Rebels

Today were the nationwide "No Kings" protests across the country. I don't have a lot to say about the protests themselves, but I am a little curious how the protestors selected themselves.

I assume that if I asked a typical protestor "Why are you out here holding a sign today?" the immediate answer would be "something something Donald Trump something something." But suppose I pressed farther. Even if you disagree with him, why take to the streets? Where did you get the idea that this was a good way to respond to bad politial decisions by those in power?

I assume that at some point, honestly, the answer would frequently be, "Well I've always identified as a rebel. I've always supported the Little Guy against the faceless machines that threaten to crush him. That's just who I am."

OK, that's interesting. Always? So ... when you were three years old? Eight years old? Twelve years old? In a few cases the answer will still be, "Yes, always." (And honestly, some three year-olds can be pretty obstreperous.) But in a lot of cases the answer will be something closer to, "Well of course I had a conscience from an early age. But I really learned to lean into my identity as a rebel when I was in college."

There were a lot of old people at the "No Kings" protests, especially compared to (let's say) protests in the 1960's, which were almost universally manned by the young. This means that a lot of today's rebels are my age, or even older. So I think I have an idea what their college years were like.

There was an assumption back then that college was the time when you rebelled against your parents. The Catcher in the Rye was almost quaint and old-fashioned by that time; but the basic message—that adults were phonies and there was no salvation in that world—was a commonplace. 

As an aside: I remember that my college friends assumed I must be conservative because I regularly wore a belt to hold up my pants, and because I wore socks under my shoes. (It sounds like I'm kidding, but I'm not!) Of course, they tolerated these eccentricities, because they liked me anyway. It also meant that when their parents suddenly arrived on campus demanding to meet "some of their friends," they always sought me out. Maybe my hair was a little too long, but I shaved regularly, I showered once a day, and I was never hungover or drugged out; so I could make a good impression.

Notice what this means. It means that a large fraction of today's rebels—especially the geriatric rebels, but I assume the same dynamic has molded the younger ones too—rebelled against their parents and "societal expectations" at exactly the time that society expected them to rebel. And they did it, largely, because all their friends were doing it. In other words, their lifelong stance or identity as a Rebel was in fact dictated by societal expectations. By standing out there on the streets holding signs, they are conforming to the most restrictive of the possible identities offered to them by their elders. 

    

Context is everything

I tried to post this on Twitter, but it's too many characters. And I won't pay for more, because that means admitting who I am in real life. (Or maybe I'm just cheap.)

I wanted to reply to a post that talked about the kind of invective used by the Left against George W. Bush back in 2000 and 2004. And what I wanted to say—based entirely on personal recollections and conversations with my own friends!—was this:

In 1980, left-wing Democrats said "Reagan is basically Hitler."

In 2000, left-wing Democrats said, "I'm not mindlessly partisan, and I don't blindly hate all Republicans. Old-time Republicans like Reagan weren't so bad. But Bush is definitely Hitler."

In 2016, left-wing Democrats said, "I'm not mindlessly partisan, and I don't blindly hate all Republicans. Old-time Republicans like George W. Bush weren't so bad. But Trump is definitely Hitler."

So I assume it's only a matter of time before left-wing Democrats start saying, "You know, Trump was a little goofy but he really wasn't that bad. On the other hand, this New Guy [whoever the New Guy happens to be] is definitely Hitler."

Context is everything.  

Quebec and her King

What's going on in Quebec?

Yesterday I saw a news item that the provincial legislature of Quebec had voted to "break all ties" with the British monarchy. You can find news articles about it in places like these:

• Globe & Mail, "Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously votes to break ties with the monarchy." [This article is behind a paywall.]
• CTV News, "Quebec legislature votes unanimously to cut all ties with the monarchy."  
• MSN, "National Assembly votes to cut ties with British monarchy."  
• Montreal Gazette, "Quebec legislators vote to cut ties with British monarchy after King’s visit."   

What I don't understand is, What does it mean?

None of the articles that I read sounded alarmed. So maybe I shouldn't take alarm either.But I can't stop thinking about it.

Legally, Charles Windsor is King of Canada. Surely the consequence is that as long as Quebec is a province of Canada—and as long as Canada remains a monarchy and not a republic—there will necessarily be some ties between Quebec and the monarchy regardless what the legislature says. Doesn't that follow? And therefore it seems to me that this measure can only be construed as an ultimatum: either Canada gives up the monarchy, or Quebec will give up Canada. Republicanism or Secession. That sounds like a stark choice to me.

Le chef du Parti québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon

Naturally there might be other options. Perhaps the measure can be canceled or overruled by a higher authority (like the federal Parliament). Perhaps it was intended as no more than a protest vote, and the Quebec legislators who passed it unanimously knew they would never have to stand behind it. Such things are always possible.

But if the measure is not quietly effaced, the other alternatives don't look so pleasant. Will the rest of Canada agree to renounce the monarchy? Recent polls suggest the monarchy is largely popular in Canada right now. Will Quebec then secede? They have threatened it for years. If they try to leave, how will English Canada respond? When South Carolina tried to secede from the United States in 1861, the result was a terrible, bloody war. I remember Pierre Trudeau's willingness to deploy the Canadian Army inside of Quebec during an earlier crisis, and so I cannot rule out that the threat of secession might end badly.

On the other hand, the Canadian government might decide they have no taste for civil war. They might let Quebec go. I fear that would be a grave mistake. If Quebec were allowed to secede peacefully, I would expect Alberta to follow them out the door in another couple of months. Next would be maybe Saskatchewan and Nunavut. And suddenly Canada would look a lot more fragile than before.

I remember back in 1990, when tiny little Lithuania declared its independence from the Soviet Union. Everyone cheered. But at the same time the world held its breath, waiting for the tanks to come and squash the fledgling independence movement. 

And no tanks came. The USSR decided to let Lithuania go. They were so little, after all.

Yes, they were a tiny pebble. But such tiny pebbles cause great avalanches. In less than two years, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.

I wonder if Canada will follow the same path?

 

     

Kierkegaard on regret

How have I NOT posted this delightfully melancholy quotation before now? It comes from Søren Kierkegaard, and you can find it all over the Internet. I'm sure you've seen it before.

The thing is, I remember figuring this out on my own many years ago ... possibly even before I'd heard of Kierkegaard, and certainly before I ever encountered the quote. I knew people who regretted major decisions in their lives, turning points where they were sure (in retrospect) that they had taken the wrong path. And I remember thinking, after I'd known them for a while, ...

All this regret is silly. In the first place, if you could go back in time to The Day you made that Big Decision, you would once again be the person you were back then. You'd think the way you thought back then. You'd have the same priorities you had back then. And so you'd end up deciding the same way all over again.

What's more, even if you did happen to pick the other choice, you'd always second-guess yourself just like you do today. No choice is ever perfectly blissful. No road is ever perfectly smooth. So you'd run into problems and difficulties (just like you do today), and I guarantee you'd start telling yourself, "If only I had made The Other Choice back on That Day (meaning the one you really did make in reality), then everything would be fine now!" 😀 In the long run you'd just be trading one batch of troubles for another, and it wouldn't be any better.

Then one day I read the quote by Kierkegaard, who said the whole thing so much more elgantly.

 

    

Blame the victim!

Quick! What do all these cases have in common? Anything? Also, who's at fault in each one?

A young woman (aged somewhere between sixteen and nineteen—in your answer, let me know if her age makes a difference to you) is invited to a party. She dresses up in her sexiest outfit, drinks a lot of alcohol at the party, and behaves very flirtatiously to everyone she meets, men and women alike. By the end of the evening, she has sex that she does not remember consenting to. The boy that she accuses of raping her says he doesn't know her and he's never seen her before in his life; but he has no alibi, and his friends place him at the same party sometime that night. No witnesses will admit to seeing what happened between them.

A rich man goes out to a show in the downtown of a Big City. He has to park several blocks away. After the show, he takes a shortcut to get back to his car, which requires him to walk through a dark alley late at night. It's an unsavory part of town. The man is expensively dressed, and wears an expensive watch that he keeps checking compulsively. Also his thick wallet is visible bulging out of his back pocket. He is mugged, and stripped of everything valuable: watch, wallet, everything. It was dark, so he cannot identify his assailants.

You are a lounge singer and dancer named Michelle Triola, who has also had a couple of minor acting jobs over the years. For six years you live with a much more successful actor named Lee Marvin, but you never marry him. When you finally move out, you sue him for 50% of the $3.6 million which he earned during the time you were sleeping at his place. Your lawyer argues that even though the two of you never married, nonetheless you put your career on hold to support this man and so you deserve compensation for a kind of "marriage with no rings attached."

You are a citizen of El Salvador, who enters the United States illegally in 2011 at the age of 16. You never arrange to re-enter the country legally, and you never acquire U.S. citizenship; but eight years later (in 2019) a judge grants you "withholding of removal" status, which is a little bit like asylum but with some technical differences. (See the linked Wikipedia article for details.) You settle in Maryland, marry a wife, and have children. Then on March 15, 2025, the American immigration authorities pick you up and send you back to El Salvador, where you are still a citizen. The authorities in El Salvador put you in prison.

OK, time's up! What do all these cases have in common?

That's simple. In all four cases, the protagonist engaged in risky behavior—knowing there was a risk!—and then got caught by the risk. In principle it is no different from swimming in a tidepool posted with a sign that says "WARNING: ALLIGATORS!" and then running into an alligator.

Oh, but who was at fault? Didn't each protagonist have a right to act as he (or she) chose? Doesn't that mean that the malefactor is the Other Person, the one who caused trouble for the protagonist?

Well, yes and no. In the first three stories, yes, the young woman and the rich man and the lounge singer all had a right to act as they did. But so what? They ran into bad consequences anyway, so their right to do as they did wasn't a lot of help.

In the last story, the case is a little different. Nobody has a "right" to enter a foreign country illegally. So Kilmar Abrego Garcia was at risk from the very beginning, and must have known as much.

The first two stories are purely fictitious, though I have no doubt that stories just like them take place every year. Because they are fictitious, it is impossible to tell how partisans of the protagonists might reply. But the second pair of cases really happened, so we know exactly what was said. In both cases, partisans of the protagonists talked about the day-to-day lives of the people at the center of controversy. 

Michelle Triola spent years cooking meals for Lee Marvin, and cleaning his house, and washing his socks. Years! It's true they never married, but doesn't she deserve some recompense for all that work she put in on his behalf?

Kilmar Abrego Garcia settled in Maryland, married and raised a family. He spent years at a job. Years! His son "has autism, a hearing defect, and is 'unable to communicate verbally.'" Autism! The other children that he and his wife are raising have special needs as well. It's true that he never acquired American citizenship, but doesn't he deserve consideration and gentle treatment for all the work he has put in, and in recognition of all the trouble his children face?

In other words: It's true that neither one ever acquired the status that would put them beyond risk, but doesn't their hard work count as enough to give them the virtual status anyway?

Unfortunately, the way formal status works in the real world, the answer is: No! Formal, legal status is a real thing, and it has real consequences. If you never bother to secure that status, then you are always at risk. And if you swim often enough in a tidepool with alligators, sooner or later you're going to meet up with an alligator.

Life sucks, but them's the breaks.

It's time to go back to blaming the victim. Not for doing active harm—that's still the malefactor, if you can catch him—but for being a Damned Fool. And in the case of someone like Abrego Garcia, where the so-called "malefactor" is actually the country's law enforcement, there's nobody else to blame. 

Enter the country illegally, and you are at risk for deportation even if you are a saint while you are here.* Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

__________

* This is why I do not discuss the allegations that Abrego Garcia might have committed domestic violence, or that he might have been a gang member. None of it matters to the basic argument. Entering the country illegally and never securing legal status is enough to put him at risk. The rest is just gravy; and if those other allegations turn out to be false on deeper examination, it won't affect the basic facts that everyone already acknowledges.