Capitol Games: Where Principles Compete to Die (II)

Continuation of a satire on U.S. politics: where elected “athletes” trade principles for power in a surreal decathlon of groveling and ideological gymnastics.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.” — Groucho Marx

Arun Kumar

Last week I had posted the scoop about “Capitol Games: Where Principles Compete to Die.” In there, I had mentioned four games that are played in the marbled rotunda of the Capitol — The 400-Meter Dash to Indignity; The Ideological Shotput; The Kneel Relay; The Change Color Sprint. After the post came out, I got a call from a Capitol Insider who passed on tip that actually it is a Capitol Decathlon. While we were having a coffee in a hushed café, he passed on a slip under the table and gave the scoop on what the individual games in the Capitol Decathlon. Without revealing the name of the whistleblower, I am providing them verbatim.

Event 1: The Pants Drop Sprint

The gun has not even fired yet, and several lawmakers are already halfway through disrobing. The goal? To shed their convictions faster than an intern sheds idealism.

Senator Flipson from Texas often sets a new record and betters his own numbers — his trousers are around his ankles before the national anthem finishes. He salutes the flag anyway, because that is what patriotism looks like in 2025: pantless and polling well.

Event 2: The Flip-Flop Hurdles

Contestants must clear a series of ideological hurdles while switching positions mid-jump.

Representative Backtrack from Ohio aces it. He clears the gun rights hurdle while simultaneously rebranding himself as a champion of mental health. His campaign slogan: “Thoughts, Prayers, and Background Checks (Maybe)”.

Event 3: The Grovel Vault

The bar is set high, but that does not stop Senator Kneesly from attempting the triple-spin grovel vault. He launches into a convoluted speech about his “deeply held values,” but mid-air pirouettes into a full-throated endorsement of the very bill he filibustered last week.

He sticks the landing. The crowd of lobbyists goes wild.

Event 4: The Endorsement Crawl

Contestants must slither, squirm, and belly-slide across the floor of the Senate chamber toward a glowing orb labeled “POTUS Favor.”

Some crawl so fast they generate rug burns and minor existential crises. One junior representative tries to stand halfway through but collapses under the weight of a donor spreadsheet and a lukewarm News poll.

Event 5: The Lobbyist Tug-of-War

The teams are… well, undefined. Everyone is being pulled in multiple directions. Fossil fuel money tugs left, pharma yanks right, and Big Tech applies an algorithmic nudge straight into an ethics violation.

Senator Gridlock holds on valiantly until a check from an oil executive lands in his lap. He drops the rope and announces a “sincere pivot toward energy independence.”

Event 6: The Outrage Relay

Each competitor must pass the baton of manufactured outrage within a ten-second news cycle.

Congresswoman Screech leads off, screaming about library books. She passes to Senator Fearbait, who sprints forward shouting something about gender-neutral pronouns ending civilization. The anchor leg is run by Representative Flashpoint, who hurls the baton into a TikTok hearing while shouting, “My constituents are under attack!”

The judges award bonus points for the loudness.

Event 7: The Loyalty Kneel

It is a fan favorite. Lawmakers compete to kneel the fastest when confronted with a vague presidential nod.

There is a pileup in Lane 3 — too many candidates drop simultaneously and their foreheads clunk like bowling balls. One stands briefly, confused, until an aide whispers, “Sir, the President just mentioned your district on Truth Social.” He immediately collapses into contrition.

Event 8: The Media Spin Toss

Each contestant selects a political failure and hurls it into the spin cycle until it emerges as success.

Senator Denial takes the stage: “What looks like a government shutdown is actually a strategic legislative siesta.” He gestures wildly. “The Founders would be proud.” A nearby intern mutters, “I think one of them just rolled over in his grave.”

Event 9: The Culture War Shotput

This one is messy. Competitors launch inflammatory issues into the national conversation with the goal of dividing voters and distracting from actual governance.

Today’s shotput topics include:

• Banning drag story hours in towns with no libraries
• Declaring war on wind turbines
• And issuing press releases condemning Taylor Swift’s geopolitical influence

Congressman Hysteria throws the farthest, shouting, “Patriotism starts with banning electric toothbrushes!”

Event 10: The Chameleon Change-Up

The final event. Each participant must change their position, personality, and personal pronouns (for branding purposes) in under 30 seconds.

Representative Rebrand walks in as a pro-choice centrist and exits as a “pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-low-carb traditionalist.” Her new campaign ad drops before she even clears the stage.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

 

Capitol Games: Where Principles Compete to Die

A satire on U.S. politics where elected “athletes” trade principles for power in a surreal game of groveling and ideological gymnastics

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies — Groucho Marx

Arun Kumar

Summary: A crisp September morning contrasts the hopeful spirit of Olympic trials with the farcical “Capitol Games,” where U.S. politicians compete in a dizzying display of flip-flops, groveling, and political contortions — all for survival, power, and a presidential nod, leaving democracy gasping at the starting line.

It is the fall season in the northern hemisphere.

The kind of September morning that poets once celebrated and a few climatologists that are left still tweet about. The sky is a brilliant, unbroken blue — no cloud dares interrupt its expanse. The air is crisp, the sort that smells faintly of nostalgia and overpriced pumpkin spice lattes. You take a deep breath, one that fills your lungs, and for momentarily, your soul. It’s the kind of breath that whispers, “Maybe life is going to be all right. Maybe that long overdue promotion is finally coming. Maybe I am not doomed after all.”

You’re sitting in a stadium, beaming with optimism and anticipation. Today is the U.S. Olympic Trials. The 400-meter dash finalists are lined up at the start, their bodies taut with focus and dreams of glory. Each of them has sweated their way here, past sprained ankles, grueling training sessions, and the occasional existential crisis questioning why they are doing this. In moments, the gun will fire. They will take off, and one of them will earn a spot on the U.S. Olympic team — a reward for merit, for sweat, for relentless human striving for achievement.

You lean forward in your seat with anticipation.

And not far from here, just a few miles away — though it may as well be an alternate universe — another trial is unfolding.

Not beneath the open skies, but under the heavy dome of the Capitol Rotunda.

Not on a track, but on the polished floor of a chamber where laws are being rewritten and reason has taken an extended sabbatical.

Here too, competitors are lining up. These are the nation’s elected representatives. Their uniforms differ slightly — ill-fitted suits, flag pins clinging for dear life, ties that double as metaphorical nooses — but their expressions are just as focused. The stakes are high. This, after all, is not about athletic glory. It’s about something far more sacred: political survival.

The event about to begin? The 400-Meter Dash to Indignity.

The rules are simple: drop your principles as fast as possible and sprint toward an endorsement from the reigning POTUS, who is observing from a distant throne, or today, perhaps a golf course, or more likely, both.

The bell sounds. Instead of bolting forward, each contestant tugs urgently at their waistband. Skirts flutter, trousers fall, and honor, like last season’s leaves turning color, fall on the ground. The fastest droppers win — those who pause to consider their shame, or worse, the betterment of their constituents, are already behind. There’s no time for dignity here.

A murmur rises in the chamber, the sound of once-respected figures clumsily justifying why their sudden transformation is not a betrayal but rather a “strategic repositioning.” They mumble phrases like “constituent alignment” and “policy flexibility,” which, translated from political to English, mean “I need this job, and I’ll say anything to hang on to it.”

The next event begins: Ideological Shotput.

Here, the contestants hurl wild policy ideas to see who can land closest to the POTUS’s current mood. One senator throws a proposal to ban electric cars because they are “woke.” Another flings a bill to rename Tuesdays after the Supreme Leader’s childhood dog. A third, desperate for attention, launches legislation to install mandatory flagpoles in every kindergarten cubby. “Patriotism begins with preschool,” he shouts, as aides hand out miniature eagles on sticks.

You watch from a distance as the shotput ideas bounce across the chamber floor like discarded principles and ethics. It’s not about governance anymore — it’s performance art, and the script is written in whatever font polls best with likely voters.

Then comes the Kneel Relay, where the goal is to hit the floor in blind loyalty faster than anyone else. Competitors drop like dominoes. One is so fast he bruises his kneecaps. Another kneels before the question is even asked. A third shatters records by kneeling, saluting, and pledging eternal allegiance in a single fluid motion, choreographed like a halftime show.

And finally, the most visually jarring of all: the Change Color Sprint. Each politician must morph their stated values and identities to match the ever-shifting tones of the party line. Former moderates now glow with the neon heat of extremism. Yesterday’s climate champions suddenly swear allegiance to black coal. Last month’s fiscal hawks are today’s deficit cheerleaders. The only constant is shapeshifting.

Some do it like a graceful liar. Others stumble through half-apologies and contradictory interviews. But none dare stand still — for stillness is political death, and consistency, a liability.

Back in the stadium, the real athletes will cross the finish line. There is no color-changing, no kneeling, no trousers dropping around ankles — just pure effort, grit, and human excellence. You will erupt in applause. You will feel, briefly, proud to be American, and human.

And then you remember the other stadium. The one with the marble columns and gilded ceilings and the thick, humid stench of moral decay. You imagine those so-called leaders, still mid-contortion, still spinning, still trying to out-flatter each other to earn a presidential tweet of approval or avoid being “primaried” into oblivion. You picture them fighting not for policy but for proximity to power, for TV clips, for the next lobbyist check.

And you feel it — not rage, not quite sadness, but something worse: shame.

You leave the stadium. Not the Olympic one, but the grand rotunda of political theater. You slip out a side door, unnoticed, past the marble busts of better men and women, past the plaques commemorating moments when courage still held sway.

Your head is bent. Not because your side lost. Not because the other side won. But because somewhere along the way, the race stopped being about the country and became a sprint toward self-preservation.

On the Capitol floor, the competition continues. And they will keep kneeling, keep shifting, keep disrobing, keep changing colors in new and imaginative ways.

For what?

For power. For platform. For the perceived glory of a headline.

Meanwhile, in the distance, the real race — the one for integrity, for truth, for something resembling leadership — remains stalled at the starting line.

Someone in the front row raised a procedural objection. Something about a transgender athlete.

A shouting match erupts over gender definitions, bathroom policies, and whether chromosomes have term limits. Committees are formed, hearings are scheduled, donors are polled.

The race is postponed. For now, indefinitely.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

The Irony of Advocating Economic Sacrifice from the Wealthy

 

The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor — Voltaire.

Arun Kumar

Summary: Economic policies promising short-term pain for long-term gain often disproportionately impact ordinary people, while wealthy advocates like Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and J.D. Vance remain insulated. For retirees and working-class families, economic instability means immediate hardship — rising car prices, shrinking savings, and forced market losses that cannot be avoided.

Economic policies often come with promises of short-term pain for long-term gain. Advocates of these policies — particularly those with immense financial security, like Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and J.D. Vance — champion this narrative, claiming that temporary hardship is a necessary step toward a stronger economy. However, the reality is stark: those making these pronouncements are entirely insulated from the pain they preach. For ordinary individuals, especially retirees and working-class families, economic downturns, inflation, and financial instability are not abstract concepts but immediate, tangible hardships.

Trump’s dismissive statement — “I could care less if car prices go up” — perfectly illustrates this divide. As someone with significant wealth, rising car prices have no impact on his quality of life. For the average consumer, however, buying a car is rarely a leisurely choice. Many are forced into the decision due to unforeseen circumstances: a vehicle breaking down beyond repair, an accident resulting in a total loss, or the need to provide transportation for a graduating child entering the workforce or school. For these individuals, decisions for car buying cannot wait for the elusive brighter future when car prices will be down. Higher prices in now mean taking on more debt and cutting back on other essentials.

Similarly, stock market declines are often framed as temporary corrections that will eventually lead to greater prosperity. Wealthy investors and policymakers can afford to wait for the rebound, but retirees relying on their 401(k)s and IRAs for daily expenses do not have that luxury. Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) force retirees to sell assets even when the market is down, locking in losses rather than benefiting from future recoveries.

Perhaps, to ease the pain, what these wealthy politicians should do is to suspend the requirement for RMD until the promised brighter future is here.

In a similar vein, for those who experience a poor sequence of returns early in their retirement, the consequences can be devastating. Unlike the ultra-rich, who can simply ride out market downturns, these individuals face the real risk of running out of money before the brighter future arrives.

Yet, those advocating these policies rarely acknowledge the human cost of turmoil and economic instability. They frame the hardship as an abstract sacrifice, necessary for a brighter future, without considering the daily struggles of those who have to bear the burden. While Musk, Trump, and Vance continue their lives uninterrupted, ordinary Americans grapple with financial insecurity, rising costs, and shrinking retirement savings without the means to ride out the present.

Perhaps the most absurd expectation is that everyday people should take pride in their suffering, as if engaging in a noble act of patriotism.

Coming from the rich, the idea that working-class individuals should willingly embrace higher costs, see their investments decline, and financial precarity for an economic vision they may never see realized is naïve, insulting and unrealistic. If economic hardship is truly necessary for future prosperity, then the burden should be shared equitably. However, history shows that those with wealth and power remain shielded from the fallout, leaving ordinary citizens to absorb the brunt of the consequences.

The next time economic leaders tout the benefits of short-term suffering, perhaps they should experience some of that pain themselves before preaching its virtues. Until then, their reassurances ring hollow to those of us who have no choice but to endure the struggle. They should also remember that some of the people who are going to suffer may not be around much longer see the end of the tunnel.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

The Irony of Short-Term Economic Pain

 

In the current US political landscape, where the wealthy elite don their suits and deliver impassioned speeches, a recurring theme is the promise of long-term prosperity through short-term pain.

This narrative is championed by figures like Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur who assures us that reducing government spending will lead to a brighter future. Musk often speaks of “temporary hardship” as a necessary evil on the path to “long-term prosperity.” He assures us that the economic pain resulting from his cost-cutting proposals will be short-lived and ultimately beneficial.

The same message is echoed by President Trump. In a speech to Congress, he mentioned that there would be a “little [short-term] disturbance” from his plan to impose tariffs on billions of dollars in goods, but he confidently asserted that it wouldn’t be long before the larger benefits of tariffs set in.

As we listen to this rhetoric, one can’t help but marvel at the irony of such statements coming from those least likely to feel the sting of economic hardship. After all, what’s a little disturbance when you’re sitting on a mountain of wealth?

The irony here is palpable. Billionaires with resources beyond the reach of most people speak of economic pain as if it’s a minor inconvenience. Perhaps they imagine that the average person can simply dip into their vast reserves of wealth to weather the storm.

But let’s be real: the economic pain resulting from such policies is unlikely to affect billionaires in any meaningful way. Instead, it will be ordinary citizens who bear the brunt of these changes. The lower one is on the wealth ladder, the worse the pain of this “little disturbance” will be.

What’s missing from these statements is any mention of the wealthy offering their own resources to mitigate the pain felt by those most in need.

Imagine an alternate universe where billionaires put their money where their mouths are and used their wealth to support those struggling through the period of hardship. Instead of preaching about the virtues of short-term pain, they could provide tangible assistance to help people get through the tough times until the promised long-term benefits materialize.

So, the next time we hear billionaire politicians being poetic about the virtues of short-term pain, let us take a moment to appreciate the irony.

One more thought — since when anything in the future is assured to go certain way or is guaranteed to be a “little disturbance.”

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Social Darwinism: Why Right-Wing Republicans Should Embrace Childless Cat Ladies

 

Social Darwinism: Because nothing says ‘survival of the fittest’ like inheriting a trust fund and lobbying for tax cuts.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: Explore the satirical paradox of Social Darwinism among right-wing Republicans and their baffling opposition to childless cat ladies. Discover why embracing this trend could be their ultimate Trojan horse strategy.

Ah, Social Darwinism, the beloved mantra of right-wing Republicans in the US. It’s a philosophy that suggests if we just let the notion of the survival of the fittest play out in society, the well-being of the masses will magically improve. It’s a bit like believing that if you throw a bunch of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, they’ll eventually write the evolutionary history of the universe. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Now, here’s where things get interesting. These very same proponents of Social Darwinism seem to have a peculiar bone to pick with the so-called “childless cat ladies.” You know, those left-wing liberals who, in their quest for career advancement, wanting to see the world, wanting to have fun without children in the tow, choose not to have children. According to the right-wing narrative, this is a travesty of epic proportions. It is something against the very notion of why we were created and any opposition to it needs to be remedied. But wait, is not the survival of the fittest and Social Darwinism will allow them to achieve their goal? Letting nature take its course and let left-wing liberals not have children and go extinct?

Let’s break it down. If left-wing liberals are choosing not to have children, they’re essentially opting out of the gene pool. In the grand scheme of Social Darwinism, this should be a cause for celebration among right-wing Republicans. After all, if the left-wingers aren’t reproducing, their ideas and values will eventually fade away, correct? It’s the ultimate victory without lifting a finger.

But instead of embracing this natural selection process, right-wing Republicans are up in arms about it. They scoff at the notion of childless cat ladies. It’s a baffling contradiction. If they truly believed in Social Darwinism, they should be encouraging this trend and not opposing it. Let the left-wing liberals wipe themselves out by not leaving behind any progeny. It’s the perfect Trojan horse strategy.

Imagine the possibilities. Right-wing Republicans could start a campaign promoting the joys of a child-free life. They could highlight the benefits of career advancement, financial freedom, traveling the world, and, of course, the companionship of a loyal cat. They could even throw in some tax incentives for those who choose not to have children. It’s a win-win situation. The left-wing liberals, without feeling embarrassed, will take the bait and live their lives as they see fit. In taking this Machiavellian approach, the right-wing Republicans get to watch their ideological opponents slowly disappear.

In conclusion, the opposition to childless cat ladies is a curious case of cognitive dissonance among right-wing Republicans. If they truly believed in Social Darwinism, they would see the value in letting nature take its course. Instead, they find themselves in the awkward position of opposing a trend that could ultimately work in their favor. Perhaps it’s time for a new mantra: “Embrace the cat ladies, for they are the harbingers of our victory.” Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a laser pointer and some cats to play with.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

The tale of Justice Stalwart

 

I don’t know that there are any short cuts to doing a good job -Sandra Day O’Connor

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Once upon a time, in the hallowed chambers of the highest court, Justice Stalwart sat in his high-backed leather chair, ready to ponder the weighty matters of equality and fairness before him in an impartial and unprejudiced manner.

On this particular day, unusual urgency was apparent in the rustle of legal briefs, and in the hushed whispers of clerks. Along with signs that something unusual was in the air, something else tugged at Justice Stalwart thoughts — an old memory of an upside-down flag fluttering in the wind and how it might affect the proceedings today.

It had begun innocently enough. Justice Stalwart’s wife, Delilah, had always been enthusiastic about flags. She collected them — American flags, state flags, even obscure historical flags, and sometimes on whim, created entirely new flags of made-up countries, like Drussia. Their home resembled a museum of vexillology in a peaceful and non-descript suburb.

But one day, the winds of discord blew through their neighborhood.

Anne Hutchinson, their neighbor, had erected a sign in her yard — a glittering, cursive proclamation that read, “Fay Umptray.” The sign sparkled like a rebellious star against the suburban backdrop. Delilah, ever the patriot, took offense. She marched over, her indignation flaring like a phosphorus matchstick.

“Anne,” she said, her voice trembling with righteousness, “this sign is an insult to our democracy!”

Anne raised an eyebrow. “Delilah, it is free speech. We are allowed to express our opinions. Particularly, against the aging politicians who chase and grab our cats.”

Enraged Delilah retreated to her own yard and unfurled one of finest American flag in her collection and hoisted it upside-down. It was her way of saying “This is my protest against my neighbors indecent and uncalled for behavior.”

And so, the flag flew — an emblem of defiance, a silent scream against perceived injustice.

Justice Stalwart was caught in an awkward situation and when confronted by journalists squarely put the responsibility for an upside-down flag in his front yard on his wife’s shoulder and tried to come away clean.

Then came the day we started this story from — the day Justice Stalwart sat on the bench, robes billowing, ready to hand over judgments as needed.

The case before him involved a First Amendment challenge. A man had burned the flag during a protest, claiming it was his right to do so. The courtroom buzzed with anticipation wondering what stance Justice Stalwart would take, particularly in the backdrop of an upside-down flag flying in his own house.

Justice Stalwart leaned forward, his eyes narrowing. The flag outside the window, that stubborn symbol, seemed to mock him. He remembered Delilah’s fervent defense, her insistence that the upside-down flag was a symbol of her voice and way he had distanced himself from the incident. But now, faced with the same situation but in a dissimilar context, he had different thoughts.

“Your Honor,” the attorney argued, “burning the flag is an act of free speech. It is protected.”

Justice Stalwart glanced at the flagpole outside the window. The stars winked at him, as if daring him to decide. He thought of Anne’s sign of political defiance, of Delilah’s rebuttal, all in the name of free speech.

And then he spoke. “The flag,” he said, “is more than cloth. It is a canvas for our ideals, our past struggles as a nation. Desecrating it is a dishonor to the country.

The attorney blinked. “Your Honor, but you yourself stood complacent and watched the flag fly upside-down.”

Justice Stalwart straightened. “In this case,” he declared, “the flag was burned not as act of freedom but out of disrespect to the history of our nation.”

There was a pin drop silence in the courtroom.

The flag outside fluttered, as if ashamed of double standards right under its shadow.

Justice Stalwart walked out into the sunlight, his mind a whirlwind of conflicting allegiances. And somewhere, in the quiet corners of his heart, he wondered if he had made the right choice.

Ciao.

Epilogue: If I was in the Chambers of the court on charges of flying an American flag upside-down and put forward the defense that I had nothing to do with it and it was an act concocted by my spouse on whom I have no control over, I wonder what Justice Stalwart’s viewpoint and decision would be? Not what he passed on himself?

People in high places think that they can get away with any misdemeanors of ethical or moral issues. Do they really think that people hold a shred of belief in cockamamie stories they tell to justify their unethical behavior?

The employees of the United States federal service (the Executive Branch) have to take an ethics training once a year and are told that they cannot receive a gift exceeding in value above $20, and if they do, they could be fired for breaking the law. The same rule either does not apply to the members of the legislative and judiciary branches or they know that they can get away with.

The double standards want to make us, the common citizens, simmer in a silent rage.

Hard Work: It is Necessary but not Sufficient for Success in Life

 

Humans make choices — but they are never independent choices. Every choice depends on a lot of biological, social and personal conditions that you cannot determine for yourself. I can choose what to eat, whom to marry and whom to vote for, but these choices are determined in part by my genes, my biochemistry, my gender, my family background, my national culture, etc. — and I didn’t choose which genes or family to have.” — Yuval Noah Harari

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

The United States (U.S.) is often referred to as the land of opportunity, where success is believed to be achievable through hard work. It is commonly held notion that hard work is both a necessary as well as a sufficient condition for success in America. This belief implicitly suggests that if one does not achieve success, it is due to a lack of willingness to work hard, or worse, an innate character flaw that makes individuals avoid working hard.

This topic often sparks debate when I converse with two of my ‘successful’ friends, who, like myself, are first-generation immigrants to the U.S. Judging by the quality of our lives in our adopted country, it’s fair to say that we have indeed achieved success, and hard work was a significant factor in where we are. As we approach the end of our careers, we all have comfortable homes and substantial savings to ensure a good retirement.

What brought us success is a controversial subject matter between the three of us because I believe in the position that hard work is necessary to be successful, but it is not sufficient. My friends believe that hard work is necessary and also sufficient to be successful.

The notions of “Necessity and sufficiency” are part of formal Logic and Mathematics but if you try to understand its meaning, the very first sentence of its definition - In Logic and Mathematics, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between two statements - will make eyes glaze over and make you mumble ‘whatever.’

In layperson’s language different options of necessary and sufficient (i.e., with one being true while other being and/or not true) in the context of hard work and being successful are:

#1 Necessary and sufficient: “Working hard is necessary and sufficient for being successful,” means you cannot be successful without working hard, and if you work hard, you will definitely be successful.

#2 Necessary but not sufficient: “Working hard is necessary but not sufficient for being successful,” means you cannot be successful without working hard, but just working hard alone will not guarantee success. You might also need other factors like talent, opportunity, luck, etc.

#3 Sufficient but not necessary: Working hard is sufficient but not necessary for being successful,” means if you work hard, you will be successful, but there might be other ways to achieve success as well, like having a unique talent, getting a lucky break, or receiving an inheritance. [Note: For our discussion, this option is conceptually same as option #1].

My friends opine that hard work is both necessary and sufficient for success, and inwardly, they are looking at themselves in the mirror as shining examples. What they forget is small events and nudges along their journey that helped them to be what they are today.

Our decision to pursue a Ph.D. program in the U.S. speaks volumes about us. Back in our home countries, we were considered above average. Our family background provided us with the opportunity to attend reputable colleges and receive quality education, which served as a springboard for our journey to the U.S. to further our studies. We had the means to attend college, a commitment that, despite being more affordable in our home countries compared to the U.S., is still a luxury not everyone can afford. Therefore, while hard work played a significant role in our journey, it was not the sole determinant of our success. By sheer luck, the family we were born in had a lot to do with it.

While I prefer not to disclose specifics about my friends, I can share that my journey to a U.S. university for a Ph.D. program involved a mix of hard work and good fortune. Originally, a colleague of mine was slated to travel to the U.S. as part of an exchange program. However, due to health complications, they were unable to seize this opportunity, instead I took their slot. This stroke of luck, coupled with my dedication and effort, has led me to where I am today. I know that my friends have experienced similar fortuitous circumstances on their paths as well.

However, prior to the fortunate events that shaped our life’s journey, it was the circumstance of our birth that initially set the stage.

There is a proverb that compares the conditions of our birth to the luck of winning a lottery. This metaphor encapsulates the idea that the circumstances of one’s birth, including geographic location, socioeconomic status, and family structure, can profoundly impact one’s life opportunities and outcomes. The lottery analogy underscores the randomness of circumstances in which we are born; our time and place of birth are determined purely by chance, not by any actions or decisions on our part. This viewpoint emphasizes the influence of luck and circumstance in our lives from the outset. It serves as a potent reminder of the numerous uncontrollable factors that can shape our life paths.

I was born into a middle-class family in a country that, while it had its share of corrupt politicians and social issues (which persist to this day), was not plagued by wars or genocide. Issues like corruption, while significant, did not cripple our society. I was fortunate to have a stable family and the opportunity to attend a reputable school and college. From the outset, the odds were in my favor.

The circumstances of our birth are the initial state from which our life trajectory develops, and these starting conditions bear considerable influence.

Certainly, there are always exceptions to the rule. Figures such as Nelson Mandela, frequently dubbed ‘black swans,’ rise from the most daunting situations conceivable. Through determination and tenacity, they break through barriers. Nonetheless, these cases are outliers and do not set norms for the majority of us.

There is often a tendency among successful individuals to downplay the role of luck and unique opportunities in their journey, holding divergent perspectives and losing sight of their roots. This mindset is also prevalent among the current generation of Republicans. They tend to believe that if someone has not managed to extricate themselves from their predicament, it is due to a lack of effort on their part.

The crux of the matter is that success in life necessitates challenging work. While hard work enhances the probability of success, it doesn’t assure it. This is akin to maintaining a healthy diet and regular exercise regimen, which can potentially extend one’s health span. However, there is no guarantee that the desired outcomes will be achieved.

I wonder if there is any action in the present that is both essential and adequate to ensure the certainty of future outcomes. Suddenly, all that one is working towards and is on the verge of achieving can be thrown off course. An ordinary medical check-up can abruptly flip our lives, turning a blissful existence into a living nightmare.

Thus, the three of us continue to engage in lively debates over the matter, while maintaining amicable relations, which is the most important aspect of being friends.

Ciao.

Why do people vote for the likes of Trump?

 

Donald Trump has been saying that he will run for president as a Republican, which is surprising since I just assumed he was running as a joke — Seth Meyers

Arun Kumar

AI Generated Image

Why do individuals across various nations cast their votes for leaders like Trump? This is a man who once stared directly into the sun during a solar eclipse, altered a hurricane’s projected path using a marker, proposed to cater a university football team with hundreds of burgers amidst a government shutdown, and referred to far-right protestors as “very fine people.” The list continues.

Despite everything, in 2016 he was elected as the President of the United States. It’s a daunting thought if he is to be re-elected in 2024. The survival of US democracy would be at stake.

What does a certain segment of the population see in him that makes them willing to vote for him? It’s an interesting question to ask. The answer could be an interplay of various elements such as personal and societal values and beliefs, political ideologies, economic circumstances etc. of the electorate.

To answer this question, a recent article in The Guardian explored why Americans continue to vote for Trump. The article suggested that people’s values tend to cluster around two types of traits — intrinsic and extrinsic, which could be somewhat analogous to people being introverts and extroverts. The author suggested that “People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power, and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community.”

The article went on to say that “Trump, perhaps more than any other public figure in recent history, is a walking, talking monument to extrinsic values.” Simultaneously, societal values have been increasingly shifting towards the adoration of extrinsic values. These include the acquisition of wealth, increased attention to the self, and the pursuit of material possessions as a source of happiness (leading to a cycle of hedonistic consumption, etc.). As these values become more prevalent, a figure emerges who openly champions these values that people hold within. For Trump, this connection was the ticket to presidency.

Another probable reason that people vote for Trump could be rooted in evolutionary psychology that has left us with some psychological traits that are now imbedded in our psyche. Trump either possess the intelligence to recognize and manipulate these traits or has an instinctual knack for playing chords that resonate with our psyche.

Our inclination towards certain psychological traits can be attributed to the principles of natural selection. Natural selection is a process in which organisms with traits that favor survival and reproduction tend to produce more offspring than their peers, leading to an increase in the frequency of such advantageous traits over generations. These traits could be either physical or psychological.

Some examples of these psychological traits include a preference for people similar to us (a trait referred to as kinship or tribalism), a heightened sensitivity to negativity (which helped us recognize dangers in the wild), engaging in risky behaviors (stemming from our quest to be the alpha male), and discounting the future (with the present being more important than an uncertain future), to name a few. Each of these traits can be argued to have given us some advantage in the pursuit of survival and reproduction.

Consider kinship. In the wilderness, life can be dangerous when lived alone. The chances of survival and reproduction increase if we become part of a tribe and look after each other’s common interests for survival, such as sharing food and taking turns to keep watch while others sleep. However, this same trait also leads to conflicts among tribes and has been responsible for genocides in recent history.

Similarly, fear and anxiety are crucial emotions that have helped human survival. Our brains are wired to respond to potential threats, preparing our bodies to flee or fight a perceived danger. Even today, the mere rustling of grass behind our backs triggers the thought that it could be a snake and cause our hair to stand on end.

Through the evolutionary trajectory that has brought us to this point, the psychological traits that were beneficial for our survival and reproduction have become ingrained in us. The timescale of human civilization, which is about 10,000 years, is not long enough compared to evolutionary time for these traits to disappear. Even though our environment has changed, and we are no longer hunter-gatherers, these same traits continue to shape our behavior in the present.

The downside is that these traits can be manipulated and exploited, particularly in the context of political gains. Humans are gullible, and politicians and snake oil salesman have figured that out.

Offer people a slogan — MAGA — and create a sense of belonging to a tribe. Play on their fears of liberals taking over and people will be threatened. Assert your dominance and demonstrate that you are the alpha male, and they will perceive you as a powerful figure. Prioritizing immediate gains and offering what people want, even if it may harm future generations, is an easy sell. These manipulations resonate with our inherent traits, leading people to align with your cause and vote for you to become the President.

Trump possesses another characteristic that sets him that attracts the crowd. It is his audacity (or perhaps narcissistic recklessness) to say things that are often left unsaid, and yet, he manages to evade grave consequences. Ordinary individuals, on the other hand, may feel constrained by social norms or fear of ostracism from their peers, and thus refrain from expressing similar sentiments, even though they might harbor them. Wouldn’t other people like to utter statements equivalent to “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” or “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the… You can do anything” and still manage to evade repercussions?

And so, it seems some of the reasons people vote for politicians of the likes of Trump are (a) these politicians have a visceral feeling about what resonates with the psychological traits that the process of natural selection has endowed us with, and (b) they are prone to say things out loud (and seemingly get away with them) that normal people only wish we could say.

I almost forgot, there is another reason that people vote for him. In him, they see a person who is willing to degrade and denigrate those who they perceive as being ‘holier than thou’ (e.g., liberals, human rights supporters, backers of sustainable development), but who are beyond the reach of their hands. It is figures like Trump who can assuage their anger that seethes within and can bring them retribution without facing arrest or prosecution.

In Trump they see a Roman Emperor who would drag the people they dislike into the colosseum’s arena through the Gate of Life to be humiliated, insulted, and debased while they sit in the galleries and cheer on the spectacle hoping that by the evening the Gate of Death shall receive the fallen. Through Trump they see their path for revenge. In Trump, they see enjoying games of retribution sitting in a Roman Colosseum.

Help us all if the 2024 Presidential election goes in favor of Trump.

Ciao.