Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop The Subject

(WSJ graphic)

The state of politics stresses out many Americans: [bold added]

A study published in September in the journal PLOS One found that politics is a source of stress for 38% of Americans.

“The major takeaway from this is that if our numbers are really anywhere in the ballpark, there are tens of millions of Americans who see politics as exacting a toll on their social, psychological, emotional and even physical health,” says Kevin Smith, lead author of the study and chair of the political science department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

The study included 800 people in a nationally representative poll and asked them 32 questions. Among the findings:
* 11.5% say politics has adversely affected their physical health.
* 18.3% say they’ve lost sleep because of politics.
* 26.4% say they have become depressed when a preferred candidate lost.
* 26.5% say politics has led them to hate some people.
* 20% say differences in views have damaged a valued friendship.

...Common problems include sleep disturbances and falling out with family members and friends with divergent views. Social media battles are another source of tension. [Dr. Amanda Johnson, Iowa psychologist,] advises patients to take breaks from social media and watching the news. “If they want to be engaged, we work on finding ways they could have some effect on change, like becoming more involved with a campaign,” she says.

She also encourages patients to set boundaries with family and friends to avoid inflammatory conversations.

Too bad the survey didn't provide details about the political views of those who are losing sleep, initiating the breakup of friendships, or feeling angry. I daresay the vast majority of the troubled oppose President Trump. Living in the great Blue State of California, I often experience people bringing politics into discussions--usually out of nowhere and usually not just critical but scornful of the President.

I remarked on this anger and polarization in 2008, breathing a sigh of relief when President Obama was elected though I didn't vote for him:.

Put in the pictures of Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump, and the matrix is still valid

For nearly eight years we’ve had to put up with not just whining but vituperative outbursts at home, in classes, at work, on TV, in coffee shops, and in bookstores. Exposure to the enraged is very wearying, if not hazardous to one’s health. Most conservatives avoided political arguments because they often culminated in personal insults and screaming fits.

Frankly, I feared a McCain come-from-behind win because of the anger his victory would have unleashed. (Take the Proposition 8 protests in California and multiply by a thousand.) The Obama triumph, on the other hand, has triggered overwhelming exultation in those who voted for him and only anxiety and disappointment---but very few instances of anger---in McCain supporters.

I thought that not only the Obama victory but the Democratic sweep in 2009-2010 would have ratcheted down the temperature in American politics. Everyone can see that the pendulum swings, power isn't permanent, and each side gets a chance. Boy, was I wrong; in 2019 the anger seems more pronounced than ever.

My advice, which I've followed (most of the time) during the Obama and Trump years: Turn Off the television, Tune Out the news, and drop politics from your discussions.

The Times We Live and Die In

(Image from Express news)

This has been a sad year. I've attended memorial services for four (unrelated) people. They ranged in age from 66 to 90; all deaths were due to natural causes, so no one's passing was a tragedy in the life-suddenly-cut-short sense.

At each ceremony there were tears but laughter, too, as speakers lovingly talked about incidents that most had forgotten. That's how it is with memorial services--kind words for the deceased, memories of good times, and, for a few hours, suspension of any conflict among the persons gathered.

That's why the recent memorial services for John McCain and Aretha Franklin were so disappointing, even appalling. I can't fathom the insensitivity that caused some speakers to allude--though not by name--to the current President and what he does that angers them.

Just imagine if we did that in normal America---"Ruth was a wonderful, helpful teacher, not like certain individuals who didn't work a minute of overtime and are just hanging around for retirement" or "Julia was a decisive, but caring leader at XYZ Corp., unlike others in the company who enjoyed slashing budgets and managing by intimidation." No, it's not about other people, even those whom the speakers find despicable and whom the loved one may be far superior to.

I suppose the lesson is to be careful when selecting speakers for a funeral. Most are classy enough to focus on the mission--honoring a life- but some can egomaniacally deflect the attention to themselves and their ephemeral concerns.

The last thing a grieving family needs to worry about is whether a eulogist will be kind and thoughtful, but those are the times we live and die in.

What He Endured

1973: President Nixon greets a POW (WSJ)

As a politician his "maverick" positions could exasperate his allies. As a man there was none better.

Tributes from across the world poured in for John McCain, who died today.

Two comments:
1) Our household seldom agrees on politics, so we don't waste our money on offsetting political donations. We did agree, however, on John McCain, whose 2008 Presidential campaign received the only political contribution we have ever made.

2) I am rarely offended by anything the current President--or his opponents--say. However, when candidate Trump said that John McCain was a war hero because "he was captured," that crossed the line. People admired John McCain not for the fact of his imprisonment but for how he conducted himself in captivity.

David Foster Wallace followed John McCain for Rolling Stone during the 2000 Presidential campaign. It's a lengthy excerpt that reminds us of what he endured:

Weary of Pizzazz

Although California is among the bluest of blue states (Obama over McCain 61%-37% in the 2008 general election), Republicans are harboring hopes for 2010. The Chronicle quotes George Will:

"Although California is a blue state, it has had Republican governors for 30 of the last 43 years," he wrote. "The Republican revival nationally might begin here next year."

It’s no big secret why some may feel this way. After the Inauguration our problems weren’t solved; in fact they’ve gotten worse. Unemployment is over 10%, $20+ billion in State budget deficits have necessitated visible cutbacks in services (government offices are closed on Fridays), and individuals have taken huge hits to their net worth in real estate and financial assets. (Admittedly, the stock market recovery since March has improved investors’ mood to sour from panicky fear).

Unlike the Federal government, California can’t print currency, so further government expansion as a solution to its problems has hit a brick wall. Meanwhile, the private sector is shrinking as higher taxes and regulations have caused businesses to flee the State.

The high hopes of last year’s young and inexperienced dreamers have been tempered, if not dashed, by the real world. More government hasn’t made things better, and the party most closely identified with big government is dominant today but extremely vulnerable if conditions don’t improve.

However, generic conditions aren’t everything, we live in a personality-driven world. My personal tweet-takes on the candidates:

Jerry Brown (D) – State AG, former Oakland Mayor. Linda Ronstadt,‘70s tenure as Governor “Moonbeam.” Jesuit training, Lawyer. 2 years younger than John McCain.

Tom Campbell (R) – Business school dean, former Representative, socially liberal, economic conservative.

Gavin Newsom (D) – San Francisco Mayor, handsome jet-setter, 1st marriage to celebrity reporter, 2nd marriage to billionaire’s daughter. Gay-marriage advocate.

Steve Poizner (R) - State Insurance Commissioner, billionaire high-tech entrepreneur.

Meg Whitman (R) – ex-CEO of eBay, billionaire.

Republicans Poizner and Whitman have had outstanding success in business but lack a well-developed public image. In 2010 this may be an advantage to an electorate weary of pizzazz and eager for a resume with results.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Obama

Conservatives in blue states can come out of hiding. Our lives will be better now that Barack Obama will be the next President. And this happy circumstance will have nothing to do with his politics.

For nearly eight years we’ve had to put up with not just whining but vituperative outbursts at home, in classes, at work, on TV, in coffee shops, and in bookstores. Exposure to the enraged is very wearying, if not hazardous to one’s health. Most conservatives avoided political arguments because they often culminated in personal insults and screaming fits.

Frankly, I feared a McCain come-from-behind win because of the anger his victory would have unleashed. (Take the Proposition 8 protests in California and multiply by a thousand.) The Obama triumph, on the other hand, has triggered overwhelming exultation in those who voted for him and only anxiety and disappointment---but very few instances of anger---in McCain supporters. The emotion matrix looks something like this:


Economists say that we shouldn’t add someone’s joy to another’s sorrow--measuring the group’s overall welfare from the sum of the parts is a methodological minefield--but any married couple will tell you that they make those calculations all the time. He will go to the opera if she will go to the baseball game [reverse the pronouns’ gender to make the last sentence more palatable, if you like]. In either case the happiness experienced by one far outweighs the mild unhappiness and boredom experienced by the other, and the net wellbeing of the couple is positive.

From a group perspective an Obama victory means that we’ll all get along a lot better. My moderate unhappiness is quickly dispelled if everyone around me is smiling. And what is the value of a mildly satisfactory McCain victory if that means we have to be surrounded by apoplectic rage for the next four years?


Love is in the air. The esteemed Governor of California remarked that, although his candidate lost, I can get back into the bedroom, so there's the big advantage.

And it came to pass, in the months before Barack ascended to his high office, that the pony lay down with the pachyderm. © 2008 Stephen Yuen

Poll Axed

Screenshot from RCP this morning.

Many Republicans haven’t totally lost hope. The polls are wrong, McCain adherents say (and pray), because the questions are biased toward eliciting a certain answer, because those polled don’t want to be thought of as racists, because too much weight is given to Democrats in setting up the sample, because conservatives hang up or don’t answer the phone, and any number of other reasons that Senator McCain can still win.

Where there’s hope there’s life. But why would pollsters discredit their own industry and their own brand? Surely the polling companies are aware of the possible flaws in their methods. A McCain win on November 4th would put a lot of them out of business, for who would trust their product?

Well, I suppose that if the financial system is experiencing a crisis not seen since the Thirties, a Forties-like upset of “Dewey Wins” proportions wouldn’t be a total shock. But I often hark back to a rule of thumb: expecting businessmen to act against their own best interest is a loser’s game; I don’t see why that wouldn’t be true here. The Chicago Tribune can start printing its headline now.

I Want My Billy Jeff

The events of the past few months---Hurricane Ike, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Russian invasion of Georgia---weren’t on our radar screen when the political parties were choosing their Presidential nominees. The Iraq war, which many thought would be the most important issue in the Presidential campaign, has been relegated to the inside pages. Neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain seem up to handling the challenges of this Black Swan era, when “extreme events do happen and have a big effect” on the course of history.

Ideology is of secondary importance. We need a leader whose knowledge of economics, culture, arts, science, history, international affairs and the exercise of military power is both broad and deep. We need a President who can judge when to move quickly and when to go slow, when to act in concert with others and when to act unilaterally. We need a man or woman of experience as well as intellectual bandwidth. We need someone who can articulate his thinking clearly and bring the people around to his point of view. It’s time to repeal the 22nd Amendment. We need, and I never thought I would ever say this, William Jefferson Clinton. © 2008 Stephen Yuen

A Teaching Moment

The Sarah Palin story won’t stop moving. Jeff Goldstein chronicles the crazy narratives that the win-at-any-cost leftists are throwing up on the wall in the hope that one of them will stick to the Alaska governor. The rumor that even most Obama-Biden supporters wouldn’t touch was the one that had Governor Palin covering up an out-of-wedlock birth of a son to her 17-year-old daughter Bristol by claiming Trig as her own.

Today the McCain campaign confirmed that Bristol is pregnant and will marry the father of the child. As one commentator remarked, Astounding!

The good news for Palin supporters is that there’s no question that Trig is Sarah’s child. It’s biologically impossible for Trig to have been born in April to Bristol and for Bristol now to be five months pregnant.

Nevertheless, Bristol’s pregnancy is a troubling distraction at best. It could raise a host of questions and commentary on the Palins’ parenting abilities, Bristol’s decision to have the baby and get married (if abortion is not an option, why not give the baby up for adoption?), what their religious beliefs say about this situation, the wisdom of joining a Presidential campaign when all this is going on in one’s family, etc.

It is also possible, however, to look at the Palin predicament as one of life’s teaching moments, the unforeseen kind that usually arises when one is presumptuous enough to make plans. The Palins are trying to be true to their faith by walking a much more difficult path, in one case carrying a Down’s Syndrome baby to term and in another case not terminating a teenaged pregnancy. The needs of the other--the child--outweigh the needs of the self.

Political opponents may characterize evangelical Christians’ support of the Palin family as hypocritical expediency, much as feminist groups rallied around Bill Clinton despite his serial womanizing. But that characterization would be wrong; it simply shows how far removed from reality is the media stereotype of sincere Christians as burn-em-at-the-stake Cotton Mathers.

Christians, whether liberal or conservative, Protestant or Catholic, rich or poor, know that they have all sinned and yet are forgiven. I have never heard a Christian (whom I personally know, not the ones on TV) pass judgment on the personal failings of others (violent terrorist actions, such as suicide bombing, I have heard condemned, but that is in a different league from what I’m talking about). This condemnatory caricature tars a whole group by the actions and words of a very small minority.

To the extent that they think to pray about these matters, I hope and expect the vast majority of Christians to put politics aside and pray for the health and welfare of Sarah Palin’s family, as they would for Barack Obama’s, Joe Biden’s, and John McCain’s. There are more important things in life than winning an election. © 2008 Stephen Yuen

Too Many Words

One of the reasons bloggers can’t enter politics---besides our their obvious personal deficiencies---is that there’s too much of a paper electronic trail to explain away. Just last month I wrote:

If I had to choose among Democrats Hillary, Biden, Richardson, Gore, and Obama to be our President, BHO would be dead last.

But how does that statement square with my effusive claim after last week’s Saddleback forum that America had picked the two best men for the Presidential finals? I can’t.

Those soulful eyes, that mellifluous voice, that handsome visage, seduced me as it has millions of others. But enough about John McCain. I’ve snapped out of it.

The Two Best Men

Rick Warren (“The Purpose-Driven Life”) of the Saddleback Church interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain tonight. My political views are much closer to one candidate than the other, but for the moment let’s put partisanship aside. There’s no doubt in my mind that we will be nominating the two best men. They each were articulate, at ease answering the questions, and gave answers that effectively portrayed their different views of the world as well as their different personal styles. We are indeed fortunate; there shouldn’t be too many Americans choosing to emigrate on November 5th. © 2008 Stephen Yuen

He Hit a Slick

John McCain has trouble reading from a teleprompter. In the unveiling of his energy plan a view days ago

he hit a slick.

“I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lex-eegton Project,” Mr. McCain said, drawing a quick breath and correcting himself. “The Lex-ing-ton Proj-ect,” he said slowly. “The Lexington Project,” he repeated. “Remember that name.”

To the cognoscenti most Republicans are barely literate boobs who, like the current inhabitant of the Oval Office, mangle the English language. However, I don’t think a lack of mental alertness, knowledge, or speaking ability is the explanation for Senator McCain’s verbal slip-ups. I was once a quick reader-out-loud, too, but with time’s passage visual acuity has slowly deteriorated, accompanied by a small but noticeable delay in the mind’s registering of what the eyes are seeing. So when it’s my turn to read the Sunday lesson out loud in church, I slow down not only because listeners can hear better but because I have to in order to keep my place. The trick is to slow down without being "slow".

If eye-mouth or eye-hand coordination was John McCain’s only problem it wouldn’t be a big deal, since he’s not trying to beat Barack Obama in a videogame. But Mr. McCain has got other obstacles to overcome.

Do you think that the difference on TV between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon was wide? Between Barack Obama and John McCain it’s a chasm: youth vs. age, tall vs. short, cool vs. hot, sexy vs. seventy, sonorous vs. snore-mous.

But John McCain has a chance because TV is no longer a new medium. It’s a rare late-night viewer who hasn’t been duped by ads for ginsu knives, miracle weight-loss programs, or courses on how to get rich in real estate (or commodities or options). The smooth-talking con artist is easily familiar, an American archetype dating back to Huckleberry Finn.

If the Republicans can turn Barack Obama into Harold Hill—endearing, funny, eloquent, but in the end all talk, no action and perhaps, even a coward when the chips are down—then John McCain has a puncher’s chance. But is he cruel enough to wage such a campaign? The temptation of the Presidency has overwhelmed other good and decent men. © 2008 Stephen Yuen

Lewis Black at the Commonwealth Club

Q & A

Perhaps it’s due to my upbringing in a temperamentally (but not politically) conservative denomination, but I’m put off by enthusiastic displays of religious fervor. The sermon and the music may indeed be inspiring, but if the person behind you repeatedly is moved to cry “Amen” or “Hallelujah”, that can be as irritating as someone talking during a movie. Is it that hard to contain a God-filled spirit, or is the worshipper just calling attention to himself? Public displays of piety don’t spring from a virtuous impulse—it even says so in the New Testament. Thankfully, it has been many years since I had witnessed such behavior, but I saw it again on Tuesday in a gathering of true believers.

Comedian Lewis Black was promoting his new book “Me of Little Faith” at the Commonwealth Club in Palo Alto. I laughed at his wry and often biting observations as I paged through its short chapters. The religious right and its allies in the Republican Party come under fire in much of the book, and he came up with new twists on their intolerance, closed mindedness, and hypocrisy, hackneyed themes though these be.

Lewis Black Inscribes A Book

What I found revealing about the evening was the hostility that emanated from every pore in the audience toward his book’s targets. A mildly derogatory comment about former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) triggered a stream of hisses. A funny observation about the religiosity of the deep South prompted loud, derisive laughter. One questioner asked, “What would you do if John McCain is elected?” hoping that the horrific possibility would catalyze Lewis Black into the paroxysms for which his act is famous. He simply replied, “You have to see who his V.P. is.” He continued about McCain “He’s on the verge of being psychotic” and compared him to a large-mouth bass; these remarks were not quite the red meat that his listeners sought. Lewis Black sensed where his audience wanted to go and, I think, halted before they got there.

Lewis Black was serious, too. He talked about his brother’s battle with and death from cancer. Ron supported Lewis during his starving-artist years, and though Lewis was too disciplined to break from his stage character, his sorrow and affection for his brother were palpable.

He riffed on the writer’s life. On inspiration: “Well, first I wake up and touch myself [laughter].” On pausing to think: "The one thing I learned about writing---when you write, you get to that impasse and you say that you’re going to think about that. That doesn’t work. Does anyone really say 'I’m going to think about that' and actually get real thoughts? So I lay down and then I touch myself." On writing with a pen: "Writing longhand, you think differently than with a keyboard. I write longhand."

How has faith affected the Bush Administration? "The problem is that when you give yourself over, you stop thinking." How true. As I looked at the sea of faces raptly uplifted to Lewis Black’s words, I was struck by their similarity in appearance to the supporters of at least one Presidential candidate. Thought, I fear, will be in short supply during the next four years. © 2008 Stephen Yuen

Don't Show Me the Money

I confess that my eyes glaze over when I read about our labyrinthine campaign finance laws. And John McCain bears responsibility for creating a lot of them so if he’s found in violation it serves him right, but this seems ridiculous.

The Democratic National Committee announced Tuesday it will sue next week in U.S. District Court. It will ask the court to order the Federal Election Commission to examine, within 30 days, the legality of McCain's decision to reject $5.8 million in taxpayer funds.

In this wonderful country you can be sued for not taking the money.

I Feel the Wrath Coming

In this morning’s political news presumptive Republican nominee John McCain

admonished Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for hedging on his promise to accept public funding if he wins his party's nomination.

Accepting matching funds is a two-edged sword; government money comes with strings attached, including limits on how much one can spend on a campaign. Contributions to Senator Obama are likely to greatly exceed those he would receive in Federal matching funds and those that would be donated to Senator McCain. Senator Obama will probably have an advantage if he turned down Federal funds.

But the point of my mentioning this is not politicians and their tactical moves. Near the bottom of the AP story is this sentence: “As Obama has gained the momentum, he has drawn a greater proportion of McCain's wrath [emphasis added]”. Where did “wrath” come from? That’s an over-the-top description of one politician criticizing another.

If the AP reporter (Libby Quaid) wants to inject Democratic talking points about Senator McCain’s emotional state, do it in the editorial section. (I would feel the same way if a news story referred to Barack Hussein Obama, which has at least the virtue of being factually true although the repeated use of his middle name would be editorializing nonetheless.)

What’s happened to the Associated Press and professional news reporting? It’s enough to make me angry. © 2008 Stephen Yuen