The ‘Sleight of Vote’

One of the most deviously potent lines in politics is “That’s what the people voted for” – which seems to silence even seasoned interviewers, as though nothing more can be said if the ‘people’s vote’ card has been played.

But let’s rewind and watch carefully how we have gone from the casting of votes to what is actually being done thereafter. There are three types of trick which might be at work here.

[1] The Blank Cheque trick:

‘Populist’ dictators would claim that a single electoral victory is enough to instigate arbitrary rule. But in a real democracy, election results only ever confer strictly limited powers to carry out legitimate policy commitments. There is no blank cheque. For example, those who have obtained public office cannot go on to imprison people on the basis of their ethnicity, collaborate with tax evaders to leave citizens to die from hunger and disease, torture people for the way they pray, cancel all future elections, or close all schools and media except for those that will praise the new leader. Only fascists pretend that winning an election means they can do whatever they want thereafter. Democracy only works if people are assured that whoever wins power through the vote, their own basic wellbeing would not be capriciously violated.

[2] The Deceived Offer trick:

Another trick is to entice voters with one set of promise, knowing that victory will enable them to do something quite different. Famously, Brexit advocates insisted in many public forums that leaving the EU would NOT mean leaving the Single Market, that millions saved would be handed to the NHS, and the economy would thrive from the overall increase in trade. When the Brexit vote was won, these same advocates claimed that voters had given them the mandate to pull the UK out of the Single Market, resulting in the country losing out in trade and revenue, with nothing diverted to help the NHS which many of the most vocal Brexiters actually plotted to end through privatisation. To try to push through what was not actually promised is not having a democratic mandate at all.

[3] The Manipulated Vote trick

Last but not least, the voting process itself might not be valid if it has been undermined by partisan manipulation. Consider the following tactics: make it more difficult for those likely to vote against one to register to vote, or target them with contrived barriers (like ID cards, or distorted checking arrangements) to stop them voting on the day; redraw boundaries so unfavourable votes are pulled away to minimise their impact; send out false information about when or what vote is taking place; tamper with electronic voting machines; ensure one’s plutocratic backers can spend immeasurably more than one’s opponents to distract voters from the issues being voted on. Outcomes of manipulated votes are not representative of what citizens – informed and unhindered – would have supported, and therefore lack real legitimacy.

By a ‘sleight of vote’, contemporary authoritarians seek to emulate their forerunners in the 1930s and win by all dubious means enough votes to claim electoral victory. Thereafter, their plan is to brush aside the rule of law, rescind any promise of moderation they might have previously made, and plough ahead with their ruthless seizure of wealth and power. It is a plan that must be exposed and halted.

Speak Truth to the People

[Will our political leaders speak truth to the people? They’d be welcome to use this outline I’ve prepared earlier …]

We all want things to get better.

And they can get better, if we face up to what the real challenges are, and focus on tackling them.

But if we allow those who only think about enriching themselves and their wealthy backers to deceive us on every major issue, things will just get worse.

When they tell you that deregulation is good, that’s because their profiteering friends want to get rid of basic standards that protect you and your family. What they don’t tell you is that you’d not only be worse off as workers and consumers, but when the financial markets are so deregulated that banks can take totally irresponsible risks, we get hit by financial crises like the one in 2008, and everyone’s in jeopardy until banks get bailed out.

When they tell you that leaving the EU is good, that’s because they can deregulate even more and lower standards even further. What they don’t tell you is that it would hurt our economy, our trade, our businesses, so much that our country now has billions of pound less for everything you care about.

When they tell you to blame immigrants for everything, that’s because they want you to vent your frustration against people who make easy targets. What they don’t tell you is that these people are hard workers, carers, problem-solvers, who pay taxes, and without them our country would be poorer in countless ways.

& they tell us to dismiss Net Zero and reject policies to cut carbon emissions, that’s because they are on very good terms with fossil fuel producers. What they don’t tell you is that pollutions and climate fluctuations are causing severe damages, and renewable energy offers the only real alternative to get us to a healthy and sustainable future.

Instead of listening to these people who attack everything that is actually valuable to you, and who offer nothing to improve your lives, look at what we are working on.

We are investing in expanding social housing so that people have somewhere decent they can afford to rent, and in building more homes that you don’t have to have above-average income to buy.

We are investing in the training, recruitment and retention of nurses, carers, teachers, doctors and other vital public servants, so that people can always rely on the support of good public services.

We are investing in our green industrial revolution so that there will be more quality jobs, healthier environments, and more dependable sources of renewable energy. 

We are investing in comprehensive security for everyone so that protection is strengthened against military and terrorist threats, criminal violations, the spread of infectious disease, and the impact of poverty.

And we are investing in building relations with countries we can count on so that when those trying to isolate or harm us, we are able to work with genuinely trusted allies to achieve what we alone would not be able to do.

Despite all that, you will no doubt be told to brush aside what we say. You will be urged to keep blaming the scapegoats they daily remind you to blame. But remember this – what they strive to achieve is what hurts you; what you really need for a better life is what they condemn; and what we are doing is what will bring about lasting improvement.

The ‘Inequality’s OK’ Fallacy

A common defence of inequality is that it does not matter so long as people are better off than they might otherwise be, or they have enough to get by. Concerns about inequality are then dismissed as dogmatic or naïve because efforts to reduce inequality might make lives worse for those who are doing ‘well’ even they currently have comparatively less than others.

Many people are taken in by this line of argument, but let us unpack what is being said. The ‘better off’ clause is often brought in by comparing prevailing conditions with what happened in the past. For example, why moan about your share of the company’s earnings going down from X% to Y% when your actual pay has gone up? Well, what if the unequal sharing out reflects the power of those in charge to take a larger share? Furthermore, any increase in pay may not lead to a ‘better off’ position, if prices have more widely risen, the bosses are demanding tougher work targets for gains that would mostly go to them, or job security is declining as the hiring/firing power of those in charge grows with their relative financial strengths.

Whether someone is ‘better off’ depends on many conditions other than the extras their bosses give them. The extra pay may not help one keep pace with getting the better life others can take for granted. For example, as medical care improves, it is no consolation to say to someone denied the latest treatment, “you are better off than you would have been fifty years ago”, when other people today can get far more effective help with reducing the pain and curing the condition one is suffering from. The same goes for the notion of ‘enough to get by’. Are we supposed to peg the standards of ‘getting by’ to survival in primitive times, or attaining the average lifespan of 30 or 40 years in a medieval village? Or do we factor in how society has developed, and what resources and opportunities now exist for people to utilise?

How those resources and opportunities are generated and accessed depends on the socio-political arrangements that are in place. And here is where inequality poses an even deeper problem that no one can ignore.

Inequality in wealth inevitably brings inequality in power. That power gap has meant that the rich can (and some certainly do) load the societal dice in their own favour at every turn. The more obvious tactics include: donations to politicians and parties that would help them and hinder those who might not comply with their agendas (e.g., workers, unions, environmental activists); hiring expensive lawyers and lobbyists to make sure the legal system works as far as possible for their benefit at the expense of those who cannot afford to fight back; and funding media and ‘thinktank’ output that promotes initiatives that would help strengthen their position.

Meanwhile, those with a dwindling share of wealth and power find themselves with less influence over public polices and suffer accordingly. Housing becomes a growing problem for them whatever they earn at the bottom half (two-thirds even) of the income pyramid, as the wealthy buy up properties as investment. The superrich also buy up havens aboard and live in pristine surroundings, while others pay the price for the polluted air and dire water management coming from companies owned by wealthy investors. Educational betterment is increasingly reserved for those from rich families as universities become unaffordable for most.

We now come to the ‘Let Sleeping Inequalities Lie’ line – based on the alleged wisdom that attempts to tackle inequality could just make things worse for everyone. This simply ignores what the New Deal achieved in the US, the impact of Attlee’s post-war reforms, and the enviable quality of life (as measured by every global indicator) attained by the Nordic countries through their inequality-reducing policies. Inequalities in power should and could be reduced to improve our lives. What’s more, left to fester, they might well bite back with a vengeance.

The Real Communitarian Challenge

We’re still hearing commentators say that progressive politicians should be more ‘communitarian’ in backing ‘traditional’ values and outlook – which are taken to mean anti-diversity, anti-immigration, and prioritising local concerns over global issues. But they are mistaken on two counts.

Firstly, as anyone who has studied the works of bona fide communitarian thinkers would know – communitarian ideas are about improving people’s lives by learning from their collective experiences. Throughout history, communities have many different traditions and practices, and which of these should be retained, revised, or rejected, should be based on the impact they have on people, and what they discover from each other as they explore possible changes and what beneficial or harmful consequences may follow. Communitarians criticise the discarding of past arrangements on the basis of any dogmatic assumption, as much as they object to keeping all arrangements regardless of their effects.

Secondly, any serious communitarian analysis of society would tell us that communities would not in fact be better off with less diversity, rejection of immigration, or turning a blind eye to global issues. It is not an ideological declaration, but practical examinations that inform us that enabling people with different backgrounds to mix and cooperate enriches their lives; migrants bring skills and dedication that would not be in demand if there were not significant unmet needs; and local concerns cannot be effectively addressed unless global issues are properly dealt with too.

Communitarian findings do not support insular fossilisation of an imagined past as the way to a good life. They consider the evidence revealed in community life, and point to what works better than other alternatives. Three of these are particularly worthy of note.

[A] Communities that foster Mutual Responsibility: 

Communities where their members mingle freely irrespective of their backgrounds are more inventive, productive, and at ease in collaborating with others from inside or outside their own areas. With their members’ general respect for one another, and their sense of responsibility for how their actions can affect others, such communities are more adaptive to changes, harmonious in resolving differences, and less prone to being divided by irrelevant or trivial differences.

[B] Communities that support Cooperative Enquiry: 

Communities where their members learn by sharing arguments, discoveries, experiments openly are more advanced in obtaining reliable information, developing useful theories and practices, and investigating the veracity of contested claims. Unlike communities that are dominated by arbitrary dogmas or self-proclaimed unquestionable authorities, communities that learn cooperatively are more capable of problem-solving, and exposing harmful prejudices and fallacies.

[C] Communities that empower Citizen Participation:  

Communities where their members share power and can influence decisions that affect their lives are more cohesive, stable, and disposed to take joint ownership of actions undertaken to deal with the challenges they face. Having to take account of others, with none too powerful to dictate terms, such communities have more dependable means to pool their efforts and resources in collective endeavours for their common benefits, and are less vulnerable to chaos or oppression.

People who advocate the retention of damaging features of dysfunctional communities are no more ‘communitarians’ than people who demand the retention of harmful aspects of polluted environments are ‘environmentalists’. The real communitarian challenge is to develop policies and practices that will help communities move forward in becoming more conducive to mutual responsibility, cooperative enquiry, and citizen participation.

--

You can order the book, Communitarianism: politics, society & public policy from Bloomsbury: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/communitarianism-9781350422421/

 

For a free preview of the introductory chapter, visit: 

https://bloomsburycp3.codemantra.com/viewer/67d050e5ee3588000125971e

American Nero

Many US Democrats and political leaders across the world (with the exception of Putin and his acolytes) are going through the five stages of grief.

First up, we have denial. Let’s show deference to ‘Mr. President’. This is not the ruthless, callous authoritarian we have been warned about. Just another politically savvy person who has won the top job. It’ll be OK.

Quickly, the second stage kicks in. Executive orders multiply like aphids, devouring all the good and decent practices that had been in place. Valiant heroes and dedicated public servants removed without cause. Harmful policies at home, vicious threats (against US allies) abroad. Anger erupts.

Next to come is the desire to bargain one’s way out of this madness. Perhaps concessions will help. Vote with him, and not against him, and maybe, just maybe, he would not be as horrible as so many dread. Give in to him, he only wants to strike a deal. 

The fourth stage arrives with the depressive realisation that like Nero, Caligula, Commodus, and all the other vicious dictators that followed in their deranged footsteps, the man has not the heart to feel the pain he causes others, not the brain to understand the havoc he wreaks, and not the slightest sense that he should turn to the counsel of decent minds. 

Finally, the doors of ‘Acceptance’. On the right side the door opens to acceptance of the craven new world. “Cry MAGA, and let slip the dogs of war”. Chaos and pain shall reign. Submit to the emperor. Or take the door on the left, and accept that resistance is the only way forward. Bowing down to power-hungry ‘Leaders’ have never saved any country. Look at the tragic excesses unleashed by ruthless tyrants when their powers went unchecked (and it was J. D. Vance who famously likened Trump to Hitler). Rally every true patriot to voice their opposition, vote out those who support him, back the courts against his law-breaking defiance, and demand the reinstatement of funding for vulnerable people and vital scientific research.

22.7% of the adult population in the US voted in 2024 for what they thought would be their MAGA hero. It’s now clear they have landed their country and the rest of the world with an American Nero.

Roman senators kept giving grounds to the Caesars until they were left powerless and could do little but prostrate for mercy before their supreme ruler. US senators and representatives must act before their republic is also forever lost.

Interview with a Scapegoat-Hunter

Q: You’re a much sought-after advisor in certain political circles. What is it you offer?

A: There are two types of politician. There are the naïve ones who want to help people, even if it means going against the rich and powerful. I don’t have time for them. Then there are those who recognise they need to stand with the rich and powerful, and the way to do that is win public office by attacking vulnerable scapegoats. That’s where I come in.

Q: Tell me if I’ve got this right. Politicians who ally themselves with the rich and powerful look to you for advice on how to get the wider public to support them to go after scapegoats you identify, and deflect people from seeing the actual harm and exploitation caused by the rich and powerful.

A: That’s a rather crude way of putting it. It’s actually a fine art.

Q: What do you mean?

A: Well, look at the real problems. If people realise it’s powerful and irresponsible corporations that’s behind them, you can imagine how they’d be clamouring for actions to deal with them. So you need to change the way they see things. Tell them the increasing weather extremes have nothing to do with fossil fuels, but are caused by nutters pushing crazy green policies. Warn them that more people are killed by guns because ‘liberals’ make it too difficult for people to buy guns to protect themselves. Explain to them that it is not gambling, sugary food, nicotine, or alcohol that bring about harm and addiction, but the deplorable character of addicts who have no one to blame but themselves. Remind them that unemployment is only a problem because the ‘socialists’ encourage people to be lazy and rely on welfare.

Q: Why would anyone believe you despite all the evidence to the contrary?

A: You’ve got to know which button to push.

Q: Care to explain that?

A: When people are angry, they need to channel that anger somewhere. Well-meaning politicians present facts politely – and drearily – and few listen to them. Whereas I put on my best outraged face, and rail at immigrants, refugees, feminists, anyone speaking up for ethnic minorities or human rights, and anything to do with health & safety or has ‘Europe’ in its name.  You see, these are easy targets. We’ve got most of the media, countless troll factories, all the not so well-meaning politicians, lined up to pump out scare stories about them – immigrants are taking all the jobs, refugees are getting fancy accommodation, everyone on benefit is a cheat … And say that often enough, people repeat it to their mates as though it’s the gospel truth.

Q: How does that help anyone?

A: You have no idea. Once people have scapegoats they can blame and hate, you can give them a lot of satisfaction just by hurting stigmatised groups – make them suffer, deport them if you can, let them starve and get no help when they are sick, make them feel despised and isolated, vilify them at every opportunity. At the same time, once consumed with rage and disaffection, they won’t listen to facts or expert analyses about the real causes of the social, economic, or environmental problems facing them. My rich and powerful clients don’t have to worry about meddlesome politicians stepping in to deal with their irresponsible and harmful activities. It’s a win-win. 

Q: Win-win for the rich and powerful who are basically ruining others’ lives.

A: Others’ lives don’t matter. That, incidentally, is our mission statement.

Meet the Privatisers – and their 5-point agenda

Sports fans rant about referees over any decision that goes against their team, but they know without referees there could be no sports matches at all. Beyond individual matches, leagues and competitions involving multiple teams need a governing body to resolve disputes, provide collective support, and share out resources. Similarly, for societies in general to function fairly and effectively, governments must be given a decisive role. 

There are too many challenges and opportunities that require us to work together with agreed rules. Ignoring each other, or falling out over disagreements, would drag everyone down. So why do the privatisers keep trying to subdue state institutions in favour of private powers? Why do they relentlessly attack public bodies and pretend things will inevitably be better in private hands? The answer lies in these five aims of theirs:

[1] Removing Restraints from Irresponsible Private Actions

Privatisers want to be able to do as they please – cheat consumers, mistreat their workers, bully their tenants, sell unsafe goods, pollute the environment – and they detest regulations that would restrain their irresponsibility. Hence the endless calls for deregulation and attacks on essential rules as cumbersome ‘red tape’.

[2] Diminishing the Public Safety Net

Privatisers know that without an effective public safety net against the threats of sickness, homelessness, and poverty, they could more easily pressure people into accepting their exploitative demands. By attacking ‘dependency’ on public support, they seek to increase people’s actual dependency on the whims and mercy of the rich and powerful.

[3] Increasing Wealth & Power Inequalities

Privatisers favour a system which would ensure the hard work of the vast majority of people in society produces rewards that could be overwhelmingly siphoned towards the tiny minority of plutocrats. Cutting taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor are designed to widen power inequalities, so the former can more readily dismiss the plight of the latter.

[4] Diverting Public Resources for Private Gains

Privatisers object to public resources being used for the public good when these can be transferred for making private gains for profiteers. By handing over public resources to the private sector in the form of commercial contracts or asset transfers, they can thereafter be managed to benefit a rich minority, at lower quality and accessibility, and with no democratic accountability.

[5] Undermining the Ethos of Public Service

Privatisers never tire of pointing to flaws and problems in the public sector, deliberately ignoring the fact that these are rare compared with the harm and deception routinely perpetrated in the private sector. They want to demoralise public servants, drive them away, so that public service is weakened and less able to help people poorly treated by the private sector.

Privatisers will always try to exploit public dissatisfaction with this or that aspect of their government, and stir it into a rejection of democratic governance altogether. It is not because they remotely care about other people, far from it, all they want is to deceive enough people to get them the power they need to impose their self-serving agenda on society.

Can Anybody Help: civics revisited

For many people, words like ‘politics’, ‘democracy’, ‘government’, ‘citizenship’, either strike them as boring, or worse, have negative connotations of being something that gets in the way of individuals living their lives without outside interference.

What they don’t recognise is that how they get to live their lives depends critically on the state of democracy and how they are governed. But they are not likely to know much about that when it is almost the social norm to avoid having informed conversations about such matters. Friends worry about antagonising each other. Teachers feel safer to keep silent rather than risk being accused of showing bias. Even politicians jump at the chance of saying ‘let’s keep politics out of this’ as though the subject is best brushed aside.

In reality – and here the facts speak for themselves – human beings are vulnerable to so many threats and problems as isolated individuals. Alone, we are more likely to succumb to disease, injuries, attacks, abuse, oppression, natural disasters, and other predicament. Throughout history, the plea ‘Can Anybody Help’ has only been answered reliably when there are adequate collective arrangements in place to give a satisfactory response. To understand what would constitute ‘adequate collective arrangements’, we need to learn about politics, democracy, and matters of government.

In the absence of civics education, we are left with simplistic regurgitation of dangerous ideas. We have the advocacy for authoritarian, ‘strongmen’ politics – with diverse lineages coming down from Hobbesian absolutists, Bonapartists, fascists, Stalinists, converging towards contemporary right-wing ‘populists’ who seek to wield unrestrained power to do as they please. And we have the propagation of anarchistic, libertarian politics – echoing the demands of the likes of Mandeville, Godwin, Spencer, Rand, to leave individuals to their own devices without any government stepping in.

It is hardly surprising that an increasing number of people, old and young, are drawn to unscrupulous politicians who insist they could do so much better for their country if they were not hindered by accountability procedures, safeguards for human rights, and public scrutiny; and that their country would thrive if government would leave it to the private sector to sort out healthcare, education, energy, water, housing, business dealings, etc.

It hardly requires much time to remind people the dire consequences of dictators imposing their ruthless and arbitrary rule on countries they have gained power over; or the terrible effects of leaving key matters to the private sector through privatisation or callous deregulation. 

As educators, we must communicate, explain, and engage as widely as we can so that our fellow citizens can better understand how the threats they cannot deal with on their own needs democratically controlled government institutions to pool resources and devise responses which genuinely help the people concerned.

The hijacking of conventional and social media by manipulators, the brazen attacks on teachers by ideologues and culture warriors, the systematic spreading of lies and false rumours in political campaigns, the undermining of universities by fundamentalist and corporate influences, are all making it critically urgent to counter distortions with facts, analyses, and explanations. Through reports, drama, classroom discussions, historical accounts, and a variety of other tools, we must reach out to those who are worried that they have been forgotten, and show them help is available, but only from those who are committed to serving the people through a strong, democratic government.

Evil is a Character Issue

In polite society, one is expected to refrain from calling anyone evil with the possible exception of Nazi extremists or serial killers. Many people who care neither for honesty nor politeness, however, readily accuse blameless folks of the utmost villainy. 

So, while courteous commentators hold back from exposing the wicked, the wicked go around lambasting the innocent, the compassionate, the rational for being evil. ‘Evil’, immoral manipulators tell us, are the refugees who escape from war zones, scientists who warn us of climate change and infectious diseases, politicians who want to help those in dire need, and anyone who complains about being mistreated because of their gender or ethnicity.

Have words like ‘good’ and ‘evil’ lost all their meaning? Have relativism, nihilism, irrationalism spread so widely that it is no longer possible to make clear moral judgements anymore?

It’s time we remind ourselves that evil is a character issue. Human reflections over centuries have found expressions in folk stories, fairy tales, and classic novels – all highlighting the traits we find praiseworthy: caring for others, standing up for the weak, defying oppressors, willing to explore the facts rather than acting rashly, delighting in the happiness of others; and correspondingly, putting the spotlight on the opposite characteristics that are repugnant and contemptible: being callous about the plight of others, taking advantage of the weak, obsequiously aiding the powerful in quashing the defenceless, deceiving others for personal gains, jumping to dangerous conclusions without any due consideration, seeking to inflict pain on others.

We know what evil is. We recoil from the Wicked Queen whose vanity drives her to have Snow White murdered. We are sickened by Iago whose hatred of the kind and noble Othello leads him to ruthless manipulations that destroy the lives of others. We despise Uriah Heep whose greed fuels his every move to ruin others to make greater gains for himself. We are repelled by Voldemort who cares only to gain power for himself and treats everyone else with disdain.

And we come across such characters in real life. They are the demagogues who will spread devastating lies to advance themselves; the self-righteous bigots who tirelessly goad people into hating those who are neglected and vulnerable; the plutocrats who use every trick in the book to make more money for themselves in ways that are unremittingly harmful to others; the powerful and irresponsible who enjoy getting away with intimidating, insulting, and injuring people who have not got enough resources to fight back.

Such people, with the support of social and mainstream media (which they own or have considerable influence over), will present themselves as ‘good’, models of ‘success’, heroes even. But look closely at their character – how they routinely mistreat other people, how they mock those less fortunate than themselves, how they actively seek to block and reduce help for people in need, how gleeful they respond to the sufferings of innocent people, how dismissive they are about the pain they have casually caused others, how they grovel before the more powerful and sneer contemptuously at the powerless.

It does not matter what office anyone may hold, or how wealthy they are. They are defined by their character. 

See them for what they are.

Alcoholic Politics: a diagnosis

‘Alcoholic Politics’ refers to the condition of being addicted to political influences that are seriously harmful.

‘Alpoholics’ – to coin a term – are unhappy with their lot. Some are understandably aggrieved that they are paid a pittance while their superrich bosses pocket millions. Some are obsessively angry that they do not get as much help as those people who just happen to have suffered more in life. Whatever the reason, they turn to political inebriation – the stuff that takes your mind off reality, conjures up imaginary escapes that actually lead nowhere, removes your inhibition to be rude to others, gives you a sense of high, and plunges you to depressive rejection of any sensible path ahead.

Demagogues and political con merchants target their intoxicating brand of facile delusion on Alpoholics, who just can’t get enough of that bewildering sensation of not having to deal with anything anymore. One gulp after another of that heady potion sends them to that illusory realm where taxes are no more, regulations are removed, big corporations willingly treat their workers with fairness and generosity, diseases are never infectious, the poor lift themselves out of poverty, and all immigrants and refugees are banished.

When the hangover hits, Alpoholics blame responsible politicians and every kind of ‘do-gooder’ for trapping them in a world where evidence-based public policies are essential for keeping us safe from violence, ill health, exploitation, economic insecurity, climate chaos, and countless other threats. They don’t want to face the reality of people needing to learn from each other, work together to find solutions, and cooperate on overcoming their problems. It’s so much easier to get drunk on false promises, scapegoat blaming, and incoherent ranting.

The thing with Alpoholics is that you can’t tell them to stop. You can’t confront them with the nonsense they spout. They can’t grasp what is going on. What you can do is to try in their moments of sobriety help them see what is really happening. Shouting abuse at innocent strangers, joining in riots, echoing threats against the lives of others – is that how on reflection they want to be seen by their children, their parents, themselves?

Instead of being lectured, they need support – someone who will listen to them, to whom they can turn to talk things through. In practice, this can take the form of a neighbourhood network of mentors – which may include some who had been Alpoholics themselves – who are ready to meet with someone willing to explore recovery, taking one step at a time, shedding the addictive pull, and reconnecting with others without twisted perception or inflamed emotions.

Most of all, they need to be given hope, to have some goal they feel worthy of working towards. Countering the constant flow of depressing news and manipulative negativity, attention should be directed at efforts that make life tangibly better for people they care about. Big announcements about national targets rarely engage people deeply. It is the day-to-day experience of kindness, helpfulness, and understanding that builds trust, and keeps people focussed on the good that can be done, and away from destructive illusions.

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.