hanks’ argument does have a truth based in the very real power dynamics connected to difference.  It is true that a straight person would be challenged playing a gay character.  When we are in the dominant group on any issue of difference, such as gender identity/gender, race, culture, and sexual orientation, we aren’t compelled to deeply understand the life experiences of those groups less powerful.  Correspondingly, the person in the subordinated group often faces the reality of needing to understand the dominant group in order to thrive, fit in, or even survive.  This power dynamic is reflected in the different amount of awareness, energy and real work required by each.  Using myself as an example, as a white person I generally don’t have to understand or adapt to black people in order to fit in or be successful.  Yet as a gay person, I have invested much energy in understanding straight people, in order to be seen as acceptable, and to have access to opportunities.  It was a lot of work to figure out how to fit in, eventually to come out, and to become a fully functioning and free person.  I appreciate Mr. Hanks’ sensitivity to this struggle, and he is right that he faces a real challenge in playing a gay character, even moreso given the substantial progress made since the filming of Philadelphia.  His good work in portraying Andrew Beckett in Philadelphia is the sort of work that helps this country grow, because it flips the power dynamic concerning who needs to learn about whom.  By the way, should Bruce Springsteen not have written the theme song for the movie?  His highly acclaimed “Streets of Philadelphia”, the lyrics of which captured a deeply resonant moment for the gay community, also resonated broadly.  Both Hanks and Springsteen are models for growth and change, and for pluralism. 

His comment to the Times that “one of the reasons people weren’t afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man” indicates the problem of a sort of bias that could impact a gay actor’s opportunities.  However, he also states that we are “…beyond that now”, and this reveals a counterproductive irony.  Should progress lead us to be more separate, and less able to authentically empathize and portray the experiences of someone different?  Hanks’ work in Philadelphia helped to reduce bias and discrimination, yet by not playing a gay character today he would embrace a perspective that would help freeze in place these non-inclusive, non-pluralistic dynamics.  To imply that identity in a subordinated group is so sacred that a member of the dominant group shouldn’t even attempt to portray that experience, even actors who are constantly seeking to embody the experiences of different others, will only cause bias to persist, and thicken the boundaries around our group identities.  Change can’t wait until we have a “perfect” bias-free world, which will likely never exist.

The national conversation about creating a diverse society that is inclusive is perhaps our most important conversation.  Our history represents the best and the worst, when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of difference.  Pluralism, which focuses on both creating the space for diversity to be expressed and the broader value add to the society, should be a guiding construct.  If we focus primarily on the power dynamics of dominant and subordinated, or oppressor and oppressed, it is that broader value add that is missed, and we risk remaining unnecessarily polarized.  This doesn’t mean we should ignore bias and discrimination, but we should also see the ways we are changing, the good intent of many, the opportunities in front of us, and the risk if we stay stuck. 

We are in a time of change and progress, even if it doesn’t always feel like it.  Not only, according to social science research, are our attitudes about diversity improving, our demographics are shifting in profound ways.  At the center of this shift is the inevitability that in about 2 decades whites will become less than 50% of the population.  At such an important time of change and progress, some want to keep us stuck in the past.  On the right, the goal seems to be a return to a time when certain groups, particularly whites and men, were in a dominant position.  This is obviously untenable and would likely lead to the downfall of our country and system of government.  On the left, there also seems to be a desire to stay in a past where the power dynamics of dominant and subordinated groups remain unchanging, and progress is not acknowledged.  While the threat from the right is more extreme and particularly palpable, real change rarely involves shifting just one group or one perspective.  Real change involves a sense of a shared future that we can collectively own. 

Our demographics, and our Constitution, are to a large extent our destiny, and we should embrace it.   Diversity is our biggest strength, our biggest challenge, and our biggest opportunity.  We need to spend more time deepening empathy across our differences, not less.  The constant polarization around identity groups needs to be allowed to evolve towards pluralism, in which we have space to thrive in our differences and allow those differences to make us stronger, more creative, and more resilient.   Tom Hanks should be encouraged to stretch himself in his portrayals.  His courage should push him, and perhaps help us, to develop more empathy.  He should eagerly seek feedback from gay and straight people alike, about his impact.  Yes, because of our progress it might be harder for him to play a gay character today, but should he step up to that challenge, he, and others like him, will be role models for what it looks like to live together in a rich, diverse, pluralistic society.

Big Change is Never Easy: An Unapologetically Optimistic View

 Big Change is Never Easy:  An Unapologetically Optimistic View

MG Kaplan

June 26, 2022

At a moment that seems dark and scary, our country thrown back to a pre-1973 era where women’s reproductive freedom was heavily restricted and their life and health sometimes at risk, it is possible to see an optimistic outcome.  The overturning of Roe v. Wade is an event that has been feared for 50 years; it has been a focal point of our political dialogue for almost that entire time.  It has caused a great cultural polarization, and was at various times the main policy issue that defined political affiliation and voting in this country.  The feared, or wished for, day has arrived, and the question is “What is next?”.  I won’t try to answer that from a public policy or political strategy perspective, but I suggest that this scary and abrupt shift probably reflects that deep change is occurring, and the result may help to clarify and depolarize the issue of reproductive freedom, as well as a number of other flashpoint issues.  We are in a moment when the threat of regression is high, but the opportunity for progress is likely higher.

Big change never comes easy.  It is much more common for the momentum of the status quo to continue to provide incremental shifts in one direction or another.  That is why big change is relatively rare.  People change slowly, institutions as well, and usually we just muddle along.  In the background though, progress and resistance to that progress battle on in a quiet war that sometimes heats up.  The “heat” is the resistance to change which gets activated when change is actually happening.  If there was no real change or shift, then there would be nothing to resist.  As change deepens, and this often happens below the surface, it generates first discomfort and fear, and then resistance gets hotter.  When it comes to socio-cultural change, in a historical political context, conservative forces tap the discomfort and fear and often have some success, but it is usually temporary.  For example, conservatives won the 2004 Presidential election by barely winning Ohio, a victory that has been attributed to getting anti same-sex marriage ordinances on the Ohio ballot to generate high turnout among conservatives.  It worked in 2004, but 10 years later same-sex marriage was the law of the entire country, not just individual states.  This demonstrates how social change often occurs:  one step forward and then one step back, but then 2 steps forward.  Abortion rights have been manipulated politically by conservatives for 50 years.  But conservatives have been joined by progressives for much of these 50 years, as each side demonized the other for political advantage, and a reasonable compromise seemed impossible.   That time, and dynamic, is at the beginning of its end, as we are well into the “heating up,” meaning a big shift is near.  That shift is highly likely to be one that continues the progression of human rights and freedom. 

You might be thinking that the shift is in the other direction, but I don’t think so.  Even though times of big change are always risky, and it is possible we could take 2 steps backwards, the underlying dynamics show a continuing arc towards more freedom, as evidenced by what has actually been happening socially and culturally, reflected by behavior and attitudinal shifts that continue to show progress.  We are no longer in the theoretical world of “if Roe v. Wade was overturned…”  Though it would’ve been nice to avoid the risk and the real pain and suffering that some are going to be experiencing, this does force the issue and will cause a clarification of what we really think should be our public policy as it relates to reproductive freedom.  Polarization, by definition, involves 2 sides, and so does change.  The end of Roe v. Wade forces all of us to engage practically, to shift our energy from the constant demonizing of each other, to the solving of real problems.  The recent success in passing a bi-partisan gun safety bill, though very modest in scope, shows that we are not as stuck as we think we are.

Public opinion is strongly in favor of protecting a right to abortion for the 1st and most of the 2^nd trimester.  If states continue to push overly restrictive laws, they will get backlash from voters because the Roe protections no longer exist.  This will, over time, push many states to be more reasonable in their restrictions.  It will eventually force a policy at the Federal level, that is likely to be consistent with public opinion. This never needed to be an all or nothing battle.  Most of the Western world has strong abortion and health-of-the-mother protections, and some restrictions, including some countries with strong religious cultures.  Justice Ginsburg warned about the weakness of Roe and suggested that reproductive freedom needed a stronger constitutional basis.  As many people come together in the short-term to help women, especially those with the most challenges in getting healthcare services, a broader consensus will form around fair and effective public policy.  Eventually reproductive freedom will stand on solid ground and become a less politically motivating force in what is now a polarized socio-political zeitgeist.  The same will be true more broadly as our 50-year culture war simmers down.

Justice Thomas suggested directly that the precedent that underlies Roe, now rejected by the court, should mean that other protections covered by or related to that precedent should be removed, specifically citing cases related to same-sex marriage, contraception, and private sexual behavior.  This blatant overreach and threat to the rights and freedoms of every single person will eventually lead to a solidifying of much of the social progress that has been made on privacy, and individual freedom over the basic and essential parts of our lives.  So, I say “thank you” to Justice Thomas for saying the quiet part out loud; the agenda of a theocratic, reactionary group is now clear and will be rejected.  The right-wing backlash to all kinds of progress on gender, race, sexuality, and other issues is just about played out.  This is the most powerful way for resistance to change to be transformed into progress.  For many strong conservatives, they have now gotten what they’ve been striving for on their biggest defining issue:  Roe v. Wade is overturned.  What will happen next is that their extremism will be rejected in most of the country and progress will now solidify on many issues such that policy begins to reflect the reality of where we really are, because “where we really are” reflects tremendous shifts in attitudes over several decades.  For example, public support of same-sex marriage is now 70% and increasing.  Interracial relationships are much more common as public attitudes about race have improved.  Pew’s decades of social research show that in 1990 63% of non-black people would be somewhat or very opposed to a close relative marrying a black person.  In 2017, that figure was 14%.  Consistent with this data, rates of interracial marriage have more than tripled since 1980.  In striking irony, and deep hypocrisy, Justice Thomas’s interracial marriage was a result of these changing attitudes and made legal by the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia!

This sort of attitudinal progress has been building, but our polarized political dynamic has made it hard for these gains to be solidified and embedded.  George Friedman in his 2020 book, The Storm Before the Calm, makes the case that we are in a once-a-century or so time of transformational change.  His title captures the key dynamic at play today:  It is the moments that feel the most risky and chaotic that often foreshadow big change, and once that change is solidified, a quasi-consensus, and calm, emerges.  I believe this is where we are headed, and though we probably have several stormy years ahead, we should begin to allow ourselves to envision the outcome in an optimistic way.  We should step back from our polarized responses to current events, avoid getting sucked into hopelessness, join efforts to help fellow citizens who will need help navigating these stormy seas, and begin to take stock in the progress that has been made.  After all, change never really stops.  While the time is coming when we can consider real challenges that have been largely unaddressed, such as economic inequality, lets enjoy the vision of a calm sea in our socio-political zeitgeist, that while not quite here yet, is coming soon.

The Singularity and Familiarity of the Holocaust Informs Us Today: Reflections from a visit to Yad Vashem

 

On Yom HaShoah 28 April 2022 27^th Day of Nisan

By MG Kaplan

Earlier this year, for the first time, I visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial and Museum in Jerusalem.  I’d been to Israel several times before, but this time a visit to Yad Vashem was a priority, following a couple of years of genealogical research of my family, which revealed both the tragedy and devastation of so many lost people, including dozens of family members.  I expected an emotional time at Yad Vashem, and that is what I experienced.  It was made even more resonant when I thought about our current state of affairs here in the U.S.   How are we doing in managing the kinds of dynamics that when not managed can lead to something as extreme as the Holocaust?  How are we doing in trying to become the pluralistic democratic republic based on Enlightenment values, that we were intended to be?  

The Jewish Holocaust was a singular event.  It is not just the number of people; it is both the intent to destroy an entire group of people but also the way in which it was done.  The planning, the precision, the efficiency, and the ability to get much of German society (and other European countries) on board with the annihilation of all of the Jews of Europe was a singular historical event.  From a distance, the Jewish Holocaust of almost half of the world’s population of Jews, the murder of another several million people including targeted groups such as Roma, people living with disabilities, LGBT folks, and others seems so obviously misguided and horrific that it can’t be conceived of as something that could happen again.  I always felt that way, knowing theoretically that my family (and Jews in general) had lost many people, but not feeling too personally connected to that loss, and believing that it would never happen again.  Never Again.  It all seemed so unreal.  My view was that progress had and would continue to unfold, that human beings had learned an important lesson.  I knew little about the early part of the 20^th century, which were not great times for Jews in the U.S., featuring extensive targeting and stereotyping, exclusion from social institutions, blatant exclusion from top universities, and more.  Growing up during what has been called the “golden years” of Jewish life in the USA, antisemitic targeting and hatred was not a significant part of my experience.  I knew and observed stereotypes about Jews, but that seemed both limited and far away from the life of my family, the exception but not the rule. 

At the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum, the first exhibits are of the propaganda campaign against Jews which began well before large-scale murders and deportation to concentration camps.  This detailed and extensive propaganda, which I describe below, was a reflection of fear and insecurity in Germany, probably a more intense version of the kinds of fears and insecurities that we can see today in the U.S., and much of the western world.  In the U.S. we are in the midst of a steady and accelerating demographic change in which Whites, who are still by far the largest racial group (60% of the population), are decreasing, while groups of color, particularly Latino/as and Asians are increasing.  This kind of demographic and cultural change, though in the background for a long time, is now accelerating and appears to be increasingly connected to economic factors, including a rapidly expanding wealth and income gap, and socioeconomic stagnation which makes it harder for Americans to progress up the economic ladder.  The economic fears were resonant in Germany in the period after WW1, but also at play were cultural issues.   Germany was characterized by 2 conflicting dynamics:  1) an increasingly progressive and open society, and 2) economic disruption and anxiety, at first related to crushing debt and humiliation after WW1.  The global Great Depression quickly ended the social progressiveness.  The economic disasters, and perhaps a feeling among many Germans that something was being lost in their traditional culture helped create a backlash that focused on blaming others.  In this environment, Hitler and The Nazis rose, and focused the blame for Germany’s problems on “the other.”  Jews were their main target, and this is captured in the first part of Yad Vashem, with articles, advertisements, pamphlets, etc. which pictured Jews with extremely exaggerated physical features, and described them as evil, conniving, threats to children, etc.  On display in the museum are actual devices that would measure the size of the skulls of Jews, to prove that they were Jewish and defective or abnormal in some way.  Looking at this, especially given a couple of thousand years of harshly negative anti-Jewish stereotypes, it isn’t hard to see how Hitler was able to foment such visceral antisemitism.  The propaganda campaign of lies and gaslighting about Jews was intense and ongoing; there was no room for truth.  The interplay of socioeconomic difficulties with cultural polarization is familiar, and similar, today.

We don’t have to suggest that what is happening here today exactly parallels Germany in the 1920s and 30s to ask ourselves if some of the dynamics at play then, are occurring today.  After all, these are constantly repeating human dynamics, even if they show up different and with different levels of intensity and impact.  Which groups do you see being stereotyped and demonized now?  Desperate immigrants who illegally cross the US border, Asians during the pandemic, Trans people in general, and the ongoing mistreatment of Black people?  Think about the ways in which we demonize each other around political identity.  As you think about this, consider our shrinking middle class, the cost of higher education, and the difficulties many have with socio-economic mobility.  Take note of a rapidly growing wealth and income gap and the increasing focus on the elites vs. the rest of us.  Now think about the level of polarization in our politics.  This is more concerning than anything I can recall in my life, and probably the biggest most multi-faceted social, cultural and political challenge that we’ve faced since the 1920s and 30s.

I am convinced that the U.S. will be managing these kinds of dynamics for as long as we can keep the democratic republic given to us almost 250 years ago.  Some of this is to be expected.  A diverse democracy is a hard thing to keep.  An ebb and flow, a give and take, is essential; our progress will never be in a straight line.  Change followed by backlash to change is to be expected in most societies and organizations.  Two steps forward and a step back are the norm of our national evolution when it comes social change and diversity.  Tolerance needs to be the minimum standard, with acceptance, empathy and admiration as the goals.  We need to be able to see the ways that we all benefit when we strive to be a pluralistic democracy.  Human existence isn’t a zero-sum game in which we have to constantly identify with a group and pit ourselves against another group.  That may seem like a contradiction given that this essay started with my reflections about the experience of Jews, but we will always be balancing our group identities with our individuality. 

In these difficult times the most patriotic thing any of us can do, is figure out how we can make our diverse, pluralistic democracy work.  This means we have to be able to see our fellow humans as individuals, not just members of groups.  At the same time, we can’t ignore their group identities.  I have frequently had the experience of meeting people in any number of groups of which I had been explicitly or implicitly encouraged to see only through stereotypes.  Almost always when I can connect to individuality, stereotypes drift into the background.  An Israeli friend of mine shared a profound experience of meeting another young woman from Iran, in a 3^rd country.  My friend identified as a European, not an Israeli, and the young woman she met was not wearing the chador, and dressed in a very modern and western style.  As they each revealed themselves to the other, their strongly-held stereotypes were replaced by an interest to understand each other as individuals.  I had a version of this at a recent dinner with friends who have very different political views than I.  I told myself to focus on them as individuals, not on our different political identities.  It not only made for a much nicer dinner conversation, it also laid the groundwork to help us manage to stay connected as societal tensions continue to rise, which I believe will happen over the next several years.  We were building our bank account of good will.  In order for a pluralistic democracy like ours to survive difficult times and prepare to thrive as those dynamics wane, we need to have these relational bank accounts.  The Holocaust shows us what can happen when we don’t. 

We should hold the Holocaust as a singular event, but at the same time we should see the similarity – the familiarity – with how easily we objectify and dehumanize others.  Post-WW1 Germany didn’t have the history, laws, and constitution that we have in the U.S.  We have tried to balance group-ness and individuality for our entire history.  From the start we represented various groups that occupy the same land, and we are at least supposed to have the same opportunities to pursue our individual happiness.  After all, it is from these various groups that we emerge as individuals.  

Ultimately our individuality, meaning our individual experience of being human, is the most basic and  important experience we have.  The values of The Enlightenment, the philosophical backbone of our Constitution, are passionate about individuality and individual rights, while giving us guidance in balancing individuality with other people and other groups.  This balance is hard to keep. We have work to do, always, but sometimes we have extra work to do.  That time is now, and if we step away from it, where are we?  More importantly, who are we?

"When I grow up and get to be twenty 

I'll travel and see this world of plenty.

In a bird with an engine I'll 

sit myself down, Take off and fly, into

space far above the ground.  I'll fly,

I'll cruise and soar up high Above, a

world so lovely, into the sky...

Abramek Koplowicz, murdered in Auschwitz at age 14

Poem exhibited at Yad Vashem with Abramek's original journal

 

 

10 Reasons Why I am Glad Joe Biden is President

 

Mark Kaplan

March 3, 2020

President Biden is an easy guy to pick on.  He is old-fashioned and acts like an old-fashioned politician.  He uses expressions that are both antiquated and corny.  He likes quaint homilies.  He tells the same stories over and over again.  His age shows.  He can barely put together 2 sentences without a flubbed word.  It is pretty easy to criticize him, especially in a time of intense polarization where each side looks for every possible reason to dislike the other side.  If you step back though, he’s having a successful presidency, and think about it, can you even imagine what would be going on now if he hadn’t won?  That brings me to Reason #1 of “why I’m glad Joe Biden is President.”

#1:  He beat Donald Trump.  Really his whole presidency is a success because he beat Trump.  That is enough for me.  I could stop writing here.  Undoubtedly 4 more years of Trump would’ve led to something, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have been good.

#2:  He got us vaccinated.  Well, he got those of us who wanted to be vaccinated, vaccinated.  His administration rolled out an ambitious, fast, well-organized, and highly effective vaccination program.  It isn’t his fault that our polarized politics, and propensity to like conspiracy theories, meant that a large number of people wouldn’t get vaccinated.  He did everything he could, and he did it well.

#3:  He used the tenuous but real power that the winning of the Senate gave him to get a huge (1.9T) pandemic relief bill passed almost immediately after inauguration.  Some felt it wasn’t necessary, but the unwillingness of many to get vaccinated, combined with an unexpected Delta variant surge, showed that bill to be a lifesaver for many, and for the economy.

#4:  Dude actually got an infrastructure bill passed!  A big one!  This legislation was decades overdue.  After 4 years of “infrastructure week” failures by Republicans despite their 2 years of having Congressional and White House majorities, Biden got it done, and in a bipartisan manner.  To quote him:  “This is a big (effing) deal.”

#5:  He takes a lickin’ and he keeps on tickin.”  He has had a rough time.  Unfortunately, when people aren’t happy, they blame the person in charge.  He doesn’t seem demoralized, and he keeps pursuing his goals.  When you’re getting – or you’ve gotten – on in years, taking risks is less consequential.  There is a certain freedom that comes with aging.  There really might not be a tomorrow.  So Biden keeps on truckin, and I admire him for that.

#6:  He has advanced inclusion and diversity in historical ways.  Regardless of your opinion of the VP, he chose a woman of color as his running mate.  He has nominated the first ever African-American women to be on the Supreme Court.  His cabinet is beautifully diverse, the most diverse in history.  Even in a polarized environment, and well after he’s been elected, he keeps talking about race and focusing on diversity in general.  His cabinet looks like America, and he speaks to a pretty broad spectrum of us…from working class whites to people of color to military veterans, to moderates, to progressives, and to the many in-between, even if we aren’t quite ready to hear him.

#7:  He doesn’t demonize people.  It has to be tempting.  I admit I’ve been doing way too much demonizing the last few years.  He sees the consequences of the stupidity and selfishness (there I go again) of so many in our country lately.  Yet he always tries to pull people in, to speak to their better selves.  It is a good example that I should follow.  Here, I’ll try:  he sees through our dysfunction, and our pain; he perceives how much we struggle to be kind to each other, to be better, and he appeals to our better angels.  There…that feels so much better.  Thanks Mr. President.

#8:  He’s from Delaware!  I’m from Delaware too! (he even went on a couple of dates with my Mom while they were both at the University of Delaware).   Isn’t it a little bit interesting, maybe even ironic, that at a time of such historic struggle and strife, someone from our 2^nd smallest state is the President?  Though small, Delaware had a big role in the founding of the country, and was the 1^st state.  I think history will say that Biden, like Delaware, was a very consequential leader.  And Mom remembered him as someone who was clearly “going places.”  You were right, Mom.  And by the way, thanks for marrying Dad.  I would’ve been a bad First Son.

#9:  He is saving and strengthening NATO and helping the world stand up for democracy and participatory government, at a time when autocracy and dictatorship are on the rise.  Do we really want to live in a world where dictators are empowered and freedom is shrinking?  We learned in the last couple of decades that we can’t force democracy on unwilling countries.  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep standing up for freedom, helping countries that want participatory government and more individual freedom, and standing up to dictators where we can.  This is an issue abroad, and as we’ve learned recently, at home as well.  Ultimately our freedom is enhanced when the freedom of others is enhanced.  I think President Biden deeply understands this.

#10:  He has a sense of the moment.  When he decided to run, he said it was to save the soul of the country.  He knew this was a big moment in history, he understood that something essential about our great pluralistic, democratic republic was at risk.  He wanted - and wants - to help save it.  He was willing to heed the call and jump into the abyss, like a protagonist in a hero’s journey.  He, and we, are now in the abyss, struggling with the beast, so to speak.  His lessons will be our lessons, and if we are fortunate, he will help lead us forward from the abyss, with new knowledge, and stronger.  This is what I hope for and believe he will ultimately be known for.

He has made plenty of mistakes.  Don’t they (and we) all?  I won’t list them out.  But we should be rooting for him.  His struggle is our struggle.  His success is our success - especially now.  Thank you for your service, Joe Biden.  I’m glad you are our President.

National Coming Out Day: A Reunion with Myself

 National Coming Out Day:  A Reunion with Myself

Mark Kaplan

October 11, 2021

Today is National Coming Out Day, a decades long celebration of the power of being oneself in the world.  It is a particularly relevant time for me to be thinking about my own coming out process.  I am returning home from my 40^th high school reunion.  When I think about my life, as an openly gay married man in 2021, in comparison to how I felt and what I thought was possible in 1981, I am grateful for how much has changed.  The pace of that change has been stunning in many ways.

In 1981, I hadn’t fully figured out who I was, although I had some idea.  I remember the anxiety about not being able to envision a future for myself.  I don’t just mean a career, or where I would live; I mean imagining my life.  From the time I sensed I was “different” in some way that was significant, I simultaneously knew that it was seen as a bad difference, and that I shouldn’t tell anyone.  Like many other gay people (and almost certainly people of any sexual orientation other than heterosexual), I began to live a double life.  I presented one version of myself to others, while trying to understand, suppress, and manage an important aspect of my true identity.  In what felt like a survival strategy, I went on some dates with girls, I tried to not act like a stereotypical gay person, and I tried to keep a distance from others when it came to true intimacy in friendships.  I certainly kept any real attraction hidden or well-camouflaged.

While this sounds difficult, and it really was, I still managed to form relationships that were intimate to a degree, supportive, and genuine.  I reconnected this weekend, and in the build up to the reunion, with some of those people:  the young woman I went to the prom with, a girl I briefly dated, and a group of friends who I intuitively trusted even back in those days of fear and anxiety.  They didn’t know that they were creating safety for me, but they were.  I wish I could’ve told them then, and I wish I hadn’t had to hide.  To any of my old friends who are reading this, thank you for what you did for me, unknowingly (or maybe not), all those years ago and since.  What I offer in return is my authenticity and my friendship.  Being out allows me to be a better friend, and it brings home the notion that we are all more free when everyone is free.

What was most impactful about the reunion weekend was my experience of myself, 40 years later.  At a reunion we might compare ourselves to others for better or for worse, but this is not the comparison that matters.  What matters is the comparison of myself from then to now.  Having the experience of being a more fully developed person, having accepted who I was and taken ownership for my life is a wonderful feeling, and one available to all who come out.  In comparing myself at different points in time I am able to see the arc of my life, remembering what it was like to be me, so filled with fear and anxiety, constantly managing others’ perceptions, against the current me who is happy to be who I am, fulfilled in my life and my relationships.  I remember National Coming Out Days in my young adulthood, when I was still early in the process and still living a double life, having come out to some but not to others, including my parents.  I remember the fear and dread I had of coming out to them, but also sensing (luckily) that it would all turn out well.  Indeed, it did.  Just like my 40^th high school reunion, National Coming Out Day reminds me of my journey, and invites me to be aware of and present to the power of self-acceptance.  Self-acceptance is a necessary pre-cursor to broader acceptance by others, and perhaps the most important step in the coming out process.

Even today, after being out to everyone in my life, and publicly, for more than 3 decades, I still wonder, when I share my orientation with people who I don’t know, often in some subtle way like an offhand mention of my husband, how they will receive that information and how it might change their perception of me.  Homophobia is nowhere near gone, despite all the progress, and we should respect that the journey to coming out can be fraught and tumultuous.

To those of you who have come out, I hope you will take a minute to reflect on that powerful act, and think about how it changed your life.  I hope the result has been that you feel, like me, that your life is more rich, more real, more authentic.  I hope you see that the energy you put into hiding who you are and trying to stay safe, was energy that you now put into living your life in the way you wish.  I hope you see that your coming out was not just a gift to yourself, but a gift to the others around you, who can now enjoy your authentic presence.  That might’ve been the best part of the reunion, that just being myself allowed me to reconnect, or finally connect, to the classmates with whom I spent much of my youth.  To those who have yet to come out, be gentle with yourself.  Yes, there has been so much progress in the last 40 years, but coming to terms with being gay in a society that is less condemning overall, but still neutral at best, is a challenging journey.  You are doing the best you can right now.  Keep going, and listen to the voice inside of you that knows everything will be alright.  Seek out support, and make your way in the way that you can.  Remember that there are a lot of people lovingly and patiently waiting for you, most of all yourself.

We Are Still, Mostly, Liberals

 

Blog:  We Are Still, Mostly, Liberals

MGK

March 11, 2021

 

I am enrolled in a graduate program in Philosophy, and the latest course is in Economic Philosophy.  It is fantastic to learn more about economic approaches and systems and think about how they interact with culture and politics.  I have learned much that has made me slow down and think, and I wanted to share a little bit of that.  I’m not an expert here; I’m a learner, but I thought you might want to learn along with me.

 

If I said to you that much of the country, moving from left to right from anywhere near the center of the political continuum, and including traditional Democrats and traditional Republicans, are liberals, you might challenge that.  The problem is in the way the word “liberal” is used, whether pejoratively (by some on the right) or inaccurately.  We think of liberals as progressive, tolerant, open-minded, and not concerned about conserving cultural and religious traditions.  However, in a political-economic context, the term “liberalism” has a long history going back a few hundred years to the period known as the Age of Enlightenment, to the work of western Enlightenment thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, John Locke and Adam Smith, among others.

These Enlightenment ideas are central to American political and economic life, and have been since our beginning.   Liberalism, or “classical liberalism,” is an idea centered on the primacy of the individual and the individual’s rights, rights which are “self-evident” and “unalienable.”   I’m sure you are familiar with those words, and the related ones, also from our founding documents, such as our individual rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  Our country was founded on the platform of classical liberalism, based on individual rights and freedoms.  However, it is worth noting that we are still, some two hundred and fifty years later, trying to fully realize this vision of individual rights and liberties.  When our country was founded, women, people of color, and many other groups, were not afforded those same rights, despite the vision having been clear.  We continue to work to close the gap between that vision and our lived reality.

 Traditional conservatives and Republicans are classical liberals.  Those fighting for lower taxes and less regulation are classical liberals.  Those fighting hard for the rights of women, people of color, trans people, are classical liberals, too.  Most of us living in the US are classical liberals.  Indeed, what holds us together is our shared belief in the rights and liberties of individuals.  Basically, since this country’s beginning, classical liberalism, translated as the belief that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the collective, has won.  This doesn't mean we are entirely individually-oriented.  We do, like some Enlightenment thinkers, consider the common good and shared interests, but individuality does stand on a higher shelf.

 Americans have always opposed central control, also known as socialism.  Socialism, based on a collectivist approach, has always lost badly.  “What?” you say?  “I thought we were on the verge of becoming a socialist country, like the ones in Western Europe.  I hear it on the news and read articles about it on social media!”  Well, not really.  Socialism is a system wherein government controls the means of production, meaning all companies, factories, etc.  A socialist system is not a democracy; it is a collectivist approach wherein the central government owns everything.  We are nowhere near that, and will likely never be, at least in our lifetimes.  Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist, he is a Democratic Socialist.  Democratic Socialism, as it is called in Western Europe, is a democratic system with a more substantial social welfare component which provides forms of government assistance for the welfare of citizens, for example retirement income supplements, healthcare, food and housing assistance, as well as more regulation of the employer-employee relationship.  Their business economic systems, however, are largely privately owned, just like ours in the US.  Think of Democratic Socialism as the left end of the classic liberal continuum, with Libertarianism as the right end.  It is far from Socialism, as it accepts capitalism and democracy, though it does attempt to take the rough, perhaps cruel edge off free market capitalism.

 What is so concerning about our recent politics is that we have come close to embracing a political movement that it is illiberal.  In other words, we have witnessed an attempt to bestow a large amount of power into an individual leader, giving that individual “above the law” status and allowing that leader to circumvent democratic processes, such as how public funds get appropriated and how elections get decided and certified.  This movement is really a movement against liberalism, dressed up as populist nationalism.  It has a militaristic fascist component.  It represents a break from our traditional liberalism, and we should all be very concerned should another Trump-style leader and movement gain decisive power in our three branches of government again.

 The Trump movement is much closer to the centralized power that we fear from Socialism, and it is much farther from our modern Democrat, Republican and Democratic Socialist parties.  Sometimes it seems that the political “wars” between traditional Ds and Rs are exhausting and unending.  Indeed, they can be, but that isn’t always a bad thing.  It means conversations and debates are taking place between liberals, i.e., classical liberals.  The existential threat to our system is not the fight about tax rates, or minimum wages, or immigration, or healthcare.  Those can all be dealt with inside of the large tent of classical liberalism.  The threat is whether we are willing to turn over our liberties, our institutions, and our laws to an individual and a movement that want to be above them.  The true threat, and the real choice, is between liberalism and fascism.  I could ask the question: “Which side are you on?”, but I think it is better to ask: “How have you been thinking about this?” 

 What I have attempted to present here is an historical and intellectual description of economic systems, but the cultural aspect is equally important.  From a cultural perspective, we are very polarized, and often, it seems that our political identities are not always aligned with our views on issues and policies.  We largely agree on many important issues - more often than we think.  We focus on our differences, making them bigger than they really are.  In the US, we live in a big tent of classical liberalism.  It is at the core of our founding; it is the core of who we are.   We argue in this tent, but there is plenty of room for debate.  We must not forget who we are.  Let’s not miss the forest for the trees.  Even at our most polarized moments, we have always been on the same side in terms of the kind of country we are, or at least the kind of country we strive to be.  Let’s remember that.