Faux Checks & Unbalanced: US style

If there was a time when countries around the world were supposed to emulate the US in terms of democratic development, we have surely reached the point where everyone should learn to avoid the pitfalls of the American system of government.

Every government needs non-party-political experts and administrators to ensure that assessments are carried out reliably, and plans are implemented fairly and effectively. But the US favours having political appointees in a myriad of positions, including the most senior ones for all major government departments and agencies. There is no requirement for appointees to have any relevant expertise or proven experience, so long as they fit with what the person at the top of the chain of command wants.

So, if the US President happens to want to appoint a vaccine-denier to look after the health of the country, a climate change-denier to deal with energy policy, someone whose geopolitical assessments aligned with Putin’s to oversee national security, an individual who sees no educational role for the federal government to take charge of education, and people who cannot be trusted on law and order to head up Justice or the FBI – it will all happen unless enough of the mostly subservient members of his party in the Senate dare oppose him.

As for the idea that the US has a written constitution that provides impartial safeguards, what that constitution permits or forbids is always up for interpretation by the Supreme Court – and whenever a case comes up that is contested on party political lines, the court’s views are split between its members who were appointed by a Democrat president, and those appointed by a Republican president. Which version prevails depends on which side has the majority, and at the moment, the Republican side has a 6-3 advantage. Not surprisingly, it struck down a Democrat president’s policy to give relief to student loans, but supported the Republican demand to overturn the right to abortion. 

When it comes to the rule of law, the US President can, like some medieval monarch, pardon convicted criminals without any justification. There is no question of excluding cases where there is a personal interest, no requirement for any form of an impartial board to assess the propriety of any decision. To compound the irony, while the US system enables individual states to bar convicted felons from voting in elections, it allows a convicted felon such as Trump to run for and obtain the office of US president. And as president, the Republican majority Supreme Court has declared that he is immune from prosecution for any ‘official’ act – however egregious – he might undertake.

Meanwhile, citizens in certain states are given greater voting power than others. Every state, whatever its population, can elect two US senators. For example, the half a million people in Wyoming are represented by the same number of senators (and thus have the same political influence in the Senate) as the almost 40 million people in California. Imagine the 41,000 residents of the County of Rutland in the UK having the same number of representatives in one of our legislative chambers as the 3 million people of West Midlands. 

And this disproportionality reappears in the electoral system for the US president, making it possible for a candidate to receive fewer votes from the people than their rival, and still win the presidency by dint of an archaic electoral college arrangements that inherently give citizens in the smaller (more rural) states greater influence than others.

The US since the days of President Woodrow Wilson has talked of bringing democracy to the rest of the world. It cannot leave it any longer to start rebuilding it at home.

What is Our Shared Identity?

Some people have very strong views about who ‘We’ are. They invoke ‘We’ as an identity badge that keeps them apart from various kinds of people who they would like to see excluded from their conception of ‘their’ school, business, neighbourhood, or country. 

But what is it that matters so much to them in cutting off certain people?

It turns out that it’s a mixed bag of dreads and dislikes. Examples include things like shades of skin tone, facial features supposedly associated with ‘race’, country of birth, language spoken – even particular dialect or accent, one’s place of worship, religious affiliation, attachment to certain customs, or how one dresses. 

However, does any of this make sense?

Is skin tone remotely reliable as a marker for who can be trusted? Have we not all received help from people who speak more than one language? Do we need more futile religious wars before we reach the familiar conclusion that we are better off living in peace regardless of obscure theological differences? Don’t customs change and become no less engaging? And why get wound up over headdresses when designated ‘hijabs’, while one can be so meekly deferential towards them when they appear as a nun’s wimple? 

The people who cynically stoke obsessions with such irrelevant differences often fall back on the claim that they point to critical divergence in values. ‘We’ are supposed to have one set of admirable values, and these ‘others’ allegedly do not share them and should therefore be kept away. So, what are these values?

According to what may be termed the ‘Chauvinist’ conception of values, ‘good’ and ‘right’ are somehow derived exclusively from being ‘white’, subscribing to some anti-compassion religion that nonetheless claims to be ‘Christian’, despising other nations, holding that women should be subservient to men, deferential to ‘get rich quick’ gurus, outraged by any form of ‘unconventional’ sexuality, and inclined to glorify aggression. In reality, these are not widely shared values at all, though they are quite influential amongst many people who gravitate towards certain types of political party.

By contrast, the shared values we do regard as important, and would want others to exhibit are what may be called Values of Mutual Concern – these are the values embedded in the Golden Rule of doing to others as we would want others to treat us; the values that underpin solidarity and facilitate cooperation. In essence, as we would want to experience kindness, fair treatment, and adequate support when we are in need, we value the display of kindness, fair treatment, and adequate support whenever people are in need. If anyone has malicious intent or set on harmful behaviour, we would have to guard against them. But otherwise, we want to live and work with people who will be considerate and helpful to each other without picking over factors that have no bearing on their readiness to give and receive consideration and help. 

Whatever organisation, neighbourhood, or country, we find ourselves in, WE on reflection are likely to see that far from wanting to be near people who would treat others with callous indifference or even vile aggression regardless of how considerate or helpful they might be, the ones we would prefer any day to be our colleagues, neighbours, compatriots are those who are disposed to deal with others respectfully, fairly, and reciprocally.

Hear any more about the importance of shared identity? Remember what kind of people WE truly want to be identified with.

Be Careful What You Vote For

There are, rightly, many forms of guidance and warning regarding activities that affect our wellbeing. What we eat, how often we exercise, the way we drive, manage our finances, the dangers of smoking and drinking alcohol, and numerous other areas where good advice is sought and provided. But when it comes to one of the most important things that can impact on our lives – voting on who gets the power to rule – it’s anything goes! 

It really is time we let people know why they need to take great care over the casting of their vote. We can start with a few words on five types of misguided vote:

[1] The Blinkered Protest Vote

Many have felt so frustrated with what is happening around them that they want to scream at something. Some may feel that whoever is in power should be ejected. Some become obsessed with blaming the EU for everything. Some are furious no one has managed to instantly resolve all conflicts in the Middle East. But instead of voting for what would bring about real improvements, they cast a protest vote that – in helping to get a party with dire policies elected – only makes things much worse.

            

[2] The Amnesiac Vote

We hear about the likes of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson who routinely lie without compunction; politicians who seek financial gains for themselves and their wealthy associates at the expense of the country; people who have consistently exhibited callousness and incompetence. And yet when another election comes around, some voters do not so much forgive but totally forget about what these charlatans are like, and fall for their empty promises and vicious slanders.

[3] The Friendly Fire Vote

There are some amongst us who, having seen a particular politician – in person, or in the media – and found them pleasant and friendly, decide to vote for them even though that politician’s party has seriously harmful policies. Since it is down to the party with the majority in the legislature (by itself or in coalition with partners) that determines what law is enacted, voting for the ‘friendly one’ will only increase the chance of power being handed to those who will bring about the most detrimental outcome.

[4] The Comeuppance Vote 

Some people believe that society needs ‘strong’ leaders who will dispense with checks and balance, and get things done swiftly without hesitation – to the extent of undermining judicial impartiality, independent oversight, democratic accountability, and protection of the innocent. They are therefore willing, enthusiastic even, to vote for authoritarians who, once they are in power, ruthlessly pursue personal gains at the expense of the public, crush opposition, and ruin people’s lives without constraint.

[5] The Self-Harming Idealist Vote

There are also those who will only vote for the ‘ideal’ candidate – even if that person stands no chance of winning. These voters feel that it is important for their vote to express what they believe truly merits their electoral endorsement. But in refusing to vote for the ‘not good enough’ candidate whose party can actually win and make real improvements to people’s lives, the idealist vote could in practice allow the ‘not good at all’ candidate and their party to win and usher in years of greater harm and suffering.

Voting affects people’s lives. It’s not simply a matter of expressing how we feel, or going along with what seems attractive at first glance. To vote responsibly, we must take into account what consequences different options may very likely lead to, and act accordingly.

--

NOTE:

On the problem of idealistic and partisan voting ignoring practical impact, consider the case of the North West Essex constituency (in the 2024 UK elections). Many people who wanted to see the incumbent Conservative MP ousted were keen to explore which rival candidate stood the best chance of achieving that. Local as well as national polling found that the Labour candidate was well ahead in being that candidate. Unfortunately, there were Liberal Democrat and Green voters who refused to give tactical support to the Labour candidate, and the Conservative candidate retained her seat (and went on to become the leader of the Conservative Party). In fact, even if just the relatively small number of votes that went to the Greens had gone to the Labour candidate, the latter would have won the seat from the Conservatives. (See below)

·      Kemi Badenoch (Conservative): 19,360

·      Issy Waite (Labour): 16,750

·      Smita Rajesh (Liberal Democrats): 6,055

·      Edward Gildea (Green): 2,846

Verulam’s Progress: modernity revisited

It’s been fashionable for some time to knock modernity. 

It is attacked for promoting blinkered technocracy; for oppressive rationalism; for liberal permissiveness; for pushing a Western-centric cultural imperialism; for materialistic obsessions; for male bias; for being disrespectful towards non-intellectual forms of communication; and to top it all, for needing to be disrupted and displaced by the ‘post-modern’.

Just about any societal change some people dislike or any aspect of status quo some others object to can seemingly be blamed on ‘modernity’. Somehow, this amorphous ‘Western’, Enlightenment-related, notion of ‘progress’ – advancing from the outmoded to the modern – is the culprit of everything that is wrong under the sun.

But instead of going along with ‘modernity’ as a label for whatever some disgruntled naysayer wants to lambast, let’s focus on the progressive ethos that actually informed the quest for modernity. We’re talking about the philosophy of improvement set out by Francis Bacon (Lord Verulam) in early 17^thcentury, developed by John Locke’s empiricist critiques, David Hume’s and related Enlightenment arguments against dogmatic and irrational thinking, J. S. Mill’s utilitarian analysis of science and society, through to John Dewey’s pragmatist exposition of problem-solving in the 20^th century.

The starting point is an abiding concern with making life better – reducing suffering, removing barriers to cooperation, tackling threats to wellbeing, opening up new opportunities for fulfilment. The measure is what people themselves experience as damaging or helpful, not what an arbitrary authority dictates as the ‘Good’ life. The improvement sought is not just for oneself or a few, but for as many people as possible.

In order to improve on things as they are, we need to understand what can change, how changes can be brought about, and what consequences may result. To do that, we need to carefully set aside dogmas and prejudices, and rely on the gathering of evidence, meticulous experimentation, impartial testimony and observation, to build up information and hypotheses which can be tested by objective means, and revisable in the light of new findings.

To facilitate the practice of critical empirical learning, we need to inculcate an ethos of cooperative enquiry. This calls for openness and civility in the exchange of ideas and findings, respectful deliberations, and the readiness to subject claims to test and investigation. For this to happen, along with educative development, we also need to keep at bay attempts to deceive, intimidate, coerce, bribe, and manipulate participants seeking to learn.  

To sustain objective learning and connect it with improving people’s lives, progress requires institutional support and protection. On the one hand, it is essential to have a public authority that can enable the development and application of cooperative enquiry to proceed in the service of the people. On the other, such an authority must be democratically grounded so that it is accountable to the people in learning to undergo changes to improve.

The above elements encapsulate the progressive modernity that is at the heart of the philosophical ethos advanced by thinkers from Bacon to Dewey. It rejects both dogmatism and scepticism in favour of continuous learning, provisional guidance, and evidence-based revisability. It is inclusive and participatory, and supports neither technocracy nor luddism. It respects traditions of the past and of diverse cultures, but seeks to improve prevailing practices where they are found to be harmful, or when better outcomes can be secured in the light of cautious explorations. It is concerned with social and cultural development as well as material ones. It does not regard preservation or disruption of the status quo as an end in itself, but advocates change when it is likely to improve people’s lives sustainably.

In the 21^st century, we should cast aside arbitrary rejections of modernity, and stay true to the course of Verulam’s Progress.

It Can’t Happen Here … Twice

Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel, It Can’t Happen Here, was a dystopian warning against fascist influence in the US. In the story, the nasty con man, ‘Buzz’ Windrip, was elected President and ran the country for his personal benefit. To secure his power base, he ruthlessly set about dismantling democratic checks and balance. Lewis wanted Americans to realise however much they thought authoritarian rule could not happen in the US, it would take just one devious scoundrel, backed by a misled public, to gain enough support to take control.

 

If the first Trump presidency is not enough to validate Lewis’ admonition, the 2024 elections are reminding us that history can indeed repeat itself.

 

But how could this have happened? Many causes have been cited, yet there is one which ought to be getting more attention – namely, the Spread of Unenlightened Self-Interest.

The Trump message which resonated with many voters – enough to tip the balance towards Trump in the seven swing states – contains variations on a core theme:

·      There will be big tax cuts – this will help you, and only hurt others who rely on bloated government programmes.

·      There will be support for fossil fuel jobs over all that ‘climate change’ nonsense – this will help you, and only hurt others who bang on tediously about ‘global warming’.

·      There will be lots of tariffs on imports – this will help you, and only hurt others in all those foreign countries getting rich off us.

·      There will be mass deportation of illegal immigrants – this will help you, and only hurt otherswho have no right to be in our country.

·      There will be more business deregulation – this will help you, and only hurt others who would damage our economy if we let them.

·      There will be an end to funding expensive arms for Ukraine – this will help you, and only hurt others who are not serious about peace with Russia.

Trump’s ‘populist’ appeal thus revolves around big promises that sound as though they would help Americans on a range of major issues. Some may be tempted to counter this by taking the ‘moral high ground’, and telling people to stop being selfish and think more about the needs of others. 

 

That would be a mistake.

 

When people are deeply concerned about making a decent living for themselves and their families, we need to connect with them by engaging them in discovering what would really help them, and what could actually hurt them. So the antidote to the ‘populist’ pill should take on board more the following formulation:

·      Beware of tax cuts that will just mostly help the wealthy few; check if the tax burden on you is genuinely going to be eased; and look out for corresponding budget cuts that are going to end up hurting you and your family.

·      The longer climate change is not tackled properly, the worse damages you will suffer from extreme weather with more frequent drought and flooding; by contrast, investment in green jobs will lead to much more sustainable employment for everyone, and prevent our country from becoming a backwater in green business globally.

·      Higher tariffs means you will have to pay more for what you have previously been buying; raising tariffs on imports will provoke other countries to raise their tariffs on our exports, which means our country will sell less abroad, our businesses will be harmed, and you will end up with fewer job opportunities; and remember, if we could so easily make the things we’ve been importing, why isn’t anyone doing it? (Answer: we might be able to do it – but it would be more costly; so look out for higher prices and inflation hurting you).

·      You know friends and neighbours who are kind and helpful to you, and they work hard, pay taxes, and boost the economy. If you wait until they are being dragged away for deportation before you protest, it would be too late. Do you really want to trust any agency with such sweeping powers when they could turn on you and question your ancestry?

·      Don’t you want safe products for your family, clean air and water, acceptable working conditions? ‘Deregulation’ just means they will get rid of laws that are there to protect you and your family.

·      Not supplying arms to Ukraine when it is attacked by Russia, when it is happening on the doorstep of NATO, which the US helped to establish after World War Two to prevent another global conflict from erupting? Are you going to be safer with a leader who prefers to appease a dictator who’s ordered the invasion of another country? Besides, if all this ‘peace’ talk is about saving money, why keep committing to huge defence spending everywhere else? 

No electoral strategy can work by dismissing people’s legitimate self-interest. What it must do is work with people to identify what will truly serve their interests, and what threatens the things they desperately care about.

The CONflating of Government and Governed

The people with power to govern a country may claim to act on behalf of those governed in that country, but it is quite possible for the former to go against the interest of the latter. Furthermore, citizens are entitled to disagree with and repudiate what their government do in their name.

Yet there is a common political Con trick that tries to make people think that the government is identical with the governed. For example, if you criticise your government for not providing reliable public services, you are condemned for being negative about your country. If you point out the dangerous lies perpetrated by your government, you are accused of being unpatriotic. If you denounce the military actions of a foreign government, you are censured for being racist towards that foreign country.

In practice, we see this trick played all the time. US Republicans, when in power, are ever ready to brush aside ‘un-American’ criticisms of their failings along with a mass chanting of ‘USA, USA’. British Conservatives have repeatedly defended their mismanagement of the economy by steadfastly insisting that people should not talk down the UK. And anyone (Jewish or otherwise) who strongly disagrees with the tactics of Benjamin Netanyahu over decades is deemed ‘anti-Israel’, ‘antisemitic’. 

We must remember that one of the most important elements of democratic politics is that those who are entrusted with the power to govern do NOT personify the governed. Indeed, the people are the ones who ultimately hold the power and they only let the govern use it on a time-limited basis on the condition they use it wisely for the benefit of the country. It is precisely because what a government does may not match what a country seeks that members of the country can criticise and reject a government.

To conflate a government with the governed is to hollow out democracy. And that unsurprisingly is what authoritarian politicians are inclined to do. Once they have secured the power to govern, they present themselves as the voice of the people, the embodiment of the country. Anyone criticising them is an enemy of the people, denigrator of the country – and should not be trusted or listened to.

We must expose this trick and make sure those who govern badly cannot hide behind the flag of their country. The condemnation of political leaders who order the mass killing of people across their borders is not to be confused with animosity towards the people they have ruling power over. In many cases, it is because we care deeply about a country and the people who live there, that we want to point out the ill-intent and damaging behaviour of the individuals governing that country.

People who give their full backing to a ruler no matter what they do is not a patriot, but a patron of dictatorship.

Cooperation 101: lessons in co-existence

If people don’t learn why and how we should secure healthy co-existence, society suffers.

The key question is how we are to relate to others who can affect our wellbeing. And there are basically four different approaches which may be adopted:

[A] Cooperative Co-existence: mutual concern & support

Be concerned for others’ wellbeing, and be prepared to support them as one would want others to be concerned and supportive towards one. The whole community is stronger because its members are cooperative with one another for the sake of ensuring everyone has a fair chance to live a fulfilling life.

[B] Oppressive Co-existence: conflict & domination

Put one’s interests above those of others, and use whatever means necessary to make others serve one’s goals. Aim to fight (by force or by economic means) and defeat others, and consider being able to take advantage of others the only worthy aim.

[C] Parasitic Co-existence: manipulative exploitation

Pretend to respect cooperative arrangements, but seek to break the rules, cheat, and manipulate others so that one can make gains from others without them realising what one is up to. 

[D] Individualistic Co-existence: self-regarding indifference

Consider everyone’s wellbeing their own business, and shun collective arrangements as inherently unacceptable. Ignore others except where a particular agreement can bring tangible benefits to oneself.

Now [B] would be the chosen stance of totalitarians, theocrats, fascists, communists, militarists, who want to impose their rule on others, and make everyone else live in a way that fits with how they want things to be. [C] would be the approach of free-riders who may say all kinds of thing in public, but will not hesitate in private to trick, steal, or by any means take unfair advantage of others. [D] would be the path for libertarians, anarchists, and rampant individualists who reject all rules and regulations they have not personally endorsed, regardless of the implications for others. Unless we want to head towards social disintegration via [B], [C], or [D], we would need to nurture and strengthen [A] – inculcating mutual concern and support from early age, and sustaining it through lifelong learning.

This will involve the following core elements to be taught:

·      Reciprocity and the mutual responsibility that entails: 

Teaching the golden rule – highlight the importance of treating others as one would have others treat one; make sure all are disposed to be respectful and caring, and displace hateful prejudices; realise that everyone must take responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their actions; and value support arrangements that will help whoever is in need.

·      Objectivity and the cooperative enquiry that requires: 

Teach open reasoning – assessment of what is to be believed should be based on exchange of evidence and coherent arguments; no unquestionable doctrine (religious or ideological) can be invoked to justify any assertion; anyone with relevant information should be allowed to contribute to deliberations; and provisional findings are subject to future revisions.

·      Inclusivity and the citizen participation that demands: 

Teach power sharing – explain the danger of power being concentrated in one or a few; wealth and other resource inequalities must be minimised to curtail power gaps; collective power is pragmatically necessary but must be democratically accountable; limits on different forms of power should be set to protect all; and deliberative engagement is essential.

Illiberal populism and plutocratic manipulation have gained grounds because too many people are unaware that allowing the unscrupulous to fan distrust and hate, spread lies and distortions, and accumulate vast wealth and power to dictate terms to others, means that insecurity and oppression will destroy any chance for healthy co-existence. 

Under the rubric of ‘personal and social education’ or ‘citizenship education’, we must start teaching why and how we should strengthen cooperative co-existence.