Why I support Michael Erin Woody for Congress

For the first time in 12 years, I’m voting for a Republican.

A lot is at stake in this midterm election, but something bigger is at stake in the history of our country: the right to choose. As both parties become more polarized, independents like me are left with no choice at all. We vote for the candidate who most closely reflects our views, even though that candidate is often more extreme than we are.

We become party-line voters, not by choice, but of necessity, because there are no other real options. This creates a false sense that we’ve endorsed extreme viewpoints and reinforces those viewpoints in the future. We are, in effect, encouraging candidates to continue running far-right or far-left campaigns, because we keep on voting for them.

This inherent weakness in the two-party system was kept in check during an era when civility was still the norm, both in the halls of Congress and in society. But increasingly, that’s not the case. Decidedly uncivil, even rude behavior has been on the rise, and as we condone it in our candidates, they feel free to keep upping the ante.

Because. It. Works.

I’m voting for the Republican candidate in California’s 24th Congressional District because he doesn’t look like a typical Republican (at least not in 2018). I don’t agree with Michael Erin Woody on everything. In fact, his opposition to single-payer health care is problematic for me, because I believe strongly that health care should be recognized as a right, not an opportunity for big corporations to make money.

But here’s the thing: We don’t have to agree with our chosen candidates on everything. Back before “compromise” became a dirty word, it was how we got things done. If a candidate is rejected because he or she scores “only” 90 percent on some interest group’s checklist, rather than 100, that’s a recipe for gridlock – which is where we’ll be stuck as long as we keep insisting that our way is the only way. We have to be willing to at least consider other options.

That’s what Woody does. He’s a civil engineer from Morro Bay who I know from my hometown, Fresno, where he served on the City Council. I consider him a friend. But I’m not voting for him because of that. On the contrary, we became friends in large measure because we share a key value: the importance of thinking for yourself, regardless of party platforms.

Woody told The Santa Barbara Independent that “the Republican Party has lost its way.”

I agree. With many moderates and mavericks on the GOP side leaving Congress, the party needs all the help it can get.

Woody supports same-sex marriage, a position that’s at odds with Republicans who fought tenaciously against it in passing Proposition 8. Woody not only isn’t apologizing for his stand, he announced it at the very outset of his campaign. He also supports continuing to allow transgender individuals to serve in the nation’s military, bucking the Trump administration’s position on that issue. And he opposes offshore oil drilling, another position at odds with President Trump – but one shared by a lot of voters in the 24th District. Woody’s not only willing to challenge the leader of his own party on this issue, he’s taking a position that puts his potential constituents ahead of party politics. That’s important, because politicians are elected to represent their districts, not other politicians.

Woody has named infrastructure as one of his priorities, focusing attention on a problem that Trump pledged to address, then abandoned. It’s a key issue in a state where many roads and bridges are in need of repair and replacement.

As many of my readers know, I’m no fan of Trump, but this isn’t about who’s president. I want to see Democrats stand up to their party leaders, too, and vote based on their principles and their constituents’ interests rather than partisan precepts. Dialogue is preferable to dogma, and it’s the only way to solve problems. I’m confident that Woody would encourage that kind of dialogue in Washington.

Politicians often talk about running the government like a business, then proceed to spend millions of dollars on their campaigns on the assumption that money equals votes. Woody hasn’t focused on raising money, but on spending it wisely and getting the most bang for his buck during the current campaign. That’s the kind of attitude we need in Washington, where Republicans who preach fiscal restraint bust budgets more egregiously than the Democrats they criticize. (Contrast Woody, who runs his own small business, with a president whose companies have declared bankruptcy six times.)

And Woody’s running an issues-based campaign, focusing on his own ideas rather than attacking his opponents. By contrast, Justin Fareed spent much of his time in televised debates criticizing Democrat Salud Carbajal. At one point, Fareed’s campaign even sent out a mailer accusing Carbajal of being a “Nazi collaborator and self-proclaimed socialist.” (Fareed, the other Republican in the race, later issued a retraction.)

That’s a big deal to me because, as a political independent, I’m tired of voting against people. I’m tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils – and in this case, I won’t be. I would have no problem seeing Carbajal, for whom I voted in 2014, re-elected. I agree with him on a number of issues. But I want a choice in the matter, and I want a thoughtful approach to governing that puts constituents before political litmus tests. I believe Michael Erin Woody will provide such an approach.

You can find out more about Woody and his positions by reading his 44-page booklet, Priorities We Deserve, and about all the candidates by watching debates on KEYT and KSBY. Then decide for yourself.

Michael Erin Woody will give voters a real, rational choice in November and, if elected, will give constituents thoughtful, creative solutions to the challenges we face. That’s why I’m supporting him for Congress in California’s 24th District.

Editor's Notes: Epilogue

When you know you might not be in a place much longer, you start noticing things you’ve taken for granted. The wind in the pines that whips around the corners of your house. The shops on Main Street, housed in buildings from a bygone age and nestled against a crisp, blue springtime sky. Conversations with people who’ve been part of your life for the past few years but who might not be much longer … at least not in person.

I’m noticing such things these days. How long will I be in Cambria? I have no idea. But I figured I’d better do some things I’ve always wanted to do here while I still have the chance. If the Who and Derek Jeter can go on farewell tours, I suppose I can, too, right? I spoke at Mary Anne Anderson's open mic night last Thursday, and I've got a farewell party set for tonight.

I’ve been meaning to take a drive up Old Creek Road between Highway 46 and Cayucos. I’ll probably do that sometime in the next few days. I want to drive some of the other back roads, too. Maybe I’ll pop in for karaoke one last time at San Simeon Beach Bar & Grill if they’re still doing it up there. “Elvis,” who runs the show up there, is always a kick.

Last weekend, on my second official day of unemployment, Samaire and I went to lunch at La Terraza, using up what was left on a gift certificate she got me for my birthday last year. I’d been milking it through three meals, and I figured I’d better use the last of it while I still had the chance. The meal was great, as usual: a chicken tamale, carnitas taco and some flan for desert.

While we were there, we ran into Clive Finchamp, who has sent letters to the Cambrian on a regular basis, but whom I’d never met in person until today. Samaire was taken by a stunning purple outfit worn by Clive’s wife, Sharon, and she said so.

Not knowing who we were, they asked whether we lived in Cambria and what we did. I said, “Until two days ago, I was editor of the newspaper here.”

Recognition dawned, and when they introduced themselves, I recognized them, as well. It’s funny how you can spend three-plus years in a place and never run into someone, then do so two days after you’re out of a job.

When I stopped by the mailbox the other day on Berwick, Aaron Wharton pulled up alongside me in his truck and wished me well. A couple of days before that, Iggy Fedoroff drove up alongside me on Main Street and expressed his appreciation. So many of the people in this town have been so supportive, and I can’t help but feel fortunate at that.

When we stopped in at Linn’s for a bowl of tomato soup, we ran into both owner John Linn and his son, Aaron, both of whom have appeared in the pages of The Cambrian during my tenure. I interviewed John after he told me about an exclusive deal he had to supply preserves and syrups to Knott’s Berry Farm. It’s hard to believe that was three years ago. Columnist Charmaine Coimbra talked to Aaron about his efforts to support youth cycling on the North Coast.

Linn’s is one of my favorite restaurants, and we’ve been there a number of times, but I’d never run into both Aaron and John there at the same time before. As an added bonus, my wife’s favorite waitress, Jordan, took care of us that evening. Synchronicity.

Before we sat down for lunch at La Terraza on Saturday, Samaire and I drove down to Moonstone Beach Drive to visit Art Van Rhyn in his gallery. I’ve worked with Art as The Cambrian cartoonist since I got here, and he’d drop by the office every Monday to deliver the week’s submission and chat for a few minutes. I learned that, before he was an artist, he’d worked as an engineer for Caltrans, and he supplied me with some great material for my book on Highway 99. More synchronicity.

We spent some time talking with Art about his paintings, our lives and what we have in common as artists (his specialty being visual, ours being words). I hadn’t expected to, but I wound up purchasing a painting from him: a stunning springtime view of San Simeon Creek Road bordered by yellow-golden flowers, which you can see at the top of this column. As a lover of old roads and pastoral vistas, I couldn’t resist. Samaire purchased a painting, too, of a Monterey pine. They’ll be perfect remembrances of our time in Cambria, if and when we decide to move on.

(How, you may ask, can an unemployed journalist afford to buy original works of art? I’ll let you in on a secret: Art’s paintings are very reasonably priced. Sometimes, when he sells one, it’s like saying goodbye to one of his children, but he loves to see them find good homes. Make the trip. You won’t be disappointed.)

Now that I’m no longer representing the newspaper, I can do some things I couldn’t do before. I can extol the virtues of my favorite places in town, I can take part in demonstrations for causes I believe in, and I can plant political signs on my front lawn. I can even write books about politics (stay tuned, but no, I won’t be writing about the water plant; I’ve done enough of that already).

Still, I’m running this under the heading Editor’s Notes – the title of my column at The Cambrian – because they’re not replacing me there, so I figure no one else will be using it. I may not be the editor of a newspaper anymore, but I look at it this way: As of this week, I’m managing editor of my own destiny.

I like the sound of that.

(See? I told you I wasn’t going to stop writing!)

7 questions introverts ask themselves at a party

They call us wallflowers, because we stand along the walls at social gatherings, hoping not to be noticed. It’s not an insult, really. Flowers are pretty, and most of them smell good, so I’ll take it as a compliment.

They say we’re “antisocial,” which sounds negative but is fairly accurate. Given the choice of being in a social setting or just hanging out with one person we find really interesting, we’ll invariably choose the latter. If that isn’t an option — and sometimes, even if it is — we’re happy to keep our own company. To write. To paint. To read. To veg. To go on long drives and marvel at the scenery that has so much to say without even opening its nonexistent mouth.

We’d rather listen to the timbers creak in an old barn by the side of the road than we would to someone, cocktail in hand, making small talk that will be forgotten in the morning. We’d rather keep the company of those towering redwoods on the Avenue of the Giants? Or those canyon walls meandering through the desert, bedecked in striated hues of yellow-gold, copper and deep crimson. Or the snow-capped mountains thrust up eons ago by a slow-motion surge of tectonic plates. Each will outlive the inane conversations that constitute “mingling” and “schmoozing.” Each speaks with gravitas without saying a word.

If you see an introvert at a social engagement, it’s almost like sighting a penguin in the desert or a giraffe in Yellowstone. Introverts simply aren’t party animals. Most introverts end up at such affairs because we’re required to be present for work, as a favor to a friend, or because we’ve gotten so stir-crazy that we’ve momentarily taken leave of the senses that remind us how difficult it can be to go out in public.

Parties aren't our natural environment. We spend much of our time in blissful silence, safely behind the door of our bedroom, reading or meditating, creating or or just chilling. We also like to serenity of nature, beyond the cacophony and chaos of city life. Parties capture that chaos and confine it to an even smaller space. They're loud, and we can't hear ourselves think, let alone hear other people talk over the din. Most of the things people say at parties don't interest us, but we can't hear those that do without straining our ears to drown out all the white noise. It's exhausting.

For an introvert, the entire party experience is an exercise in containing stress and keeping a lid on anxiety — which takes a lot of effort. The anxiety isn’t chronic, and it’s not the kind associated with a phobia. This may come as a surprise, but for many of us, it’s not even an instinctive response; it's rational. In fact, it’s too rational: It involves overthinking the situation to such an extent that, before long, you just want to leave.

The Seven Questions

Here’s a step-by-step look at how the process can unfold in any given social setting: how an introvert can wind up miserable by analyzing it to death. Ultimately, the introvert is apt to spend more time and effort talking to himself — asking questions in his or her own mind — than to anyone else at the party. Questions like these:

One

“Do I know anyone here?” If so, the first instinct is to head in that person’s direction. A friend offers a familiar sanctuary in an environment laden with potential pitfalls. You can shut out the rest of the room and engage in the same kind of one-on-one conversation you might have over a cup of coffee. If the conversation’s really good, it can seem as if you’re not really at a social event at all.

Two

“Am I monopolizing my friend’s time?” Hanging out with a friend only works for so long, though. Before much time has passed, you begin to feel guilty and wonder if you’re being too clingy or exclusive. This is a party, after all, and your friend doubtless wants to talk to other people – not just you! You may even cut off the conversation early out of guilt, which will leave you right back where you started: faced with the prospect of being tossed to and fro on a sea of social chaos.

Three

“Is there any food here?” If you can’t find a friend — or run out of friends to talk to — food can offer the next-best kind of cover. Are you at a party where hors d’oeuvres, drinks or a buffet is being served? Make a beeline for it and fill up your plate with an ample portion. This will give you a great excuse not to engage in conversation with people you don’t know (it’s impolite to talk with your mouth full). One unfortunate side-effect of this strategy is that you might end up packing on a few unwanted pounds. Another is that (again) you’ll start feeling guilty about doing something socially inappropriate. So, you step away from the buffet table and ask yourself …

Four

“How can I avoid being noticed?” This is where the “wallflower” strategy comes in. It doesn’t necessarily involve pressing your back up against the wall; that’s just a specific way of staying near the perimeter of the social minefield — and out of harm’s way. It can be even more effective to find a window and gaze outside. Whatever’s beyond the glass will be distracting, and this approach has a key advantage: You can turn your back to others at the party, and they may not want to disturb you. On the other hand, though, you might actually attract their attention by making them think there’s something wrong. This is, of course, the last thing you want, because it might lead to a verbal interaction with someone you don’t know. That’s stressful.

Five

“If I do interact with someone new, how do I deal with that?” We introverts aren’t as prickly as we might seem. It really can be fun to meet new people, even for us. It’s possible to start up a friendly and fulfilling one-on-one conversation with a stranger who turns out to share some of your interests. But even if you do, you’ll soon feel that same old guilt creeping up on you — the kind you experienced with the friend you spoke to earlier — and it’s likely to be more pronounced. Your friend probably understood your anxiety, but this new acquaintance won’t know anything about it. If you linger too long in a conversation, the person might think you’re hitting on him or her, that you’re “too intense” or even “creepy.” So, you withdraw again, with a new question in your head …

Six

“How do I avoid interacting with one of those people?” “Those people” fall into a variety of categories, but the upshot is that you’re the one who thinks they’re creepy. Maybe they’re self-absorbed: They may not even bother to seek out a common interest before launching into an extended soliloquy about a topic you couldn’t care less about. These are the clueless talkers. If they talk too long, they morph into ramblers. Then there are the “close talkers” who invade your personal space (which for an introvert is typically larger than for others). There are “touchers” who put a hand on your shoulder or elbow uninvited. There are “honey bears” who immediately act overly familiar by calling you “honey” or “sweetheart” or “love” or “brother” or “sister.” (I’m always tempted to let my sarcasm get the best of me and tell them I’m an only child.) The fact that you think these people are creepy makes you even more determined not to behave that way yourself (see No. 5 above).

Seven

“How do I get out of here without appearing rude?” It won’t be long until most introverts start looking for an exit strategy. Handy excuses might be fatigue; a headache; the need to get up early the next morning for work/school; a pet that needs to be fed or let out; homework. … These possibilities will begin forming in your mind shortly after you ask yourself another question “How and why did I get myself into this?”

Stage and fright

Some of you who know me might be scratching your heads as you’re reading this. You might have seen me get up in front of a roomful of people and deliver a 90-minute talk on Fresno or ancient mythology or the history of Highway 99. You may have seen me do a reading from one of my books. Or you might have witnessed me do my best to channel Garth Brooks or Billy Joel or Def Leppard during karaoke. Maybe you’re saying to yourself, “I could never do that!” And you’re probably wondering, “Him? Antisocial? Not that I noticed.”

As hard as it might be for people with stage fright to understand, getting up in front of a room full of people can be far easier for an introvert than navigating the same room at ground level. Being on stage offers you the kind of insulation you can’t get in a room full of minglers. And the rules up there are clearly defined: You have people’s attention without having to compete for it. No matter how many or how few people show up to see you on that stage, it’s your room, and you’re playing to a more or less captive audience.

You might still worry about going on too long or (if you’re singing) hitting the wrong note, but not nearly as much as you’d worry about what might happen at a party. Clueless talkers might get in a few words during a post-presentation Q&A, but they can’t exert the same amount of control as they could at a party. Close talkers and touchers can’t get close enough to violate your personal spaces. Oh, sure, they might rush the stage, but this happens with rock stars, not authors and weekend karaoke kings.

You might need to do some mingling if there’s a reception after your talk, but it isn’t likely to last too long (people having already been there for an hour or more and will be eager to get home). Besides, any discussion — even with strangers — that takes place there is likely to revolve around the talk you just gave, and therefore be of interest to you.

This isn’t to say introverts only want to talk about themselves. In fact, many of us prefer to let others do most (but not all!) of the talking … as long as they’re talking about something interesting, as opposed to the frivolous or mundane topics that seem to dominate many parties. It’s understandable that they do. People like to test the waters before diving into the deep end of a conversation, and some weighty topics (politics, religion, etc.) can lead to nasty disagreements. But that doesn’t make introverts any less eager to spend time talking about the weather or health problems, celebrities, wardrobes or cars.

There’s always a better option, and it involves curling up at home in bed with a good book or a good movie or working on a creative project.

Like this blog.

Big ideas are infinitely more rewarding than small talk, that they’re a lot less stressful, too.

Foxholes don't prove god, just desperation

Believers are fond of saying, “There are no atheists in foxholes,” as though this statement somehow proved the existence of a god. And not just a god, but their god.

I’m not here to attack anyone’s traditions. The best of societies, in my view, is an open one that allows room for all manner of beliefs — or lack thereof — as long as they’re expressed, rather than imposed. But I do want to point out that the absence of “atheists in foxholes” does not, logically or otherwise, prove the existence of a deity.

To begin with, there are atheists in foxholes, and there's no basis for stating otherwise. (You can’t start with a premise like that and fail to provide evidence for it; since it’s impossible to prove a negative in a case like this, so you’re behind the 8-ball from the get-go.) Millions of people have sacrificed their lives for their principles, and the refusal to compromise those principles under threat of death isn’t exclusively religious. If it were, every soldier tortured would turn traitor rather than die for his or her country. No one would ever give his or her life for anything. 

But say, for the sake of argument, that the premise is valid. Let’s assume that, in the face of death, every single atheist will, in fact, call out to some deity in the hope of deliverance. If that were so, would it prove the existence of a god?

Hardly. The mere fact that you want something is no proof that it exists: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. No, if such an impulse is evidence of anything, it’s that human beings (like other organisms) have a fierce will to survive, and that, in extreme circumstances, they’ll go to extreme lengths to do so.

Darwin’s monkey wrench

If necessity is the mother of invention, desperation is the nursemaid of hope. It’s not religion that impels us to contemplate actions at the far edge of possibility, it is — perhaps ironically — the very Darwinian struggle to survive. (Isn’t it just like that Darwin to throw a monkey wrench into the grinding gears of dogma?)

The impulse that drives foxhole conversions, when they do occur, is the same one that spurs the destitute to spend money on a lottery ticket, even in the face of ten million-to-one odds. It’s the reason a cancer patient might pay thousands of dollars for a snake-oil remedy on the slim hope that something, anything, might ward off the inevitable.

With everything at stake and nothing left to lose, what can it hurt? When all else fails, throw that Hail Mary. It's natural, it's human, and it has nothing at all to do with religion.

Proof of human desperation is no proof of any god. It’s merely proof that well-meaning people will sometimes enter into contracts under duress. Those contracts, however, are never binding to either party. They won’t hold up in a court of law, and the argument that they somehow prove the existence of a deity won’t hold up in a logical argument.

You can take that to the bank. Or the foxhole.

---

Author’s note: This essay is presented, not as a critique of a specific belief system, but of fallacious argument used in the defense of any belief system. For more on this subject, see Requiem for a Phantom God (2012).

How Citizens United paved the way for Donald Trump

We went to sleep in Bedford Falls, and we’re waking up in Pottersville. A lot of us would rather go back to sleep.

For years, many of us have yearned for a leader who would “run the country like a business.” Well, we got what we wished for, but despite the shock of waking up more than a year ago with a six-times-bankrupt real estate mogul for a president, none of this happened overnight.

There are two kinds of businessmen. There are the old-school merchants who put the customer first, because the customer could always take his business elsewhere. Then there’s the new corporate model, which puts the shareholders first, because that’s where the real money is. Customers can’t nickel-and-dime you to death if you’ve got investors slipping millions into your back pocket at regular intervals.

There are, similarly, two approaches to government. The traditional approach — which made America great in the first place — puts the voter first. Officials are elected to represent their constituents, and if they don’t, those constituents can take their votes elsewhere. But under the new model, big-money donors come first, because they can control the conversation. Voters can’t elect you if they don't know who you are, and they can't kick you out of office if they don’t know you're robbing them blind.

Transformation

We’ve been morphing from the traditional form of government into a corporate model for some time: Ronald Reagan’s supply-side economics and the Ross Perot’s third-party candidacy were among the early signs of this progression. But the tipping point came in 2010, when the Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for corporate donors and blew the last vestiges of a fair playing field to smithereens.  

Once this model was firmly in place, its proponents thought they’d use it, along with the tool of Gerrymandering, to corner the market on public policy for the benefit of their corporate sponsors. One thing they hadn’t counted on, though, is an inconvenient aspect of corporate life: the hostile takeover.

That’s where Donald Trump came in. He knew the voters didn’t like the idea of corporate big wigs telling them what to do, so he tapped into that, presenting himself as an “outsider” who was ready to “drain the swamp” and take on the Washington elites: notably, the Clinton Democratic machine, but also Republican lawmakers like “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz and “Little” Marco Rubio.

“George, I am an old man, and most people hate me. But I don’t like them either so that makes it all even. ”

— Lionel Barrymore as Mr. Potter in "It’s a Wonderful Life"

Whatever you think of Trump, his takeover of the Republican Party was a masterstroke worthy of “corporate raider” Carl Icahn (who later served briefly in Trump’s administration as a special economic adviser). The Republican establishment, which had banked on corporate support from the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and their ilk, was nonplussed at the idea that someone outside their ranks turning the tables on them.

Cruz called him a “pathological liar,” “utterly amoral” and “a narcissist at a level I don’t think this country’s ever seen.” Fellow candidate Lindsay Graham said Republicans should “tell Donald Trump to go to hell.” But that was during the primaries. Cruz eventually endorsed Trump (conveniently forgetting insults toward Cruz's wife and father), and Graham now plays golf with him on a fairly regular basis.

Why the change?

Two reasons: Trump runs the show, but it’s still their show.

Since assuming office, Trump has been anything but an outsider. In fact, he’s become the very thing he ran against in the primaries, morphing into the quintessential NeoCon Republican. During his first year in office, he has, almost without fail, championed the same causes establishment Republicans have supported for years: increased military spending, anti-gay policies, regulation rollbacks and overt “patriotism.” But he’s done so while playing to the crowd as though he were still an outsider.

This is likely one reason Trump has clung to his tweeting habit so tenaciously. His rash and often offensive outbursts, and the conspiracy theories that go along with them, are all that separate him from the people he ran against in the primaries. He’s basically keeping up appearances.

Whether he’s a maverick or a traditional Republican at heart doesn’t matter to Trump, just as ideology doesn’t matter to most CEOs. It’s the bottom line that counts, and for Trump, the bottom line is his own ego. The Republicans who railed against him in the primaries have figured this out, and they know he’ll execute their agenda as long as they play along with his little charade. So, that’s exactly what they’re doing.

Imperfect storm

No wonder people on the other side of the political fence are so enraged. To them, the current situation is the worst of both worlds: a Republican majority that’s still indebted to corporate interests, working hand in glove with a president who lacks a moral compass and who insults friend and foe alike.

Trump’s Mad Hatter act is, in part, a function of who he is — a self-serving narcissist who uses chaos to further his own ends. But it’s also a function of the new corporate government system we’ve created. Under the corporate model, a board of directors makes policy to benefit shareholders (not customers), and the CEO both executes and sells that policy as the face of the company. Think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, Richard Branson or Carly Fiorina. Or, in Britain, the royal family.

Trump likes to think he's royalty, with Mar-a-Lago as his palace and a bunch of toadies groveling at his feet.

Whatever else he is, he's the face of our nation, and it’s an ugly one, rather like Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life. Maybe we’re not threatening to jump of a bridge, as George Bailey did in that iconic film, but some people are threatening to move overseas and a whole lot of others are distraught, disconsolate and downright embarrassed.

Trump didn’t create this mess on his own. He merely stepped into the role we created for him when, fed up with gridlock and do-nothing lawmakers, we clamored for a "businesslike" approach to government. We asked for it; now we’ve got it. But is this really what we had in mind?

The sad irony is that we hired a third-rate businessman with a first-rate ego to work for 1 percent of Americans.

Welcome to Pottersville, otherwise known as Trumpsylvania. But don’t make yourself at home. In this little slice of faux-Rockwell Americana, foreclosure’s always just around the corner.

Spanking violates everything we say we believe in

Why is hitting someone OK?

I'm not talking about self-defense; I'm talking about taking your own initiative to hit someone who isn't threatening you.

That would be bad enough. But what about hitting someone who can't fight back?

Our society condemns "kicking people when their down." Football players are penalized for late hits. Boxers can lose points for hitting after the belt, and shooting someone in the back is considered the coward's way.

But somehow these rules don't apply to the most defenseless among us, those least capable of fighting back: young children. Somehow, spanking a child is viewed not only as appropriate, but necessary by a majority of Americans. It's rationalized as a "teaching tool" or a "deterrent" or a way to impose social norms on kids who don't know any better.

"Spare the rod, spoil the child," the saying goes.

LESSONS LEARNED

But how is that different than "teaching someone a lesson"? That's what spanking is supposed to do, right? Teach the child a lesson?

First point: It doesn't work. A 2016 study by professors from the universities of Texas and Michigan found that the more children are spanked, the more apt they are to defy their parents. They're also more likely to exhibit anti-social behaviors and to develop mental health and cognitive problems. So, not only does spanking fail to achieve its supposed goal, it makes the problem worse. And not just for the kids, because ...

Second point: It doesn't stop there. Now, a new study has found that children who are spanked are more likely to engage in dating violence. The kids who are spanked aren't the only victims; they're more likely to victimize others, too.

Apparently, they are learning a lesson ... just the wrong one. They're learning it's appropriate, even desirable, to inflict physical pain upon people when they're at their most vulnerable.

Children can't fight back. They trust their parents implicitly, and spanking breaks that trust. It creates a conundrum of cognitive dissonance: "This person loves me, but he's hurting me." There are two ways to resolve this. Either the child can defy the parents (as the 2016 study found is more likely to occur among those who are spanked) or that child can learn to equate corporal punishment with love.

DATING ABUSE

It should come as no surprise that spanking should be predictive of physical abuse in dating relationships, which also involve high levels of trust and vulnerability. If you agree to go out on a date with someone, you presumably like them (at least a little), and you put yourself in a position of being vulnerable, both emotionally and in terms of physical proximity. 

The link to future sexual abuse in the dating study should hardly be surprising: Spanking children not only involves hitting the most vulnerable people among us, it entails hitting them in one of their most vulnerable areas (the buttocks): an area that, in our society, remains covered in public because of its sexual associations.

If the person you're dating thinks it's appropriate, or even an expression of love, to hit you, trust and vulnerability go out the window. Not to mention that the person has just engaged in a criminal act (assault) according to our social norms.

But those same social norms tell us it's fine to spank a child. Parents can't be prosecuted for it, and they don't even have to endure much (if any) societal disapproval for it. A United Nations committee calls the practice "invariably degrading," and 53 countries ban corporal punishment outright, but the United States isn't one of them.

Indeed, nearly three-quarters of the U.S. population  agrees or strongly agrees "that it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking."

“The evidence against spanking is one of the most consistent findings in the field of psychology.”

— Elizabeth T. Gershoff, associate professor of human development and family sciences at the University of Texas at Austin

The upshot: We tell our kids not to "resort to violence" and urge them to solve problems rationally, while at the same time resorting to violence ourselves ... and violence that's anything but rational, since it doesn't work.

I find this incomprehensible. When it comes to how we, as adults, treat other adults, we condemn "throwing the first punch" and justify physical violence only in self-defense. We don't shoot people in the back. We don't pile on after the whistle blows or the bell rings. We observe the boundaries that apply across society ... except, inexplicably, to the most vulnerable among us, our children.

Spanking doesn't work. It makes the problem worse. It's predictive of adult violence. But most of all, it's wrong.

It's wrong to hit someone without provocation, to inflict pain, and it's even more egregiously wrong if that person is defenseless. That's what we're supposed to believe as a society.

So why the hell do we keep doing it to our kids?