Frustrating the Pursuit of Happiness

In 1943, the American psychologist Abraham Maslow introduced a theory that became an important tool in sociology, management training, and psychology.  I learned about it in a college business management class, and it made a big impact on me.  In his paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" in Psychological Review, Maslow described a hierarchy of needs, in the form of a triangle with five levels.  The bottom level or base of the triangle represented the most critical need, and the four above could not be addressed properly until the one(s) below were met.

The base of the hierarchy of needs triangle he called physiological.  “Undoubtedly these physiological needs are the most pre-potent of all needs. … A person who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem would most probably hunger for food more strongly than for anything else”.

In his theory, the next most important need was safety.  “If the physiological needs are relatively well gratified, there then emerges a new set of needs, which we may categorize roughly as the safety needs.

“The healthy, normal, fortunate adult in our culture is largely satisfied in his safety needs. The peaceful, smoothly running, 'good' society ordinarily makes its members feel safe enough from wild animals, extremes of temperature, criminals, assault and murder, tyranny, etc.  Therefore, in a very real sense, he no longer has any safety needs as active motivators. Just as a sated man no longer feels hungry, a safe man no longer feels endangered. If we wish to see these needs directly and clearly, we must turn to neurotic or near-neurotic individuals, and to the economic and social underdogs.  In between these extremes, we can perceive the expressions of safety needs only in such phenomena as, for instance, the common preference for a job with tenure and protection, the desire for a savings account, and for insurance of various kinds (medical, dental, unemployment, disability, old age)”.

The final three levels above safety are “Love/Belonging, Esteem, and Self-actualization.  The first basic needs of food, shelter, and safety have to be met first before the last three can be pursued and achieved.

I have often thought of happiness as a state of being that closely correlates with the satisfaction of needs.  As Maslow theorized, a hungry person is not a happy person, to the point of not being as immediately concerned with safety, having friends or self-esteem, or reaching full potential.

What follows is my humble opinion on the state of our current situation, and I readily stipulate that it could be considered oversimplified.

As we have progressed into the 21st century, the challenges to happiness have clearly increased.  There exists a divide, both in physiological and safety concerns.  Income inequality has led to people finding themselves in varying stages of food and shelter insecurity.  It follows that their health is also endangered.  For those that are secure enough regarding food and shelter, there are varying degrees of access to good, affordable education.

Access to excellent health care is a clear determinant of happiness, and is unevenly available depending on economic and employment status.  Being gainfully and satisfactorily employed is another recognized source of happiness.  (Note that Maslow includes in the safety need: “the common preference for a job with tenure and protection, the desire for a savings account, and for insurance of various kinds (medical, dental, unemployment, disability, old age”).

Regardless of economic status, another threat to happiness is the availability of clean air and water.  These environmental conditions also impact health.

Historically in this country, institutional efforts to promote and ensure happiness and well-being usually fell into two political camps (parties).  One camp recognized the need for health and retirement security, and enacted Social Security and Medicare.  They also more recently acted to ensure that health insurance would be available to the millions that previously did not have it.   

One camp attempted to direct more resources to education, and stressed the importance of affordable and debt-free higher education.  They also recognized the threat to mankind and the planet from carbon-based fuels, and pursued a green-energy policy.  Interestingly, they were not the ones that enacted the GI Bill, or formed the Environmental Protection Agency, which shows that there have always been well-intentioned people in both camps.

One camp recognized that there is a widening income gap, and that low-income workers were falling further behind.  Raising the minimum wage became one solution they pursued.

One camp became alarmed at the widespread proliferation of guns.  The threat to public safety became obvious, and so they attempted to enact common-sense measures to ensure that they did not fall into the wrong hands.

These and other efforts by one camp to advance the pursuit of happiness would seem to be sensible.  The other camp appears to believe otherwise.  And the overriding factor distinguishing the two camps?  The role of government (high taxes).  Medicare and Social Security equate to big government.  Regulations on emissions from power plants and cars and public education?  Big government.

What if the camp that so strenuously fights the concept of big government had managed to become the only party in power since WWII?  No Social Security or Medicare.  No Education Department.  No Affordable Care Act.  These programs have provided security for millions, and are not only highly popular but essential to happiness.  

Countries are ranked in order of happiness, based on a wide range of factors.  The Scandinavian countries always rank at or near the top, while recent surveys place the U.S. at 13th.  Danish happiness expert Meik Wiking outlines some reasons for why his country is #1.

The main reason: “…the welfare model is what fundamentally underpins the nation's well-being — they have high taxes but receive social security, universal healthcare, and a universal pension in return.  

“…there is "wide support for the welfare state.  The support stems from an awareness of the fact that the welfare model turns our collective wealth into well-being…”

The fundamental underpinnings of our country are free enterprise and capitalism, so I am convinced that Socialism or setting up a welfare state would never happen.  But the happiest people live in countries where their governments have taken steps to make it more achievable.  So what is the answer for us?  Are we to stand by and allow social programs to be cancelled or privatized?  After all, one of the rights specified in the U.S. Declaration of Independence is the pursuit of happiness, along with life and liberty.  It is appropriate for citizens to expect that their country would promote and advance their happiness.

Our democracy depends on having two camps, providing the necessary balance between conservative and liberal ideologies.  There was a time when the two camps worked together and found common ground on issues relating to the general welfare and happiness of the American people.  Rancorous partisanship has now become the operating principle, and we remain divided into two bitterly opposed camps.

We all seek happiness in our own way, and it is an expressed goal for most.   What we are willing to accept is the question.  Is it acceptable to have one camp attempting to undertake steps to promote happiness, while the other works to frustrate those steps?

D. Norman

The New Abnormal - the Unconventional Twitter President

Kellyanne Conway, newly-appointed Counselor to the President for Donald Trump, in an interview last November on Hannity, had this to say about her boss:

“Well, apart from the protective press pool questions, structurally, I think you're going to have a very unconventional presidency in Donald Trump because he's unconventional.  He starts out as an outsider non-politician who's accustomed to building things, fixing things, delivering, producing.  He's a guy who produces results, and that's what people want.”

The hallmark of this unconventionality is his use of Twitter.  He literally tweeted his way into the White House.  From the linked opinion piece: “I imagine researchers will study Trump’s campaign tactics for years to come. In fact, analyses of Twitter’s impact on the 2016 presidential election have already begun.  The New York Times even recently cataloged all of the 'people, places, and things' Trump insulted on Twitter.  Trump’s unconventional methods, originally ridiculed by traditional pundits as ineffective and sounding like a 'rushed, high-school term paper', thrived on Twitter’s quick and unfiltered universe.  His campaign could test acerbic messages in near real-time with his followers and determine whether to continue them on the campaign trail.

“Traditional politicians looking to remain in office may discover that Trump’s unconventional rise has created a new normal for campaign strategies.  Unsurprisingly, Twitter users whose posts get a lot of engagement through likes, retweets and replies post more frequently than users who do not.  And research also shows that emotions on Twitter are contagious - both negative and positive tweets generate more of the same on the platform (with positive tweets being more contagious).  As emotion played a role in this year’s political campaign, unlocking the secrets to wide and permanent dissemination will bode well for political candidates who harness the power of Twitter and other social media forms… at least until the next innovation comes along.”

On this past Sunday’s Meet the Press program, Rich Lowry of the National Review commented:

“I think everyone needs to get used to this. This is the new abnormal. And Trump is going to - he finds this very effective and emotionally gratifying form of communication. His supporters love it. When he lambastes his critics, especially when he tramples on what are taken to be conventions and pieties of our politics, which is that you don't hit back hard against John Lewis.”

Another participant, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute stated:

“This is what works for Donald Trump. This is who he is. And to a large extent, we need to all think about how it is that the rest of the body politic in Washington reacts to this. If we all stand up and start screaming every time he drops a tweet, we're going to be very, very, very tired. Sorry, Jeff [Goldberg, of The Atlantic], the daily stuff-- at the end of the year.  We need, we need to recognize that, first of all, not every tweet is policy.”

But does this tweeting constitute an inherent danger going forward into the Presidency? National security experts believe that foreign countries are already using Trump’s tweets to their advantage.  They also worry about the risk that the tweets will be misunderstood:

“…140 characters often don’t leave space for much context, explanation or nuance. So what Trump writes may come across as more forthright and harsher than what foreign governments are accustomed to hearing in the diplomatic arena. The risk for a misunderstanding is, therefore, higher.”

And: “If Trump’s comments accurately reflect his intent, then we’re giving the opponents a head start in dealing with the incoming presidential administration,” a former U.S. intelligence officer said of Trump’s Twitter habits. “If his comments are meant to conceal other intentions, then we’re doing a pretty good job in misleading our adversaries.

“A foreign government may check to see if Trump uses certain types of words before he takes certain types of actions. If Trump keeps tweeting during his presidency, a foreign entity may analyze what types of things he writes before making a policy announcement.”

People took note back in 2008 when Barack Obama made extensive use of social media.  It was called by some “the Facebook election”.  Much was made of his two million Facebook followers, with 112,000 more on Twitter.  Eight years later, Trump can boast having 20+ million Twitter followers.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton prided themselves in developing detailed and wide-ranging policies.  However, their attempts at explaining them have, in my opinion, been a dismal failure.  The substance of their messages always seemed to be sabotaged by the style of their delivery.  I am convinced that many of President Obama’s carefully crafted speeches were met with disdain, and brushed off as lecturing.  Clinton tried during the campaign to highlight the plight of workers thrown out of their jobs in the coal industry.  She had a vision of the new approaches to addressing the issue, but her poorly-chosen words provided Donald Trump with more easily understood Twitter fodder.  

Listening to Donald Trump’s speeches, I am always struck by the effectiveness of his delivery.  The content is frequently lacking in specifics, but he hammers home his points by repeating them over and over.  He pauses frequently to let his audience cheer. He fires up the emotions in them, even though he offers more hyperbole than substance. For example, he offered the hope of restoring jobs to the coal miners, when in reality it is well understood that the industry is dying.

Clearly the die has been cast for future elections. Truth and facts seem to have lost their currency.  Fake news sites affect what information gets circulated, and by the time the source is debunked the damage is done.  Some type of abbreviated social media communication tool will be more often used in place of fully researched articles.

But Trump’s favorite form appears to be on the wane:

"
If Mr. Obama came to power in a time of great optimism for Twitter, Mr. Trump lords over a waning platform.  What was once a hopeful place for global connection and resistance has become a site for coordinating harassment campaigns, connecting with white supremacists and accelerating unverified and sometimes dangerous rumors.  Its growth has slumped and its stock price has stagnated.

“But the place suits Mr. Trump’s purposes fine.  For the guy who’s all about appearances, Twitter provides the veneer of populist connection without the hassle of accountability.  Sean Spicer, Mr. Trump’s incoming press secretary, has suggested that Twitter town halls and Reddit forums may replace some typical presidential press interactions, where he can easily make himself available to anonymous fans instead of the scrutiny of the press.  The social media platforms that were once heralded as democratic tools could also be used to undermine democratic norms.

“All of this works because one group is as intoxicated by Twitter as Mr. Trump is: journalists. It’s hard to explain to a normal person — one of the 79 percent of American adults who don’t use Twitter — why the platform mesmerizes the news media.

“Mr. Trump expertly exploits journalists’ unwavering attention to their Twitter feeds, their competitive spirit and their ingrained journalistic conventions — chiefly, that what the president says is inherently newsworthy. As a developer and reality show star, he lobbied the news media for coverage. Now journalists feel obligated to pay attention to him.”

Ironically, the press that so eagerly went along and supplied so much of the momentum for Trump, may be turned away from his administration:

“According to three senior officials on the transition team, a plan to evict the press corps from the White House is under serious consideration by the incoming Trump Administration. If the plan goes through, one of the officials said, the media will be removed from the cozy confines of the White House press room, where it has worked for several decades. Members of the press will be relocated to the White House Conference Center—near Lafayette Square—or to a space in the Old Executive Office Building, next door to the White House.

“Another senior official… suggested a more pointed motivation for the move.  According to the official, the potential relocation reflected a view within the transition team that coverage of Trump has been so hostile as to indicate that the press has abandoned its role as neutral observer.  ‘They are the opposition party.  I want 'em out of the building.  We are taking back the press room.’”

As a previously cited article noted, Twitter managed to become the favored tech of the day, enabling politics to be as close as the palms of our hands.  Full credit must be given to Mr. Trump for harnessing it in his unconventional campaign with such effectiveness.  I wonder what the new abnormal holds for our country and the world in his upcoming unconventional presidency.

D. Norman

Faith and the President-elect

A definition of faith is the complete trust or confidence in someone or something, most notably when there is an absence of evidence or proof.  The word is often used in association with religion, which is not the case here.  My interest in the word relates to how people faithfully believe the promises and claims of a person who is soon to be leader of the free world, regardless of what they are.

The newly-elected President had a good deal of success in his campaign relying on people having an abundance of faith in him and his pronouncements.  He made many promises on the campaign trail and at his rallies, which were often marked by a high degree of emotion, and were responded to in kind by those in his audiences.

At one count, over the course of the campaign the President-elect managed to offer up 282 promises.  An example: refusing to ever eat another Oreo cookie until Nabisco returned its production back to the U.S. from Mexico.  Another: releasing his tax returns as soon as the IRS finishes its audit.  He even managed to contradict himself regarding the minimum wage, as referenced in the linked article:

“12. Leave the federal minimum wage at $7.25 per hour, which is ‘already too high’.

13. Raise the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour, as ‘$7.25 is too low’ and ‘the minimum wage has to go up’.”

The President-elect in essence was telling people to take his word for most of his promises.  After all, how would they ever be able to confirm that he never again ate an Oreo?  He says that doesn’t care about his businesses any longer- he just cares about his country.  Just take his word for it- there will never be any conflicts of interest.  Or:

“38. ‘We will double our growth and have the strongest economy anywhere in the world.’”  Just take his word for it.

He has at times allowed himself to speculate that he will be President for eight years:  

“232. ‘And at the end of four years, I guarantee you that I will get over 95 percent of the African American vote. I promise you. Because I will produce.’”  Again- take his word for it.  Really, there is no other choice, is there?

The election was about seven weeks ago, and the President-elect is amazingly taking credit for the improved economy, higher stock market, and how much money was spent during this Christmas holiday.  His tweet on the 26th: “The world was gloomy before I won – there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10% and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!”  Actually, the more accurate figure for November and December spending is estimated to be a little more that half of that.  And ironically, the reality according to CNBC on Dec. 2 is this: “Obama's biggest parting gift to Trump may be the economy”.  My guess is that his faithful would more readily believe his tweet.

Much has been made recently of the term “post-truth”, named word of the year by the English Oxford Dictionary.  Their statement:

“After much discussion, debate, and research, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 is post-truth – an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.”

I wrote back in January of last year:  “An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be objectively proven to have occurred. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact.”

Faith has always had a place in our world, to our benefit or detriment depending on a person’s point of view.  The philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his 1954 book Human Society in Ethics and Politics, espoused the latter.  An excerpt:

“… What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define ‘faith’ as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of ‘faith.’

We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups substitute different emotions…”

The President-elect possesses an uncanny aptitude for appealing to emotion, so as to often avoid providing evidence.  His promises sound good, and a good many people seem content to take his word for them.  In reality, he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet and many of his promises have been broken.  Breitbart News has taken him to task for his decision not to push for criminal investigations of his opponent over her emails.

In the end, though, I believe that what matters most is not what the President-elect believes or says.  I have observed him to be a person without some of the traits that define a rigid ideologue.  He wants to be liked and respected as someone who is practical and can solve problems.  He switches positions readily, and appears to be easily swayed.  He can’t seem to decide how he feels about the current President.  During the campaign he frequently called him “the worst president in history”.  After meeting with him post-election, he changed that to saying that he has “great respect” for him and “I look very much forward to dealing with the president in the future, including counsel.”

What concerns me more are the people he is surrounding himself with in his cabinet and administration, and who will have his ear.  As has been pointed out, these will be the people making and changing policy.  They are firm and consistent in their beliefs.  How readily will their boss go along with their actions?  And, of course, there will be at least one Supreme Court pick for him to make, which will influence the direction of the country far beyond the next four or eight more years.

D. Norman