Make America Great Again!

This week I am working to examine the possible "Agains" in American history that many of us appear to want to relive.

First though, how are we defining Again? Is it a specific period of time? For example, a particular year? Or decade? Or is it more of a vague general golden age misremembered as nostalgia? Is it from our lifetime? Or is it the glory days of our grandparents' misremembered nostalgia, misremembered by us through their embroidered stories? I don't feel like this hearkening to yesteryore---(made-up word?)---goes beyond recently remembered lifetimes, but perhaps it should. Perhaps the Good Old Days get Gooder as they get Older. And perhaps our nostalgic yearning is merely a reflection of one's desire for youth and longevity and/or one's frustrated attempts to find meaning and purpose. Perhaps as we get older we become more afraid and perhaps this nostalgic denial of the future is one's way of defying death. Regardless, I want to look at the logic of Again.

I have struggled for some days on how to examine "Again" and have decided that I would like to look at some broad categories that impact comfort and well-being separately, to come away with an unweighted scorecard of sorts, and then step back to consider the factors as a whole. I will begin with some measurements that are obviously relevant to this discussion - those having to do with...

...Life and Death
Life expectancy is a bit misleading. It is logical, and sounds obvious, to say, "the longer one lives, the longer one is expected to live," but when you examine that statement there is more to it than "Duh!" As an example, (according to infoplease.com), in 1850, at birth, all white males had an average life expectancy of 38.3 years; but if a white male lived to the age of 10, the average age at death jumps to 58 years. In the year 2000, the gap closes and the years increase dramatically, and those numbers, (respectively), become 74.8 and 75.4. (Life expectancy for women is greater, and all numbers across the spectrum of categories reflect similarly.) A large contributing factor, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, is that our infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 deaths (per 1,000 live births) in 1920 to less than 10 in 2000; that is a tenfold decrease in infant deaths. Thanks to improved health care more of us are living longer. So life expectancy does not mean that in 1850 everyone died before the age of 40 and today everyone lives to be 75. Regardless, based on the facts, if given a choice, I would take my chances today.

Looking at these numbers over time, it took us 50 years (from 1850) to gain ten years in life expectancy, another 20+ years to gain another ten years, another 40 years or so to gain the next ten years, and close to 50 again to reach this last ten year increase in life expectancy bringing us to today. Going the other direction, from 1500 to approximately 1800 it appears that life expectancy held steady at around 30 years, and maybe trended downward to as low as 20 years in ancient Greek and Roman times, with the likely leading cause of death throughout all of history (before about 1950) being infectious diseases. Today mortality from all causes (per 100,000 people) has declined 54% since 1900; which speaks directly to our overall comfort and well-being. It should be noted here that though worldwide life expectancy continues to increase, (according to multiple sources) for three years in a row life expectancy in the United States has decreased; the first such three year trend since 1915 - 1918 which included a world war and a flu pandemic. Regardless, if the goal of life is to live, I believe we are currently living in the golden age.

Keeping score: so far we have two votes for Today from life expectancy and mortality.

Technology
From fire and tools to big data and big brother we may have jumped into the frying pan, but we need continued advancement to solve problems that very recent advancement has created. It sounds pleasant to hop in our time machine, (being built by Russia and paid for by Mexico), and travel back to a simpler 1950's lifestyle, but if we did that we would likely create similar problems or worse because someone with an ego would be in charge thus making it likely that mistakes would again multiply. So if technology is not allowed to vote for tomorrow, if our time machine can only travel backwards, then the 1950's (or maybe the 1980's, as best as I can misremember these two decades and their stories), might get the nod; but that would not be a long term solution. Technology would prefer our existing planetary time machine to continue on our current plodding path to the future, but as an opposite act of defiance, (to balance our current disregard for the future), Technology will cast its vote for Tomorrow.

Scorecard: Today 2 - Tomorrow 1.

Crime
From available statistics for centuries past, murder rates have decreased from estimates upwards of 60+ per 100,000 in 13th century Europe to less than 7 today worldwide. In the United States since 1700, rates of violent crime have steadily decreased with murder rates currently trending below 5. In the 1950's we saw rates as low as 4, increasing through the 60's and 70's, peaking in 1980 at around 10, and again in the early 90's at nearly 10, and decreasing again since then to today’s rates approaching those of the 1950's.

War and Terrorism
According to ourworldindata.org "it would be wrong to believe that the past was peaceful. One reason why some people might have this impression is that many of the past conflicts feature less prominently in our memories, they are simply forgotten." (Additional support for my emphasis above on "misremembered" histories.)

Throughout recorded history it appears that battle deaths have maintained a consistent 5 to 10 per 100,000 per year, excepting major conflicts such as the Thirty Years' War, the Napoleonic Wars, or the World Wars of the twentieth century. In the past 70+ years, since World War II, this number has dwindled to less than one, approaching zero. As reported on vox.com, some experts believe we are in a long peace that will continue as long as we "maintain the trends of the world we live in, including growing international trade, strengthening of international institutions like the UN, and strong diplomatic ties between democratic states." Other experts believe we are merely in a gap between major conflicts and that it is too soon to assume it will continue. The "Long Peace" proponents point to the steady declines in all violence over centuries to support their belief. The "Let's Wait and See" naysayers discount other factors apparently believing that the volatility inherent in emotional nationalistic disagreement is such that cool heads are less likely to prevail; and based on recent years, they may be right. In this regard, "Again" may be 2014, which for all intents and purposes is still Today, and Tomorrow (in this moment today) is too full of uncertainty.

There is much discussion on the difference between war and terrorism, but (for me) terrorism implies widespread fear within civilian populations that they, (the civilians), are subject to intentional targeted violence, (as opposed to incidental violence). Keeping this differentiation in mind, consider the following:

• Many people, (and in some countries, most people), believe that accepting foreign immigrants increases the likelihood of terrorism. Yet statistics continue to show that most acts of terrorism are carried out by citizens in their own country.
• According to the Cato Institute it is 65 times more likely I will be killed in an animal attack than in an attack by a foreign-born terrorist; and the odds of me dying in an animal attack are 1 in 1,600,000. Granted, these statistics are since the 9/11 attacks, but if I include those, I am almost 800 times more likely to be killed by lightning than I am to be killed by an illegal immigrant terrorist.

Who is more guilty of terrorism? The guilty-by-association foreign-born immigrant, (legal or illegal)? Or the fear-mongering politician with an agenda? Who contrives more fear? Who is more scary? Who is to blame? You do the math. When I do the math, the answer I can’t shake is, I am to blame; and by association, we are to blame.

Scorecard: Based on the presentation above, Violence casts two votes for Today extending its lead over Tomorrow to 4 to 1.

Wealth
Poverty continues to decrease. Enough said.

Income inequality and the wealth gap continue to increase. Enough said.

These "enough said" factors are a mixed bag. We are no longer starving but we are hungrier than ever before. Wealth or proximity to wealth is necessary for any pretense of power. Many of us satisfy our hunger for significance through our proximity to the wealth of an employer. Personally and individually more and more of us are self-identifying through our work because more and more of us are becoming less and less significant as individuals. This may sound harsh, but if you factor in the creep of big data, it also rings true.

An unfortunate side effect of power is certainty, and as the individually powerful become fewer their certainty becomes entrenched and emboldened. Perhaps this is the new reality. But to go back to a magical "Again" would increase poverty and, (just as with Technology), someone with an ego would still be in charge. The question becomes, will this current trend strip away some of the trappings of ego by showing us that our only common ground is the common ground of exclusion, perhaps carrying us to a more equitable tomorrow? Or will we continue to be sheep and allow our selves to be herded to a more difficult future?

Tentatively, and with much trepidation, Wealth cautiously casts its vote for Tomorrow.

Scorecard: Today 4 - Tomorrow 2

Opportunity
Some of the above facts on War and Terrorism were presented in such a way to support the premise that nationalism encourages unnecessary divisiveness and smothers opportunity. In recent generations, opportunity was presented to many children, (at least in the United States), as "you can grow up to do anything and be anything you set your mind to." First, that isn't working out so well for a majority of us native ammurricanns, and second, why don't we practice what we preach? Is the fact of a different nationality really a valid reason for unnecessary injustice? But even in the 50's and 60's when we appeared to have a more brotherly outlook globally, we weren't doing such a great job domestically. And before 1950? Forget about it... We have always excelled at injustice of varying sorts.

Regardless, opportunity points to the fact that, despite a step backward here and there, we have made steady progress through the centuries. We must continue. Opportunity adamantly casts its vote for Tomorrow!

Scorecard: Today 4 - Tomorrow 3.

Final Tally
Our Russian-built, Mexican-sponsored time machine can only go backwards, so by default, Tomorrow is Today. And according to these raw scores, Today is our best chance to realistically make America Great, because we are not only not there, from where I sit, we have never been there.

According to the facts, Today leading to Tomorrow wins by a landslide.

According to the facts, "Again" is a vague, undefined hope (i.e. delusion).

According to reality, (from where I sit) we are defying insignificance and death because we are afraid.

Reason votes for Today.

Fear votes for Again.

Today, emotion trumps reason.

Today, Fear is winning.