The Gene Code Lottery

People in Britain are outraged any time they hear about the National Health Service agreeing to cover the costs of certain medical prescriptions in one region but not others. They denounce the injustice of “postcode lottery”. After all, it is supposed to be a ‘national’ health service. It was established to ensure no citizen, rich or poor, would have to worry about having enough money to cope with sickness. But now budget constraints are increasingly leading to talk of rationing. How are we to decide who should get what when there is not enough to go round?

I have just learnt from a friend in America that Oregon has earlier in 2008 adopted, of all things, the lottery as the mechanism to deal with their healthcare crisis. 600,000 people in that state – 17% of the population – have no health insurance. The state wants to help them but due to ‘budget constraints’, it can only afford to cover the health insurance of 24,000 of its citizens. So all those without health insurance are invited to enter a lottery draw and a lucky 4% of them would be given a lifeline. The rest would have to accept their fate.

But budget constraints on government spending are always the results of decisions on what are to be prioritised. This is not just about decisions around building more bombs and fewer hospitals, but about how much revenue should be raised for the public good and how much should remain in the hands of private individuals. Those who subscribe to meritocracy would maintain that individuals who have the skills and drive to make money for themselves deserve to keep their hard earned wealth. The state’s role is to remove any barriers from people from realising their potential, and the rest should be left to individuals who apparently always know better than society’s collective wisdom regarding what to do with their money – be it about smoking, alcohol abuse, funding for medical research, or neglect of vulnerable children.

The problem with meritocracy is that it is not so easy to define anyone’s potential or what constitutes a barrier for the state to remove. Your genes, the upbringing received from your parents, your family’s socio-economic position, the neighbourhood/country in which you’re born, any serious sickness or disability you have to contend with, the quality and commitment of your teachers, the restrictions on your mobility to find better opportunities to flourish, all these can enhance your potential, or place virtually insurmountable barriers to success.

We actually have a choice. We could leave everything as it is. There will always be those born with multiple advantages, and those trapped by one misfortune or another. Let them get to the top, or sink to the bottom as events unfold, and from time to time let the state step in and offer the unlucky ones, or say 4% of them a helping hand to ease their burden a little. But overall we should not interfere with the Lottery of Life.

Or we could put an end to this gambling culture. Why deceive people into thinking they all have a fair chance to get on in life when the odds are stacked against many of them, with only a very few winners taking home the entire jackpot. Instead we should be honest and let people know that the only responsible way of living together is to have a system whereby those who have already handsomely won the gene code lottery and many besides should contribute a sufficient share to help deliver what is necessary for the public good. Those who have the misfortune to seek medical or other help through no fault of their own could then count on getting the support they need without undue constraints.

The S Word

You can tell a lot from people’s reactions to a single word. Take subsidiarity. For many people, this is an awkward, complicated word. It seems to suggest that things should not be as they are. It is almost subversive in implying that those with power should think about giving some of it up. You can see why some people feel uncomfortable about it. However, for others, this one word beautifully captures the essence of empowerment, devolved governance and participatory democracy. Power is to be exercised at the lowest possible level where it can be effectively exercised. The question of delegation is neatly turned upside down. It is not about what should be passed down to the more local level, but what should be passed up.

In any structure of governance, it is inevitable that the precise of location of power is contested. Those who don’t like the S word tend to focus on cost efficiencies as the key reason why power should be concentrated in bigger and more centralised bodies, while those who take subsidiarity seriously would argue for more power to rest with smaller, more local bodies such as neighbourhood or parish councils. So can these divergent views ever be coherently reconciled?

The first question to ask ourselves is why powers should not be taken away from people who are perfectly capable of exercising them. To answer this question, we cannot get away from taking a position on the notion of democratic citizenship. We either subscribe to the view that people in general can and should never be more than recipients of public decisions made by a ruling elite, or we embrace the concept that we are all self-governing citizens who will entrust others further removed from us to make decisions for us only when we are not so well placed to deal with those decisions.

It was John Stuart Mill who pointed out that unless we want to have a nation of sheep, blindly obedient and submissive, we must cultivate wider engagement by citizens in municipal decision-making. Once we accept the premise that citizens must be enabled to have their say as much as possible over their own governance, the rest follows. Not only should more powers be accessible to them at the most local level, but even when powers need to be exercised at a higher level – for the sake of efficiencies, strategic coordination, or whatever other reason – it is essential for citizens to be made aware of how their views can help to inform and shape those decisions.

This means that it is in fact a false dichotomy to suppose we must choose between ever larger units of governance and a proliferation of smaller units. The way forward is to reconnect units of governance at every level to make them accessible to varying degrees to citizens themselves. On matters where citizens can work directly with the most local, neighbourhood level bodies to prioritise improvement to their environment, power should rest with those very local organisations. On other matters, the focus needs to be on how the citizens working through the most local units can influence and hold to account the larger units of governance. This is the way to develop an empowering framework of governance, and achieve real subsidiarity.

The Good, the Bad & the Foreign

“Our laws and customs must be preserved,” so say many ‘descendants’ of the distant Anglo-Saxon tribes, fearing that the British or the American way of life would be altered by ‘outside’ influences. Despite their alleged adoration of their cultural heritage, they seem genuinely ignorant of how Franco-Normans, Germans, Dutch, Arabs, Jews, Huguenots, Hindus, Chinese, not to mention those from Africa and the Caribbean, have over a thousand years shaped the ideas and practices of Britain and her North American kin. If the old Anglo-Saxon way of life had been shielded from the rich and stimulating input from ‘outside’, it would have left us with a dull, primitive tribal existence.

But if automatically rejecting all things new to arrive from abroad is sure to lead to a stultifying dead-end, it would be no wiser to try to incorporate every belief or practice brought to these shores. Curiously, that’s exactly what the multi-cultural relativists want. Without making any distinction between good and bad ideas, so long as someone holds it dear, they want to find a place for it. “So where you come from, women have to take orders without question from men; homosexuals are routinely beaten up; children are prevented from learning about empirical reasoning; hatred of those who do not share your religious creed is normal; let us see how we can accommodate your precious cultural practices.” Anyone who challenges this mind-numbing crassness risks being charged with being intolerant.

Of course anyone not consumed by terminal irrationality can see that whether our laws and customs at any time should change or not depends solely on the legitimacy of the proposed changes. Would the changes correct prevailing injustice? Give help to people whose suffering has been neglected? Stop abuse of power which has gone on too long unchecked? Facilitate the objective enquiry for knowledge and tackle superstitions? Prevent the domination of vulnerable groups by an unaccountable elite? Enable more people to learn to appreciate each other as fellow citizens and not be blinded by prejudices? Proposed changes which, on the evidence available, are likely to deliver such tangible improvements should be considered for adoption, and those which are not, should be put aside. Whether the proposed changes originated from people who have long settled, or newly arrived, in the country concerned is neither here nor there.

Some may say that this progressive outlook on the basis for reforming society is precisely what characterizes Anglo-American culture, and should not be undermined by ‘foreign’ ideas. But while it is true that the progressive ethos has strong roots in the democratic development of both Britain and America, it is far from the case that it pervades all aspects of our intellectual, social and political life. Ideas which are dangerously reactionary, pro-exploitation of the weak, opposed to the fairer distribution of power, come not just from abroad but are sadly found amongst many native advocates who just as fervently detest the prospect of more progressive communities.

Furthermore, progressive ideas have long been embraced by individuals, groups, and countries outside Britain and America, and when they offer suggestions or criticisms in the spirit of helping us live up to the progressive vision, the geographical or ethnic origins of those proposals are irrelevant in considering their merits. It also follows that apart from our progressive heritage, and the development of laws and customs it favours, how any other aspects of our culture – music, cuisine, sports, festivals – mingle and change over time is something best kept away from any form of legal or political intervention. The worst fate to befall Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-American, or indeed any form of life, is for it to be arbitrarily frozen in time.

Between Nader and the Plastic Sea

There is now more plastic in the oceans than plankton. Six times more in fact. And who’s producing all this stuff to choke our marine life to death, or any of the other environmentally damaging materials endlessly spewed into the seas and the atmosphere? It’s none other than the corporate giants who put their own profits above the interests of all who have to suffer the consequences of their irresponsible behaviour.

So when they think they can get away with the excessive packaging, energy consumption, and addictive consumerism they generate simply by planting a few trees or charging customers for the use of their plastic bags, it is not surprising that there is a surge of desire to call for someone to lead the charge against shameless corporate powers. Someone with a deep understanding of the harm they inflict on the public, a track record in challenging them to change their ways, and an inspiring resoluteness in standing up to them. Someone like, well, Ralph Nader.

Nader would not be deflected by tokenistic PR gestures, intimidated by the legal machines at the disposal of plutocrats, and certainly not bought off by potential corporate donors. So why, when he said he would stand in yet another Presidential race, have so many truly progressive-minded people shaken their heads in sadness?

The critical issue here is how we must avoid the dream of an ideal outcome getting in the way of something better ever coming to pass. Of course corporate business is now far too powerful in relation to workers and citizens in general. Whatever proposal to restrain them is put forward, it is always possible to suggest that more could be done, and faster. More regulations, tax deterrent, fines, and so on, but none of this would take effect if the public positions for deciding on such issues were always occupied by those least prepared to do anything about them.

Nader is not alone in thinking that the Democratic candidates for the Presidency have tended to be too cautious in challenging corporate hegemony. But to change that, we should make the case more effectively, more widely that political leadership to curb corporate irresponsibility is urgently needed. If we have yet to persuade enough of our fellow citizens to demand the leadership we believe is needed, it would be counter-productive to embark on a course of action which would only increase the probability of the Presidential contest being won by the most pro-corporate candidate there is.

Why jeopardize what reforms we could realistically secure by taking votes away from the candidate who would indisputably do more than whoever the standard-bearer for the corporate establishment is? What would a futile gesture do, except leaving people worse off than they otherwise would? Radical agitators once believed that it was better to hamper moderate reformers so that their failures would usher in much more unbearable conditions, and the people would rise up to demand revolutionary changes. History has taught us that it was a fool’s dream.

None of us wants to see our oceans turned into a global corporate cesspool. To clean up this mess, we must forget futile gestures and PR exercises – especially when they would only weaken our closest allies and lend false legitimacy to the polluters. We should concentrate on raising public awareness of the need to reform so that those with a real chance of winning public office can count on a widening base of support to rein in the corporate abuse of power.

The Minorities Myth

One of my father’s favourite proverbs was “Enough ants can bring down an elephant”. He was keen to point out that unfavourable odds against even the biggest opponent could be turned by lining up more support. He wanted me never to give up as a lost cause what in fact was the just cause. In a way it is fitting that the mammoth animal has come to symbolize the Party of plutocratic righteousness in America, because more than ever we need to consider the fate of those modern day ants otherwise known as ‘minorities’.

Countless people who have to labour to make ends meet day in, day out, have for decades been parceled out into distinct minority packages. The poor who are despised for drawing on benefits which could otherwise boost the tax breaks of the rich. The workers whose share of their organisations’ earnings shrink as their bosses pay themselves ever larger bonuses. The non-white ethnic groups who are splintered into smaller and smaller sub-groups with their own ‘culturally unique’ problems. The women struggling to bring up children on their own. The young men whose inability to be responsible figures of their families leads them to drop out of society. The people whose disabilities prevent them from earning enough to support themselves. Their concerns are labeled as the interests of minorities, registered as fringe issues on the margins of society.

Whenever political representatives are to be elected, the two main contestants – whether they are competing for their parties’ nomination, or on behalf of their party for the vacant position in question – inevitably fight on the ‘mainstream’ issues, leaving the third candidate to reach out to the minorities, the poor, the unorganized, because those are territories destined to be covered by the losers in such campaigns.

If you want to win, you want to appeal to the majority underpinning the establishment – Middle England, Middle America – that substantial core which is meant to be where the hearts and minds of any given country is located. But strip away the rhetoric and what are these appeals really directed at? They are directed not at a majority at all, but at a tiny minority – the rich and powerful. These plutocrats amass power to themselves and will facilitate the elections – through campaign donations, strategic endorsements, media influence, etc. – of those keenest to strengthen their powerbase further, or at least unlikely to rock their hierarchical boat.

The truth is that the multiple ‘minorities’ disadvantaged by their lack of socio-economic power constitute the real majority. This perverse situation is increasingly taking hold across the world. Indeed according to the UN’s World Institute for Development Economics Research, a minority comprising merely 2% of adults in the world possess more than half of all household wealth, while the poorer half of the world's population own less than 1% of it.

We must not let the myth of minorities go on anymore. All ants – underpaid, undercut, discriminated against, marginalised, deprived, despised – should stand together and face up to the corporate elephants trampling on our hopes for a fairer society. Throw away those ‘minorities’ labels and embrace a deeper solidarity. Don’t let them stamp their feet and frighten everyone into running for cover. Show them that when the civic majority rally together to call for a more just distribution of power, they will have to listen. Whatever single-issue campaigns you want to fight, forget not the greater cause – it shall not be lost, for there’s definitely enough of us to make a difference.

Wheat from the Chav

Our collective consciousness has been struggling for awhile. Our ‘Right’ brain tells us it is essential to apply selection vigorously – keep separating out the worthy from the undeserving, those with potential from the hopeless – start the process from the earliest possible age, and carry on for the rest of their lives so we are continuously sifting out the just-not-good-enough from the most able. This way society rewards those who will make the greatest achievements. Meanwhile, our ‘Left’ brain is troubled by the presence of the disconnected – those who care little for social values, they think they get nothing out of society and certainly don’t want to put anything in. We wonder what has gone wrong.

A complete schizophrenic flip to the Right would suggest that those who drop out at the bottom of the relentless selection processes should not be left to act as they please. If they could not comply with the basic requirements of decent behaviour, they should be locked away in prison. On the other hand, an excessive surge from the Left could start a call for the abolition of all selections, leaving everyone to be treated in exactly the same way regardless of their attitudes or talents.

To regain our common sanity, we had better rethink how we got here. In many ways, it began with a neurosis about not allowing people to flourish enough. We had become obsessed that people were held back from fully unleashing their potential. If only they were told that the more they demonstrated how good they could be, the more they would be singled out for greater rewards, then we would see many more of them coming to the fore, improving life along the way for everyone.

But that was the critical point. What kind of potential unleashed would really improve life for everyone? Where do we most need improvements? Well, we need more nurses, teachers, carers, youth workers, we need them with more skills, more confidence to help all of us, young and old, to lead the most fulfilling lives we’re capable of. Yet these are the people who are now told that they must accept wage constraints, that however hard they are already working, they cannot be paid anywhere near as much as people who do far less than they to help their fellow citizens.

So who are the people who have been separated out for encouragement, praise, and ever-growing rewards? They are the ones who are blessed with the skills to navigate their way up the corporate ladder, come up with ideas to hook consumers into buying worthless, harmful or addictive goods and services which serve only to make their companies more money, and convince their board and the share market that they are the leaders to be trusted. They are the ones who are handed the tax break, the hundred-times-higher-than-their-employees salaries, multiple bonuses, and share options to smooth their rise to the top of the plutocracy.

Maybe we can begin to heal our cerebral disorientation by recognizing that selection and reward have their use only if we direct them to where we need more people to take up socially valuable vocations. Misdirecting them to promote the narrow class of business climbers and consumerist peddlers does little to help society, and breeds distrust and resentment amongst those brushed aside as unworthy. Worst of all, it concentrates power more and more in the hands of corporate chavs who have little connection with the rest of society apart from their determination to display their distinct and frankly unimpressive identity.

Where's our American vote?

Back in the 18th century, our cousins in America were extremely unhappy that one of Hanover’s Georges, sitting on the British throne, surrounded by his Ministers in Whitehall, was making insane decisions that affected numerous lives on the other side of the Atlantic. Yet they had no say. They could not vote in their own representatives for Parliament, and they could certainly not vote out the man whose every executive decision they despised. So they issued an ultimatum – give us representation or we would rid our land of your political control.

Now the table has been turned. One of Texas’ Georges is sitting in the Whitehouse, firing off one senseless decision after another, jeopardising the entire world. As President of the US, Bush has destablised the Middle East with a military campaign against non-existing weapons of mass destruction; opposed efforts by the rest of the world to tackle carbon emission; disrupted plans to prevent AIDS by putting religious dogma against the use of contraceptives above the saving of innocent lives; and fuelled an unsustainable credit expansion strategy with irresponsible tax cuts for the rich, and growing insolvency risk for everyone else.

Since the Americans founded their country on the principle that no political institution should be allowed to impact on the lives of those who could not democratically hold it to account, they ought to be sympathetic to the plight of those who now find the decisions of Washington all too often adversely affecting their lives. This applies not just to their British kin, but to virtually everyone around the world living in the shadow of the one global superpower.

All of us come under the de facto jurisdiction of America, and none of us without formal US citizenship can have any say about who in America gets to make the critical world-shaping decisions. Our wellbeing and patience are indeed daily taxed without any kind of representation offered in return.

Alas we are not in a position to issue a similar ultimatum. There is no prospect of us getting rid of the vast influence American Presidents and Congressmen will continue to have over the entire world. The only alternative is to press for proper representation. We should all be given a vote in all the American elections which have significant consequences for us.

US foreign policy has frequently led it to seek to limit the powers of the United Nations. It does not want to be subject to checks and balances from people who reside abroad even though their lives could be transformed – for better or worse – in so many ways by US policy decisions. Like the old Hanoverian George, delirious with power, it wants to do as it pleases without having to persuade or bargain with minor figures in a distant land.

But the spotlight should shift from the UN to the US. Never mind trying to get the UN to be more effective in helping to hold the US to account for its unilateral actions. Let us ask the most powerful nation on earth directly, make yourself democratically accountable to the rest of us. It's time to give us all a vote.