Rethinking Group Identity

Some people seem to think that everyone is subsumed by one overriding group identity.  And if that group contains individuals with certain characteristics, then everyone else in that group must have those characteristics as well. But a moment reflection is sufficient to show that this cannot be the case.

All women are physically weaker than men? All men are sexual predators? All French people resent American influence? All British citizens share in the guilt of imperial conquest? All Christians believe that ‘an eye for an eye’ means no transgression should ever be forgiven? All those who do not subscribe to a religious doctrine have no moral compass? All elderly people fear change? All young people are angry?

From trivial generalisation to obnoxious stereotyping, the inclination to categorise people by a monolithically defined group identity is misguided and dangerous.

Ultimately, it makes no sense. Each of us has multiple group identities, and none of those identities can be captured by a single set of characteristics. We draw from some of them, don’t mind too much about some, and firmly reject others. These unique and varied dispositions are what give us our distinct identity as a person. 

For example, am I, as a Brit – born in a traditional Chinese family, spent my formative years in a Catholic boarding school in Sussex, a life member of Humanists UK, educated at Oxford, having to make a living as an immigrant when employment opportunities were dwindling, attached to classic European civilisation, absorbed in American popular culture – supposed to resent my British self for the guilt of the Opium Wars against China? Or do I condemn my Chinese self from a contemporary British perspective for China’s violation of human rights? Am I appropriating European culture when I write in its intellectual tradition?  Do I betray my British roots whenever I favour American entertainment? 

In practice, I see the good in diverse groups I can be classified in, and I want to emulate those elements.  I also see regrettable aspects associated with some members of those groups, and I do not hesitate to criticise them.  But I am not thus battling myself.  I am piecing together what out of the different groups/categories to which I can be said to belong, the features I want to be at the core of my being.

Nearly everyone, even those who have not moved far from where they were born, would – if they think about it long enough – recognise they have multiple group identities.  Instead of pretending they must choose one and accept what some propagandist may selectively pick out as the defining characteristics of that group, they should consider what elements would truly embody the kind of person they want to be.

A Brit can criticise Britain’s imperial atrocities without being any less of a patriot. A Catholic can condemn the Church for ignoring immoral practices by members of the clergy without being any less of a believer.  A man can challenge anti-feminists without being less of a man.

Group identities do not define us. We reflect on varied elements of multiple group identities and define ourselves.

What is the 'Small State'?

[Reporters tend to gloss over politicians’ mantra about the ‘small state’ as though it’s obvious what they are talking about. But a more probing approach may help explain the real thinking behind it]

Q. You have repeatedly said that you are a champion of the small state. What do you mean by that?

A. It’s simple. The state should do as little as possible.

Q. What would you like to see the state stop doing?

A. For a start, it should stop getting in the way of business. We have too many regulations, too much red tape.  We should leave business to operate in a free market, and everything will be better.

Q. Are you saying businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want? The state should do nothing where businesses deceive customers about their products, exploit their workers and suppliers, pollute the environment, or sell what could cause serious ill health or injury?

A. You sound very anti-business. We should all be supportive of business.

Q. Then why did you ignore them when they asked you not to pull the UK out of the European Union? Should a small state go out of its way to do something the vast majority of businesses are against?

A. A small state does what is right, like letting businesses keep their hard-earned money, indeed everyone should keep their money instead of handing it to the state.

Q. You’re suggesting there should be no taxation at all?

A. Ideally, but we need to raise taxes to have a strong military and to lock up criminals, so we need to have some taxes – not a lot.

Q. What about the things that a country can only do effectively if it pools its citizens’ resources? For example, a reliable and accessible health service, a safety net for those without a job that pays enough for them to live on, protection against environmental degradation, plans to deal with shortage of housing, quality education for everyone, affordable care for the elderly, strategic research, communications infrastructure, a dependable supply of clean water and sustainable energy, …

A. Let me stop you right there. Anyone can come up with a long list of things we’d like to have. The key is to trust individuals and businesses, not a big government, to do what’s necessary. All the things you mentioned, we should always aim to let private enterprise handle them.

Q. Doesn’t the evidence tell us that we have problems and shortages in all those areas when they are completely left to private business. And where governments hand over responsibility for them through privatisation, hasn’t it often led to profiteering, deficient performance, and serious failures?

A. You’re exaggerating.  More importantly, you’re forgetting the value of freedom. It is inherently better for people – individuals, businesses – to do things for themselves than for the state to step in and boss people about.

Q. Aren’t you aware of the many cases where people on their own – lacking coordination, rules and enforcement, combined resources, joint planning, collective agreement – would be unable to meet their common needs, or worse, discover that some will cheat, intimidate, hurt others without hesitation?

A. Bad things happen in life. Instead of relying on a nanny state to barge in, we must learn to trust people’s moral sense. Promote good values, and problems will take care of themselves.

Q. That’s your reason for the small state not helping people in need, restraining corporate misconduct, or taking action against discriminatory behaviour? You believe people will get things right by themselves somehow?

A. Absolutely, we – champions of the small state – have faith in the people.

Q. Does that mean the small state would stand back if workers resort to strike action when they are faced with unacceptable conditions, women opt for abortion when they have problematic pregnancies, or protestors challenge those who spread racist lies and hate?

A. That’s totally different. When people don’t show they have the right values, the small state has to act – and we will continue to restrain strike action, abortion, woke protests and anything else that disrespects what our country stands for.

Q. You mean what you want our country to stand for?

A. We want our country to stand for: God-fearing, free market, patriotism.

Q. Some may say your notion of ‘God’ is just a mirror of your own prejudice, your concern for businesses is limited to those which make big campaign donations to you, and you care for what the wealthy few can offer you and not what you can do to help the people of this country. Isn’t that the essence of your ‘small state’?

A. You’re a damn socialist!

Extremism is the Problem

Every time there is a vile extremist attack which the perpetrators claim to be a response to some feature they denounce, there is a tendency to jump in and defend that feature as sacrosanct.  

So, if the extremists rant about a cartoon or a book that has so offended them that they set off to kill the people responsible, the public reaction is filled with the championing of free speech, the freedom to offend, the freedom to express whatever one wishes to express, and so on.  If the extremists attribute their violent attacks on a place of worship to their disgust with certain religious practice, we will hear that there must be absolute religious freedom, no limit on what people can do in the name of their faith, etc. Or if the extremists have set off explosions at some business facility because it was used for commercial purpose which has ‘undesirable’ consequences, there will be an outcry that corporate freedom must be protected, and nothing can justify any interference with the work of free enterprise.

There are two things wrong with this type of reaction. First of all, it takes the public focus away from the real issue – how to tackle extremist behaviour.  We can debate what is and what is not offensive with certain text or picture, the merits of a particular religious custom, or the acceptability of certain corporate activity.  But regardless of those debates, the central point is that extremist behaviour cannot be tolerated and must be stopped. What we are concerned with here is the threatening, injuring, and taking of others’ lives when those people have not in any objective sense, intentionally threatened, injured or taken anyone else’s lives. It is a serious deflection to get bogged down about where the line should be drawn in terms of possible provocation of extremist behaviour, because nothing can justify extremist behaviour, and reference to provocation is irrelevant when the priority is for potential perpetrators to be watched and actual offenders prevented from harming others again [Note 1].

Secondly, the tendency to regard ‘absolute freedom’ for expression, religion, business, or anything else for that matter, as a riposte to extremist behaviour is misguided. Imagine someone shouts the nastiest abuse at their children repeatedly, and an extremist shoots him dead. Should the response be that we should recognise the absolute freedom for parents to express themselves to their children? Or after an extremist runs over a person who has been giving out leaflets stating how drinking bleach can improve health, should that lead to a championing of the absolute freedom to give ‘medical’ advice?  The last thing society needs after a terrible extremist attack is the promotion of a false notion of ‘absolute freedom’ which can then be invoked to justify the spreading of lies, hatred, discrimination, pollution, and other forms of harm.

We should not forget that a distorted conception of freedom has dangerous affinity with extremists’ conviction that they are free to do whatever they believe is right.

--

Note 1: How to prevent re-offending through incarceration, restitution, rehabilitation, etc is a separate issue to consider.

Economics: a timeline to remember

1920s

After the First World War, Europe’s economy was devastated. The world looked to the US for recovery, but from 1921 to 1933, three successive Republican presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover) chose to privilege the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else. Corporate bosses paid less and less in tax while their exploitation of workers went unchecked. Even as the productivity of workers in manufacturing went up by 32% (1923-1929), their pay only increased by 8%, while company profits rose 62%. By 1929, 0.1% of Americans controlled 34% of all savings, and 80% of the population had no savings at all.

1930s

Corporate profiteers kept pushing prices up, and as wages lagged further and further behind, people were driven to borrowing more than ever. Many were also enticed to gamble by buying shares which appeared to be a quick way of making money. But by the early 1930s, vast numbers could not afford to pay back their loans, consumer demand plummeted, and share prices began to spiral down – the Great Depression had arrived.  

The British economist, John M. Keynes, diagnosed the problem as one which could only be solved by a sustainable boost to demand – in other words, not by individual borrowing, but by the government investing national funds (via public projects and services) into resources for individuals who could then buy goods and services which would in turn create jobs to sustain consumption and generate tax revenue to replenish national funds. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the US demonstrated how Keynes’ approach would work in practice in reviving the economy.  He also backed the Glass–Steagall Act (1933) which introduced regulations to prevent irresponsible lending by financial institutions that might lead to a banking crisis.

1940s

The UK was in a dire economic position after the Second World War. Labour won power under Clement Attlee and adopted the Keynesian approach that prioritised investment in supporting the general population and reviving the economy. With the creation of the NHS, a large-scale house building programme, and provision of social security, the standards of living began to climb significantly.

1950s-1960s

The Keynesian consensus in the US and the UK continued to improve their economic performance.  After Labour returned to office under Harold Wilson in 1964, its support for technical education and development of infrastructure helped to turn the record balance of payment deficit of £800 million under the Conservatives into a healthy surplus.

1970s-1990s

The Arab-Israeli War of 1973 led to a global oil crisis and disrupted the economies in many countries. New Right advocates such as Thatcher and Reagan took the opportunity to reject Keynesian ideas and pushed the neoliberal agenda of tougher controls over worker unions, drastic cuts to public services, and extensive deregulation of business practices. In 1986, Thatcher’s Conservative government deregulated the financial sector – opening the door to irresponsible lending that would jeopardise personal savings. This was followed by US Republicans who secured the passing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act of 1999 to similarly remove cautious restraints on banks and investment firms.

2000s

Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown followed Keynesian approaches again and their investment in education, health, policing led to notable rise in prosperity, the highest satisfaction rate with the NHS, and reduction in crime levels. But neither they nor Democrat President Clinton in the US, reversed the Conservative/Republican-led financial deregulation which still allowed merged financial institutions to lend irresponsibly and risk ordinary savers losing all their money, and in 2008, that caused the financial crisis.

2010s-2020s

In the UK, the Conservatives pretended the global financial crisis was caused by Labour’s public spending when it was actually brought about by the neoliberal deregulation introduced by the political right. Gaining power in 2010, they pushed aside the Keynesian approach and imposed austerity that kept wages low, cut public services severely, pushed more people into poverty, and drove the economy further into recession. Weakened by Brexit, the UK under the Conservatives was further hit by the Covid pandemic and the wider cost of living crisis, and without any coherent strategy to revive the economy in line with Keynesian thinking, the country is trapped by rising inflation, falling wages, widespread hunger, business collapses, and decimated public services.

For the last 100 years, the Conservatives have been the party of economic incompetence.

--

For more details, see Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle, by Henry Tam: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Power-Inequalities-progressive-struggle/dp/1499144636

Tax Cuts Q&A

[Conservative politicians can’t stop talking about ‘tax cuts’. But rarely are they pressed to explain why it’s the be all and end all of their politics.  Perhaps something like the internal Q&A briefing we have for those seeking to stand as a Tory or Republican candidate may illuminate the matter]

Q: Why must I say ‘tax cuts’ at least three times at every interview?

A: People love hearing ‘tax cuts’. The more you say it, the more you’re liked.

Q: But then I have to explain public service cuts, won’t I?

A: Absolutely not. Don’t say a word about the public service cuts that will come with tax cuts. If people think you’re going to cut the health service, the police, education, housing, and all the rest, you’d be in trouble.

Q: What if someone brings it up? We cut taxes, we have less money to fund public services, public services will end up with more cuts.

A: If an interviewer does bring it up, do this – frown, look disdainful and ask rhetorically “are you yet another leftie sympathiser?”

Q: What if they brush that aside and keep pressing about the public service cuts that would result from tax cuts.

A: Then switch to this ‘full of self-confidence’ look, and say “On the contrary, tax cuts would generate more revenue, and there’d be more money for public services.”

Q: So I can promise tax cuts and more funds for public services.

A: Under no circumstance should you say that. The chance is that we would want to cut public services. Read your background papers, our tax cuts don’t generally help the economy, just our rich supporters. Things don’t trickle down. When it suits us, we would say that public finances are tight, and we must act responsibly and cut wasteful public services.

Q: And ‘wasteful’ is a code for essential public services, while our subsidies to big corporations will continue?

A: That is correct.  Furthermore, as soon as you mention public finances being in a difficult position, it’s your chance to go on about tax cuts again. Tax cuts will revive the economy.

Q: But actually tax cuts won’t revive the economy, will they?

A: Not the tax cuts we have in mind. If we cut taxes for the poorest, and increase taxes for the richest, that might help, but let’s face it, we’re going to do precisely the opposite.

Q: So, when inflation is going up, and many people on low to average income just can’t afford even the basic necessities in the face of rising prices, we will bring in tax cuts in the name of driving up spending power – but wouldn’t that push inflation up even more?

A: Just say something like “our monetarist-fiscal approach will ensure inflation is brought under control”. Nobody will have a clue what that means. We certainly don’t.

Q: Why don’t we increase public sector pay? That would nudge up private sector pay as well, and people won’t be left in such dire circumstances not being able to buy the things they desperately need.

A: First of all, we don’t want to help public sector workers. The worse things get for the public sector, the more excuse we have for cutting it. Second of all, the last thing we want is pressure on the private sector to pay the low earners more. For heaven’s sake, our main donors back us because we’re always poised to help them enrich themselves while keeping their workers’ pay as low as they can get away with.

Q: I probably should just keep going on about tax cuts and not get into any real discussion about our policies?

A: You’ve got it.

Pluralism, Not Relativism

Many people rightly support pluralism, but without due care quite a few have ended up promoting relativism.

And is that bad? Consider this.

Pluralism means that we accept there are different ways to explore problems, experience diverse forms of living, try out options in response to changing circumstances.

Relativism means that any solution put forward, every way we might treat one another, and whatever proposal offered to deal with the issues we face, is as equally valid as any other.

Pluralists believe we cannot dogmatically declare there is only one unquestionable source of information or a single set of customs by which everyone must live their lives.  We need to explore and experiment, criticise and compare, and see what we can learn from the results of diverse pursuits in science, culture, and politics.

Relativists, on the other hand, are adamant that regardless of what have been found, there is nothing to choose between different responses to questions about causal relations, moral requirements, or policy efficacy. However incompatible they are to each other, contrary to the available evidence, or inherently incoherent, every view is correct in its own right.

While pluralism enables people to follow diverse paths – provided they do not harm others – relativism leads us to the dubious position of standing back from criticising, let alone preventing, any behaviour even though it is damaging other people’s lives.  The problem here is that flawed reasoning can take us from embracing all harmless ways to seek answers in life, to passing no judgement on anything regardless of the harm it is causing.

For example, we should test out different scientific hypotheses rather than simply claim we somehow know which is correct; we should let people follow diverse religious practices to connect with their sense of the divine; and we should be open-minded in considering the merits of a variety of policies to improve community relations. However, it makes no sense to pretend that a hypothesis which has failed every test is as valid as one which has been confirmed by nearly all experiments; a practice that calls for taking others’ lives cannot be tolerated in the name of religious freedom; and any policy involving the promotion of hatred and violence against vulnerable groups cannot be regarded as a viable option for increasing social harmony.

Some argue that it comes down to the interpretation of the evidence.  But is there to be no differentiation between sound and untenable interpretations? What if someone maintains that what others see as a failed experiment is a case of them being deceived by the devil, or the apparent suffering of a child is actually a sign of ‘god’ welcoming the child into heaven.  What this tells us is that we must have objective means to assess what we experience.  We must openly test and cross-check our respective records and observations, and arrive at conclusions that stand up to shared scrutiny.  If any experience can just be interpreted in any way that someone wants to, and that is declared valid beyond all criticism, then we would be at the end of all possible discussion.

The ‘Strongmen’ Delusion

There was a time in the 1990s when, following the end of Soviet rule and the South African apartheid regime, there was widespread hope that the authoritarianism personified by the likes of Hitler and Stalin had become a thing of the past.  But that optimism proved short-lived.

In the West, the Watergate experience of holding US President Nixon to account for breaking the law has given way to Republicans backing Trump in undermining the electoral system and instigating the storming of the Capitol. In the East, China’s decision to avoid a repeat of Mao by sharing out the top power positions was nullified by the Communist Party’s acceptance of Xi Jinping’s moves to concentrate power in himself. In Russia, Gorbachev’s attempts to move towards open democratic rule have been firmly reversed by Putin. The collapse of dictatorships in many other parts of the world during the 1990s has been succeeded by a return to power of numerous right-wing authoritarians.

Many indicators point to a resurgence of ‘Strongmen’ politics. A survey in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential elections found that over a third of voters (Democrats as well as Republicans) said that “being a strong leader was the most important quality when picking a president” – doubled the level for the 2012 elections (Easley, 2016). A study by the Hansard Society reported that over half of the British voters questioned wanted "a strong leader willing to break the rules," with 42% of them going so far as to believe that “many of the country's problems could be dealt with more effectively if the government didn't have to worry so much about votes in Parliament” (John, 2019). Significant electoral gains by authoritarian nationalist politicians in Europe, and victories for the likes of Modi, Duterte, Bolsonaro, confirm the trend of a global expansion of illiberal political control (Repucci & Slipowitz, 2022).

Is this trend irreversible? One thing we must remember is that authoritarians are adept at fooling people, but not for long. Their inherent traits of seeking to dominate others for their personal gains irrespective of the harm to others are inevitably exposed. They all divert vast sums of public money to benefit themselves, use state security to intimidate opposition, prefer to keep a small clique of wealthy elite on side while ignoring the plight of the masses, waste public funds on vanity projects, stir up animosity against vulnerable scapegoats, undermine judicial independence, and subvert electoral arrangements to suit their own ambitions.  After they have won power, their callousness and incompetence invariably increase public suffering.  The problem is that after a few decades, later generations forget what happened before, and too many fall for the lies and pseudo-patriotism again.

To halt the spread of authoritarianism, we must constantly remind people of its false promises and calamitous consequences. Furthermore, we should recognise that strong leadership is important when people need assurance that effective actions would be taken, and it ought to be provided in a form that legitimately inspires confidence, rather than through the rhetorical trickery offered by the authoritarian ‘strongmen’ type.

Researchers from London Business School (Hemant Kakkar and Niro Sivanathan) examined the preferences of 140,000 people in 69 countries over the last two decades, and found that loss of job security and increasing economic hardships tend to lead more people to seek out leaders who give the impression that they would do whatever it takes to get things done (Ferris, 2018). With economic problems worsening, it must not be left to bullish charlatans to present themselves as the only ‘strong’ leaders around.  Progressive politicians have to step up and show the public their passion, determination, and focus in getting everyone to a better tomorrow.

After all, the greatest political leaders who have delivered substantial and lasting improvements to people’s lives in the most challenging of times – think of F. D. Roosevelt, Clement Attlee – are far from meek and hesitant. Others threw the wildest accusations against them, denounced them relentlessly, but they were bold in their vision, and formidable in driving through the necessary changes. The strength they showed is the real strength we now need.

--

References:

Easley, Cameron (2016) ‘Voters Want a Strong Leader More Than Anything Else, Exit Poll Shows’, Morning Consult (November 8) . https://morningconsult.com/2016/11/08/voters-want-strong-leader-anything-else-exit-poll-shows/

Ferris, Robert (2018) ‘Why voters might be choosing dominant, authoritarian leaders around the world’, CNBC (June 12) . https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/why-voters-might-be-choosing-dominant-authoritarian-leaders-around-the-world.html

John, Tara (2019) ‘More than half of UK voters want 'strong, rule-breaking' leader, says survey’, CNN (April 8) . https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/08/uk/hansard-strong-leader-brexit-poll-gbr-intl/index.html

Repucci, S. and Slipowitz, A. (2022) ‘The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule’, Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule