Self-Inflicted Decadence

Here’s a rhetorical hypothetical. If you needed to buy a product, would you choose between:

  1. A more powerful and easier to use appliance that requires minimal maintenance and doesn’t leak fluids, stink, or require constant repurchasing of other fluids to keep it running, or…
  2. A less powerful and less easy to use appliance that requires constant maintenance and leaks fluids, stinks, and requires constant repurchasing of fluids to keep it running.

I phrase the question this way because it removes all emotion from the decision. Of course you would choose the first option. But if we add emotion to the equation, well then things get a little more complicated.

The scenario in question of course, which I did not intend to camouflage, is whether or not to buy an electric appliance or one that is gas-powered. See, now emotion is involved. Because, would I rather have a Tesla Model S or a Ford Mustang Mach 1? Yeah, the Tesla would certainly suit my lifestyle better, but they’re driven by colossal douchbags, and the Mach 1 is super badass.

So it was that I stupidly bought a 2-cycle Craftsman chainsaw. This POS:

The need arose from the Helene disaster in my backyard. But really – fuck this thing. It got maybe 2 hours of combined use and then refused to start. Premixed expensive fuel be damned. I even wasted money on a chain upgrade.

So why did I buy this? Because, even despite my growing collection of electric yard work appliances, I still maintained an inaccurate mental prejudice against battery power. I didn’t think anything but gas power could offer the performance I needed, or the length operational time. In my defense, however, batteries have come a long way since I started using lawn equipment in the 90s.

Lesson learned, I returned it and bought this instead:

Granted, it was 3x the price, but it has not disappointed. In fact, it has more power than the gas, and while top-end professional lumberjack models still probably run on gas and out-perform electric, for my less intense residential needs, electric is the way to go. And as outlined in my hypothetical, it maintains all the perks therein.

There are really only two logical reasons to buy gas equipment anymore: if you need the highest-power of applications (gas still seems to hold the advantage, even in cars, but we’re talking cars that need speeds I’ll never drive myself), and total power per price point (gas is cheaper for now in terms of upfront cost).

And there are two emotional reasons to buy gas equipment: some mental hangup on their coolness or traditional value, and political brainwashing (the people who still believe EVs are more harmful to the environment than ICEs).

My final thoughts here are to consider electric first. Chances are the upfront cost premium will more than make up for the frustrations and maintenance costs down the road for gas-powered alternatives. And if you’re at the age where you can afford these appliances, you should be past worrying about the coolness factor. And if you buy in to anti-electric political agendas, that’s only forestalling the inevitable technology shift anyway.

These are lessons that I had to learn again for some reason.

Gas is antiquated technology. You’re almost always better off buying electric.

–Simon

The Case for Trumpism

As one of the many confused participants of the American democracy, I never quite understood how Trump was ever allowed to exist. Sure, I understand humanity’s history is rife with political leaders who embody despotism, but even with our collectively short memory, the names are not forgotten, nor do they fail to invoke derision: Mao, Castro, Mussolini, and of course Hitler.

So when Trump entered the political scene, who very openly possessed similar personality traits, I thought (incorrectly) that he simply just couldn’t be. How did he happen?

To seek an answer, I dug around on American political affiliations and voting habits, and was delighted to find a deeper analysis beyond “left” and “right”. It also helped bring me some personal closure to my own non-affiliated voting preferences, categorizing myself nicely as…

(The Pew study I’m referencing, as summarized by NPR, can be found here: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1053929419/feel-like-you-dont-fit-in-either-political-party-heres-why

In the article is also a link to the quiz, but I’ll post here for convenience: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology/)

Here’s what that says about me, according to the Pew study:

  • 18% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents
  • the youngest and among the least religious and politically active of the Republican-leaning groups
  • most don’t identify as “conservative” politically, but are conservative economically, on issues of race and in that they prefer smaller government
  • more moderate than other Republicans on immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization
  • lean toward the GOP but are not enamored with it; almost two-thirds would like Trump to not remain a national figure, and, in fact, a quarter identifies with Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents
  • the only GOP-oriented group to say President Biden definitely or probably legitimately received the most votes in the 2020 election, and only about 4 in 10 believe the results of the 2022 elections “really matter”

I’d say that’s fairly close to what I expected: a slightly right-leaning independent. (Though my father often accuses me of being some ultra-right Republican loyalist. I guess, in comparison to his own political views, that’s how he would see me in comparison.)

More importantly, it means I can be swayed and do not vote out of a political ideology, nor do I worship an individual candidate. So for the main point of this post, this means that of all the conservative categories that would unquestioningly vote for Trump, I would be the one who might or might not. In theory, I wouldn’t be locked in by association. Why is this important? Because when adding the population percentages for each political category, even if the Republican candidate had all votes from the Ambivalent Right, he would still only have 40% of the popular vote. That may be enough, given that some of the Stressed Sideliners in the middle might vote for him, and with the electoral college ultimately making the final vote (which of course doesn’t require popular majority). But you can’t lose many of the Ambivalent Right with a margin that small. It’s a group that has to be swayed, and wasn’t swayed enough in the 2020 election, but was formerly swayed in 2016. I’m the group that makes the determination.

So what would it take to sway someone like myself who’s in this category? Let’s look at Trump as the individual.

In all of Trump’s monologues he juxtaposes questionable figures next to facts, presumably to give the illusion of association. It’s pseudo data, the inaccuracies of which quickly rule them out as having any grounds in reality.

Okay, so he can’t provide believable figures. What does he say he stands for then? Generally, everything that’s a soundbite for the right. But for the Ambivalent Right, that’s not necessarily a list of everything we want. In fact, much of it is not what we want. Therefore, it comes down to a comparison of candidates, and which one aligns better with personal political policy beliefs.

But there’s also a more basic human element to consider. Aside from being Republican, Trump’s primary “appeal” has been the “Fuck you!” attitude. I’ll explain why this is important, but first – a quick history lesson on feminism and American policy changes:

The Rift

During the second world war women were wholesale brought into the workforce for the war effort and gained a new financial independence.

No-fault divorce became available, famously in the form of its poster child: Reno, NV.

Women gained sexual freedom with contraceptive availability. Marriage and the nuclear family were no longer prerequisites to a woman’s sexual satisfaction.

The Equal Pay act went into effect which, in theory, mandated equal pay for women and equal availability of all job types.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act was enacted and then women could obtain credit individually, further gaining financial independence.

This is obviously a very compressed timeline, but the point is that in the span of ~30 years, women became, at least on paper, the equals of men and guaranteed all the rights and privileges thereof.

The Pandering

But then things got nasty. With this demographic now financially established and making their own decisions, it only followed naturally that media, advertising, and policies shifted to earn their previously unexploited patronage.

Peaking in the 1990s, based on my own experiences anyway, media and advertisements adopted the script of husband = idiot/wife = knows everything. The world of men was now being taught that they couldn’t function independently themselves and needed women, while women didn’t need men.

More empirically, college enrollment and graduation rates shifted to become overwhelmingly dominated by women (I challenge you to dig into these discussions and avoid a flame war).

Companies and governments started employing varying policies on mandating female percentages of board members and executive positions.

Incarcerations rates of men became approximately 10X that of women.

80% of custodial divorcees are now women.

The Pushback

This is, admittedly, just a small portion of the recent gender narrative and lacks much of depth of study required to truly vet its anthropological implications. But a cursory glace would show that:

  • Women gained financial freedom
  • Women gained sexual freedom
  • Women gained freedom from needing men
  • Society started pandering to women and sidelining the needs of men
  • Society started preferring women over men in certain circumstances

The Contemporary Themes

  1. Women are told that they’re superior to men but still need preferential treatment to achieve their potential
  2. Men are starting to feel disadvantaged to women and resent being abandoned by society

So How is This Related to Trumpism?

Here’s my theory. As stated before, only 1 of the 4 conservative groups is not pro-Trump. This group must have voted for Trump or he would not have been elected. But they don’t like Trump. Nor do they like most of the far-right that he represents. They like moderate-right, which is what Obama was, which is why Obama was elected. But they had to have voted for Trump or he wouldn’t have had sufficient votes. What happened?

This is where we return to the “Fuck you!” human element.

No moderate conservative would disagree with sexual egalitarianism being a bad thing. But the resultant pandering to women and subsequent steady disenfranchisement of men created…feelings. And unchecked feelings can cause bad decisions. Like Trump. It became personal. One too many conversations with a Progressive Left – one too many condescending comments from the elitist left – one too many accusations of privilege, when the workforce had just dug itself out of the Great Recession and employment opportunities were finally starting to improve, by a judgy and leftist younger population less impacted by the economic climate.

Trump was an opportunity to teach the far left a lesson. It was “Fuck you!”

My theory is that large numbers of right-leaning moderate men finally had enough. The irritation with the left overcame their rational political side and emotional decisions overcame reason. And this what when the political opponent in the election was a far-left liberal woman, the very personification of the elitist and condescending left!

I’m not saying that I voted or will vote for Trump, but on some level, I do understand his appeal. And that’s a very strange thing for me, an Ambivalent Right, to admit.

–Simon

Life Expectancy and Weighted Voting

Today, as with all election days, I waited in line and internally judged all the decrepit husks of barely-living people around me and wondered why they should have a hand in forming government policy when they probably wouldn’t live through the term. Many of them couldn’t walk, hell-several of them couldn’t even breathe on their own without compressed oxygen. Yet they get a say in how future generations will live.

Why? I don’t presume to know, so I’ll defer to a historical political precedent for a reference point: age requirements for political offices. Specifically, the POTUS, which maintains a minimum age of 35. Apparently when this rule was enacted, it was done so on the grounds that an unquantifiable degree of experience that could only be obtained through living long enough should be in the candidate’s background.

Conversely, while minimum age requirements remain in effect, maximum age restrictions for political office remain primarily absent. Apart from the fact that people eventually die.

So I’m going to call out a number of inferred points:

  • Life experience is needed to make good political decisions
  • 18 is the minimum age requirement to officially make any political decisions
  • 18 is therefore the publicly-accepted minimum life experience requirement for politics
  • 35 is the minimum age requirement to hold the office of the US Presidency
  • 35 is therefore the minimum age requirement to officially make political decisions of the greatest import
  • 43 is the age at which a president will enter the last year of a second-term presidency (assuming they’re sequential, which they usually are)
  • 43 is therefore the maximum age at which we expect the president to be fully competent to make the most important political decisions
  • Death is the ultimate limiter for making any political decisions
  • 79 is the current American life expectancy

Therefore 18 to 79 is the age range in which we can make political decisions, with 35 being the age at which we are qualified to make the most important political decisions.

Next point to consider: does this mean that 35 to 79 is the period in which we are fully suited to making the most important political decisions? Cognitively-speaking, the jury is out on that. Without citing specific sources, I’ll say that from the studies I’ve seen reported, peak intelligence occurs earlier in life, with some mental decline thereafter, but long term memory stays intact and contributes to total intelligence until dementia sets in. So rather than argue for a specific age limit on voting or holding office, which no one has agreed on yet, I’ll make a simpler point:

  • Who is most impacted by our voting decisions?

Or rather: younger people have to live longer with a political decision unless a future vote changes the policy.

More pragmatically: if we all vote in our own self-interest, we have less time to benefit from doing so as we get older, and any such policies enacted in this space of time will be of greater impact to those who are younger. Once we hit the age of average life expectancy, it’s a crapshoot how long we’ll live to see the results of how we vote.

Now to the point. I will offer a final formula that weighs an individual’s vote based on age, with the following criteria (that’s right-it’s a Quantitative Philosophy post!):

  • 18 and under: static weight of 0% since you can’t legally vote yet.
  • 18-35: increasing weight to account for increasing experience, culminating in a maximum weight of 100% at age 35, the age we decided as a country that you have sufficient life experience to hold the highest political office and make the most impactful decisions.
  • 35-43: the tenure period for a sequential two-term presidency, which assumes this is the age range during which someone is most qualified to make the most impactful political decisions-therefore a static weight of 100%.
  • 43-79: decreasing weight to account for the decrease in time that we have left alive, corresponding to how many years we potentially have left to live under any new political policy changes.
  • 80+: static weight of 50%. At this point you’re still entitled to vote, but the uncertainty of living to see the impact of your voting should greatly limit how much your vote counts.

Formula (in Excel format, because I work in finance and that’s the format I know):

For: age = X

=IF(X<18,0,IF(X>79,50,IF(X<35,100*(X+35)/70,IF(AND(X>=35,X<=43),100,100*1/((X+35)/70)))))

I’m 39 and my vote should count as 100% of one vote (for now). The kid in highschool gets counted as 76% of a vote. A new retiree is counted as 69% of a vote. And that old geezer on oxygen and living on Medicare and Social Security gets counted as a half vote.

Live in the present and shape the future, but then abdicate it to those who follow.

(Oh, and no one’s using abortion as birth control…whatever the fuck that means.)

–Simon