Social Media and Me

I have been struggling with a problem where I hope Five Cent Thinking's readers will offer some advice either as a response to this post or via my normal email.   NOTE #1 - As the owner of this blog I have control over what appears here; so if you want to respond but not publicly please put that in your response and I will not publish your comments.

I joined Facebook in its early stages(2004), at the time it seemed like an interesting platform which could provide two benefits.   First, as someone who spent a career working on public policy issues I thought it might be a place to participate in engaging discussions about key issues.   Second, it seemed like a way to communicate with friends and acquaintances many of whom I have not been able to keep up with over the years.

About the time I started being on Facebook I also set up a Twitter account.  But I have never used it much, if this blog has proven anything, I am not prone to short form writing!   But part of my aversion was based on the need to not react to events instantaneously.  

I continuously avoid watching any of the cable channels because of their absurd need to fill every waking minute with "news".   I first recognized the trend when I was coming back from a trip to Mexico at the time that Princess Diana died (1997).  My Spanish at the time was much more limited than now but even without understanding all the words, I noticed a pattern of commentary and images that I found disconcerting.  

Soon after I joined FB, a friend who I knew from both politics and because she was a doctoral student at SC when I was there, invited me to join a group of political types her dad had created (but this time the group was digital).   I knew a lot of the people in the group and  met some interesting people through it. The politics of the group was diverse.  But the "Wheelspinners" deteriorated after a couple of people on both sides of the political divide substituted invective for argument.   In a valiant attempt to continue the positive notions from the original group it revived it under a new name.  But that also deteriorated somewhat quickly.  

One consequence for me, if I decide to leave FB, is that I will no longer be able to exchange  insights with the half dozen people on the group who constantly help me understand nuances on a wide range of issues.  In the time I have been on FB I have been periodically surprised by a someone's different take on something I had thought quite settled.  In the Bismarkean sense part of the "politics is the art of the possible" for me is the ability to consider all sorts of options.

Both Facebook and Twitter seem to fit what a good friend in Sacramento used to call Kabuki politics.  We watch contending sides put on their makeup and join the political fray with masks or makeup on - not wanting to contend but more wanting to engage in stylized discussions where the genuine opportunity to think about things in new ways is scorned.

Let me add that I believe that the key people at FB and Twitter have absolutely no scruples.  They have consistently censored substantive ideas which do not fit their worldview.  

From my perspective the country needs to have some reasoned debate about a lot of issues including (for me)  the big four of 1) Climate change, 2) Wealth and Income Inequality, 3) Racial Reconciliation, 4) Fiscal Policy (come on, when one wrote his dissertation on Tax Theory that one is essential).   But serious discussion does not seem to be forthcoming.  You are not a "denier" or a "deplorable" because you have a different understanding of both the nature of a specific problem and the best way to handle it.

In my mind the current system of identifying political leaders is not serving us well. When I started in the political arena there were politicians on both sides of the aisle that I admired.  Now the number of politicians in that group from either party is very limited.   IF you believe that in at least the last two presidential elections we had what David Halberstam called the "best and the brightest" as the standard bearers for either party, I guess we are going to have to disagree.   Dick Tuck, who was a thorn in Richard Nixon's side for a good part of his career had the great quip that the "lesser of two evils is still evil" (I know that many attribute that to Jerry Garcia) and I think in trying to defend our choice for President that we ignore that maxim.   

For the last year and a half, the country has devolved into discussions which I believe have been structured to evidence virtue signaling rather than exchange of views.  I will admit that I can get on a high horse too.  But quite frankly, I am tired of engaging in these kinds of yammerings.  As long as we are relegated to retreating into tribes, we won't make progress in discovering the best of options.

A bit more than a year ago, a good friend who had been a distinguished college president and a keen analyst of our political environment posted on Facebook that she was leaving it.  She is a certified FOB (Friend of Bill) having gone to law school with both Clintons.  She actually taught a course with an economist of my persuasion in the Claremont Colleges.  I would have liked to been able to audit the course.  I am sure it was a good set of exchanges.  When she announced her intention to dump FB I wrote her (outside of FB) about the decision.   She replied that the cost of participation in FB far exceeded any benefits.  Over the years I have had some superb discussions with her about a wide range of issues.  We often do not agree on solutions but the exchanges have been fun.

About a decade ago a Georgetown computer science professor, in his blog Study Hacks offered a simple equation to discern the value of technologies - “ Technologies are great, but if you want to keep control of your time and attention have the self-confidence to insist that they earn their keep before you make them a regular part of your life.” FB fails on that equation.

One final comment;  an obvious solution would be to use the Wildavsky Maxim (Aaron was a professor at UC Berkeley) He quipped that politicians should "NO, thyself" - so I could simply quit responding to political posts. Quite frankly, I am pretty sure that would not work for someone who spent more than 4 decades working in the vineyard of politics.

So here is the ask.  I am thinking of dropping Facebook by the end of the month.  Here are my three questions.  1) do you have any thoughts about stepping out of social media?  2) For many of my buddies on Facebook is there a good way to stay in touch without FB? I really do enjoy hearing about families and trips.   3) Do you have any other suggestions about how someone who would like to continue to discuss public policy issues can do that in without being stuck in the mire of virtue that both sides of the spectrum try to hold us in?

NOTE #2  - If you do not have an Email address for me (outside of FB) and want to communicate privately or simply stay in touch after I leave FB,  please use messenger and I will get back to you.

NOTE #3  - On October 4, Facebook went down and Joanna Stern - the ACE technology reporter for the WSJ had suggestions for getting your data from Facebook and ideas for alternative platforms to use to stay in touch.   If you do not subscribe to the WSJ - send me an Email and I will send you a Pdf of the article.

NOTE #4 - And I realize this might sound contradictory.  Even if I dump Facebook - I will continue to use the FB product called What's Ap - it is an essential, and at least for me, non political tool in Mexico.

 E Pluribus Meum

We went to Costco this week to pick up some things - Costco has upped their game with great fresh fish (like Steelhead) and Prime beef and even great veggies and fruit and they still have monster proportions of many good products.   Plus we wanted to get toilet paper and paper towels.   Evidently, after a local news story claimed paper products were under pressure, the hoarders descended  and cleaned out every Costco in the area.   The story also mentioned  that water was facing a run and indeed we encountered a woman with a basket full of about 10 40 bottle packs of water.

We seem to have lost sight of one of our founding principles - E Pluribus Unum - which is based on the idea that we have some common principles that bring us together.   I am not a complete pessimist on this problem - there are counter examples.   But the trend line based on the amount of me first, is troubling.

The same afternoon, while Quinlan was going to pick up a prescription, she found that booster shots were available, so she got hers. No line.  By the time she got home and got me back there a substantial line had formed.  But she dragged me back and  I had to stand in line for almost an hour.   The line was convivial.   Each of us waiting patiently (no pun here!) to get the third stab.  One lady ahead of us was much older than we and a couple of people found her a chair while she waited.  So in spite of our Costco experience we got some hope from the booster line.  I began to think about what has caused this seeming increase in selfishness.  I came up with three possible types of people who might be likely to be ignoring our interrelationships  - (these are presented in no order) ....

1) Those who immigrated to this country from despotic regimes.  This is not a statement about immigrants - the American tradition of welcoming people who want to join us is a good one.   We benefit from their contributions.   But those who have had to live under totalitarian regimes understand the absolute irrationality of them and they have had more experience negotiating with scarcity.  One of my favorite movies is Robin Williams’ Moscow on the Hudson.   It tells the story of a Russian circus performer who before he defects at Bloomingdales is forced to wait in line for everything - he accepts a pair of shoes which don't fit because that is the size they have. He can trade the ill fitting shoes for some other favor.   Before he defects he celebrates with his family because he was able to stand in line for toilet paper.   When Paul Mazurzky wrote the script I am sure he did not think that snip would become prophetic almost 40 years in the future.   When the circus performer defects to the US he is confronted with the range of choices and a lack of lines.   At first he dislikes all those choices.  But he soon learns that with freedom comes sometimes daunting choices.

But again there is some reason for hope - in the University board I chaired for seven years we heard from a student.  He was a physician from Venezuela and told a compelling story of his flight from his country.  He did not have a  chance to "pursue happiness" in his own country as totalitarians destroyed a vibrant economy.  So he came to the US.  Even though he  could not get his transcripts from his home university and is now working on a degree as a Nurse Practitioner.   That kind of initiative is something we should celebrate!

2) Those sucked into entitlements.  Entitlements are those programs where eligibility is not limited - you get the benefit often without a demonstration of need.  Student loans are a good example of the risks of entitlements.   Students who need to borrow (or want to borrow) for their education can use a number of programs which provide subsidized rates and terms.   In this case, when the Obama administration took over the programs (which previously had private sector participation), and transformed loans into a program run by the Department of Education - the number of loans grew substantially and concurrently so did defaults.   (Reminds me of a saying in one of my favorite saloons in Stockton - they had a sign that said "We have an agreement with the bank, they don't sell beer and we don't cash checks.")  The feds proved incompetent at running the program and defaults soared.   The revision in the program was foolhardy  - in recent years there has been a clamor that a student can borrow money, default on the loan and then have it forgiven.   That creates some truly perverse incentives.   If you are entitled to one set of things - why not everything?   A few years ago at the Democratic National Convention we heard the story of a cartoon character who derived all her benefits in life from the support she derived from government.   For me at least that was a bizarre picture contrary to things which made the country great.  

 Let me offer another entitlement that is closer to me.  The Social Security Trust Fund will go bankrupt as the number of recipients is rising and the number of tax payers paying into the fund is diminishing.  The fix is pretty simple.   In 1983, some very modest adjustments to the age of retirement and the tax base, funded the program for almost 40 years.   That could be done again - but the Senior Meums think as long as they get their check they don't need to worry about the next generation.

3) Heavy consumers of social media.  When I first got back to San Miguel in March of 2020 I went to my doctor and asked him what I should do special - being a recently cleared cancer patient.  He offered all the normal things about masks and distance and hand washing but then suggested the most important health devotion was to "avoid social media."   That was good advice.   The old story of Chicken Little is one that anticipated the bizarre range of opinions that came out on Covid.   Who the hell thought that a highlight of social conversation would be about “spittle distance?”   Moral certitude and virtue signaling have been substituted for common sense.

Clearly, the threat of COVID is real.  But in reality the constant “if it bleeds it leads” for both social media and cable news has diminished our ability to separate the real horribles from the imagined ones.

What concerns me is that we’ve seen a huge increase in a perspective which does not serve us well.  

So what are the consequences of moving from Unum to Meum?

The Meum world is very close to what Hobbes described in his description of life as "cruel, brutish and short."   The Meums look at the world as a zero sum game - if you get something I am deprived of it - so there is every incentive to get mine NOW.  In my mind, positive sum games are closer to reality.   If that is the case we should think about ways to devise methods where if each of us contributes a bit we are all a lot better off.   Cass Sunnstein and Richard Thaler wrote a book called Nudge which tried to tease out the implications of this type of thinking.

If we do not turn back from Meum, we will be following a sad path divided into warring tribes with an increasingly narrow range of choices.  That seems both sad and stupid.

Update on the book ----- This week my editor got me a final draft to work on.  My next step is to get a copy editor to clean up the draft and then to get the final to a publisher.  I've also retained a design editor to make the manuscript fit into the constraints of publishing.   The good news is that almost anything that traditional publishers once did can be done in the DIY world with very seasoned professionals.  I spent some time this week on Reedsy - which is a great site which has tons of resources for authors.   I attended (ZOOM) a seminar to learn about the range of alternatives to print and distribute books.   There are some exciting options from Amazon and Apple Books - to Ingram Spark - which actually can print on demand AND can help new authors distribute their work.  Like other parts of the economy the web has forced a very hierarchical business model to change.  That has democratized the process of creating a book.  The complexity for me is that to be effective I need to tread through these elements to get to where I want to go.   I hope to have a copy editor identified in the next couple of weeks; have my final edits to that person after that and then get this project into production.   One of the best pieces of news I got from the Reedsy Zoom meeting (led by an author who has done traditional and DIY publishing) is that the DIY world, once you understand the elements is much quicker.   The Author had a  book which went to his traditional publisher at the beginning of September and expected to go into print in Q3 of 2022 and his DIY book should be in bookstores and on the web by the end of November.   That is quite a difference.