The death of democracy and birth of an unknown beast
A book excerpt and interview with David Runciman, author of “How Democracy Ends”
History provides uncomfortable lessons. Among them is that systems of governance are not immortal and that democracies can devolve into autocracy. As institutions decay and social norms fray, democratic processes and practices are prone to apathy, demagoguery and disintegration.
One scholar ringing the loudest alarm bell—or perhaps death knell—is David Runciman. He is a professor of politics at Cambridge University and the author of “How Democracy Ends”. His replies are followed by an excerpt from the book.
More...
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2 ... m=20180913
FORMS OF GOVERNANCE
What the Left Misses About Nationalism
The perception of a common national identity is essential to democracies and to the modern welfare state.
Excerpt:
In Mr. Trump’s version of nationalism, Muslims and Mexican-Americans are stigmatized, and African-American football players who protest racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem are denounced. Some of his applications of “America first” — repudiating the Paris climate agreement or abandoning the Iran nuclear deal — may not even prove to be in the national interest.
But these failings should not lead you to dismiss the value of nationalism, which, by itself, is neither good nor evil, liberal nor conservative. The perception of a common national identity is essential to democracies and to the modern welfare state, which depends on the willingness of citizens to pay taxes to aid fellow citizens whom they may never have set eyes upon.
Today’s nationalist revival is in reaction to the failure of global, not nation-based, initiatives that sailed over the heads of ordinary citizens. The reaction has been most potent on the political right, but there is certainly a basis for a liberal or social-democratic nationalism. If anything, the decline of liberal and social-democratic parties is a result at least in part of their inability to distinguish what is legitimate and justifiable in nationalism from what is small-minded, bigoted and contrary to the national interest it claims to uphold.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/opin ... dline&te=1
The perception of a common national identity is essential to democracies and to the modern welfare state.
Excerpt:
In Mr. Trump’s version of nationalism, Muslims and Mexican-Americans are stigmatized, and African-American football players who protest racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem are denounced. Some of his applications of “America first” — repudiating the Paris climate agreement or abandoning the Iran nuclear deal — may not even prove to be in the national interest.
But these failings should not lead you to dismiss the value of nationalism, which, by itself, is neither good nor evil, liberal nor conservative. The perception of a common national identity is essential to democracies and to the modern welfare state, which depends on the willingness of citizens to pay taxes to aid fellow citizens whom they may never have set eyes upon.
Today’s nationalist revival is in reaction to the failure of global, not nation-based, initiatives that sailed over the heads of ordinary citizens. The reaction has been most potent on the political right, but there is certainly a basis for a liberal or social-democratic nationalism. If anything, the decline of liberal and social-democratic parties is a result at least in part of their inability to distinguish what is legitimate and justifiable in nationalism from what is small-minded, bigoted and contrary to the national interest it claims to uphold.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/opin ... dline&te=1
The Rise of the Resentniks
And the populist war on excellence.
Excerpt:
During the Cold War, being a conservative was a moral cause. You were fighting Communist tyranny — aligned with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Lech Walesa. But you were somewhat marginalized in your own society. Liberals controlled the universities, the news media, the cultural high ground, so the right attracted many people with outsider personalities.
Then with the election of Reagan and Thatcher and in the years afterward, conservatives built their own counter-establishment — think tanks, publications, broadcasting outlets. As conservatism professionalized, it despiritualized. After the Soviet Union collapsed, conservatism no longer had a great moral cause to rally around. It became a technocratic, economics-focused movement concerned with small government and entitlement reform. Compassionate conservatism and the dream of spreading global democracy were efforts to anchor conservatism around a moral ideal, but they did not work out.
Many conservatives simply could not succeed in the new conservative counterestablishment. In any meritocracy, there are going to be a lot of people who lose out and do not get the glittering career they think they are due. Sooner or later those people are going to rise up to challenge the competition itself and to question its idea of excellence. “Resentment, envy, and above all the belief that the ‘system’ is unfair — these are important sentiments among the intellectuals of the Polish right,” Applebaum writes.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/opin ... dline&te=1
And the populist war on excellence.
Excerpt:
During the Cold War, being a conservative was a moral cause. You were fighting Communist tyranny — aligned with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Lech Walesa. But you were somewhat marginalized in your own society. Liberals controlled the universities, the news media, the cultural high ground, so the right attracted many people with outsider personalities.
Then with the election of Reagan and Thatcher and in the years afterward, conservatives built their own counter-establishment — think tanks, publications, broadcasting outlets. As conservatism professionalized, it despiritualized. After the Soviet Union collapsed, conservatism no longer had a great moral cause to rally around. It became a technocratic, economics-focused movement concerned with small government and entitlement reform. Compassionate conservatism and the dream of spreading global democracy were efforts to anchor conservatism around a moral ideal, but they did not work out.
Many conservatives simply could not succeed in the new conservative counterestablishment. In any meritocracy, there are going to be a lot of people who lose out and do not get the glittering career they think they are due. Sooner or later those people are going to rise up to challenge the competition itself and to question its idea of excellence. “Resentment, envy, and above all the belief that the ‘system’ is unfair — these are important sentiments among the intellectuals of the Polish right,” Applebaum writes.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/opin ... dline&te=1
Mind Control in China Has a Very Long History
MELBOURNE, Australia — China has built a vast network of extrajudicial internment camps in the western region of Xinjiang, where Uighurs and other Muslim minorities are made to renounce their culture and religion, and are forcibly subjected to political indoctrination. After long denying the camps’ existence, the government now calls them benign training centers that teach law, Mandarin and vocational skills — a claim that has been exposed as a disingenuous euphemism and an attempt to deflect criticism for gross human rights abuses.
But the camps, especially their ambition to rewire people, reveal a familiar logic that has long defined the Chinese state’s relationship with its public: a paternalistic approach that pathologizes deviant thought and behavior, and then tries to forcefully transform them. The scale and pace of the government’s campaign in Xinjiang today may be extraordinary, but the practice and its methods are not.
As far back as the third century BCE, the philosopher Xunzi argued that humanity was like “crooked timber” and that an individual’s character flaws needed to be scraped away or straightened out in the pursuit of social harmony. Mencius, a rival thinker, believed for his part in the innate goodness of human beings, but he too stressed the importance of self-improvement.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/opin ... dline&te=1
MELBOURNE, Australia — China has built a vast network of extrajudicial internment camps in the western region of Xinjiang, where Uighurs and other Muslim minorities are made to renounce their culture and religion, and are forcibly subjected to political indoctrination. After long denying the camps’ existence, the government now calls them benign training centers that teach law, Mandarin and vocational skills — a claim that has been exposed as a disingenuous euphemism and an attempt to deflect criticism for gross human rights abuses.
But the camps, especially their ambition to rewire people, reveal a familiar logic that has long defined the Chinese state’s relationship with its public: a paternalistic approach that pathologizes deviant thought and behavior, and then tries to forcefully transform them. The scale and pace of the government’s campaign in Xinjiang today may be extraordinary, but the practice and its methods are not.
As far back as the third century BCE, the philosopher Xunzi argued that humanity was like “crooked timber” and that an individual’s character flaws needed to be scraped away or straightened out in the pursuit of social harmony. Mencius, a rival thinker, believed for his part in the innate goodness of human beings, but he too stressed the importance of self-improvement.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/opin ... dline&te=1
Why We Miss the WASPs
Their more meritocratic, diverse and secular successors rule us neither as wisely nor as well.
Excerpt:
So if some of the elder Bush’s mourners wish we still had a WASP establishment, their desire probably reflects a belated realization that certain of the old establishment’s vices were inherent to any elite, that meritocracy creates its own forms of exclusion — and that the WASPs had virtues that their successors have failed to inherit or revive.
Those virtues included a spirit of noblesse oblige and personal austerity and piety that went beyond the thank-you notes and boat shoes and prep school chapel going — a spirit that trained the most privileged children for service, not just success, that sent men like Bush into combat alongside the sons of farmers and mechanics in the same way that it sent missionaries and diplomats abroad in the service of their churches and their country.
The WASP virtues also included a cosmopolitanism that was often more authentic than our own performative variety — a cosmopolitanism that coexisted with white man’s burden racism but also sometimes transcended it, because for every Brahmin bigot there was an Arabist or China hand or Hispanophile who understood the non-American world better than some of today’s shallow multiculturalists.
And somehow the combination of pious obligation joined to cosmopolitanism gave the old establishment a distinctive competence and effectiveness in statesmanship — one that from the late-19th century through the middle of the 1960s was arguably unmatched among the various imperial elites with whom our establishment contended, and that certainly hasn’t been matched by our feckless leaders in the years since George H.W. Bush went down to political defeat.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/opin ... dline&te=1
Their more meritocratic, diverse and secular successors rule us neither as wisely nor as well.
Excerpt:
So if some of the elder Bush’s mourners wish we still had a WASP establishment, their desire probably reflects a belated realization that certain of the old establishment’s vices were inherent to any elite, that meritocracy creates its own forms of exclusion — and that the WASPs had virtues that their successors have failed to inherit or revive.
Those virtues included a spirit of noblesse oblige and personal austerity and piety that went beyond the thank-you notes and boat shoes and prep school chapel going — a spirit that trained the most privileged children for service, not just success, that sent men like Bush into combat alongside the sons of farmers and mechanics in the same way that it sent missionaries and diplomats abroad in the service of their churches and their country.
The WASP virtues also included a cosmopolitanism that was often more authentic than our own performative variety — a cosmopolitanism that coexisted with white man’s burden racism but also sometimes transcended it, because for every Brahmin bigot there was an Arabist or China hand or Hispanophile who understood the non-American world better than some of today’s shallow multiculturalists.
And somehow the combination of pious obligation joined to cosmopolitanism gave the old establishment a distinctive competence and effectiveness in statesmanship — one that from the late-19th century through the middle of the 1960s was arguably unmatched among the various imperial elites with whom our establishment contended, and that certainly hasn’t been matched by our feckless leaders in the years since George H.W. Bush went down to political defeat.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/opin ... dline&te=1
The Case Against Meritocracy
An aristocracy that can’t admit it.
Excerpt:
But then the WASPs themselves decided to dissolve their own aristocracy, and transform their once-Protestant universities into a secular mass-opportunity system — a more democratic way of education, in which anyone with enough talent could climb the ladder, and personal achievement and technical expertise would be prized above all else.
This was meritocracy, the system that we now take for granted. And for several reasons it didn’t work as planned.
First, meritocracy segregates talent rather than dispersing it. By plucking the highest achievers from all over the country and encouraging them to cluster together in the same few cities, it robs localities of their potential leaders — so that instead of an Eastern establishment negotiating with overlapping groups of regional elites (or with working-class or ethnic leaders), you have a mass upper class segregated from demoralized peripheries.
Second, the meritocratic elite inevitably tends back toward aristocracy, because any definition of “merit” you choose will be easier for the children of these self-segregated meritocrats to achieve.
But even as it restratifies society, the meritocratic order also insists that everything its high-achievers have is justly earned. “He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple,” Ann Richards famously quipped of George H.W. Bush; well, the typical meritocrat is born on third base, hustles home, and gets praised as if he just hit a grand slam.
This spirit discourages inherited responsibility and cultural stewardship; it brushes away the disciplines of duty; it makes the past seem irrelevant, because everyone is supposed to come from the same nowhere and rule based on technique alone.
As a consequence, meritocrats are often educated to be bad leaders, and bad people, in a very specific way — a way of arrogant intelligence unmoored from historical experience, ambition untempered by self-sacrifice. The way of the “best and the brightest” at the dawn of the technocratic era and the “smartest guys in the room” decades later, the way of the arsonists of late-2000s Wall Street and the “move fast and break things” culture of Silicon Valley.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/opin ... 3053091209
An aristocracy that can’t admit it.
Excerpt:
But then the WASPs themselves decided to dissolve their own aristocracy, and transform their once-Protestant universities into a secular mass-opportunity system — a more democratic way of education, in which anyone with enough talent could climb the ladder, and personal achievement and technical expertise would be prized above all else.
This was meritocracy, the system that we now take for granted. And for several reasons it didn’t work as planned.
First, meritocracy segregates talent rather than dispersing it. By plucking the highest achievers from all over the country and encouraging them to cluster together in the same few cities, it robs localities of their potential leaders — so that instead of an Eastern establishment negotiating with overlapping groups of regional elites (or with working-class or ethnic leaders), you have a mass upper class segregated from demoralized peripheries.
Second, the meritocratic elite inevitably tends back toward aristocracy, because any definition of “merit” you choose will be easier for the children of these self-segregated meritocrats to achieve.
But even as it restratifies society, the meritocratic order also insists that everything its high-achievers have is justly earned. “He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple,” Ann Richards famously quipped of George H.W. Bush; well, the typical meritocrat is born on third base, hustles home, and gets praised as if he just hit a grand slam.
This spirit discourages inherited responsibility and cultural stewardship; it brushes away the disciplines of duty; it makes the past seem irrelevant, because everyone is supposed to come from the same nowhere and rule based on technique alone.
As a consequence, meritocrats are often educated to be bad leaders, and bad people, in a very specific way — a way of arrogant intelligence unmoored from historical experience, ambition untempered by self-sacrifice. The way of the “best and the brightest” at the dawn of the technocratic era and the “smartest guys in the room” decades later, the way of the arsonists of late-2000s Wall Street and the “move fast and break things” culture of Silicon Valley.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/opin ... 3053091209
A New Center Being Born
The market and the welfare state go together.
Excerpt:
Taylor didn’t abandon his faith in markets and individual rights, but he decided to abandon the belief that a single ideology can be applied to all problems. There are a lot of different goods in society: liberty, social justice, equity, community, virtue, prosperity. It’s crazy, Taylor argued, to prioritize one of those goods in nearly every single policy context. And yet that’s what ideologues do.
Taylor and his colleagues embraced a posture of epistemological modesty, threw off the ideological style of thinking and began to notice something: that the central debate in our politics is completely bogus.
Since at least 1964, American politics has pitted conservatives who believe in a small government and a free market against liberals who believe in a bigger government.
But Niskanen thinkers like Ed Dolan, Samuel Hammond and Will Wilkinson made a simple and empirically verifiable observation. The nations that have the freest markets also generally have the most generous welfare states. The two are not in opposition. In the real world they go together.
The key distinction you have to make, Will Wilkinson writes, is between the redistributive state and the regulatory state. Nations like Denmark, Sweden and Canada built elaborate redistributive states to give their citizens a foundation of economic security. Then they realized they were going to have to liberalize their economies if they were going to be able to afford their welfare states.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/opin ... dline&te=1
The market and the welfare state go together.
Excerpt:
Taylor didn’t abandon his faith in markets and individual rights, but he decided to abandon the belief that a single ideology can be applied to all problems. There are a lot of different goods in society: liberty, social justice, equity, community, virtue, prosperity. It’s crazy, Taylor argued, to prioritize one of those goods in nearly every single policy context. And yet that’s what ideologues do.
Taylor and his colleagues embraced a posture of epistemological modesty, threw off the ideological style of thinking and began to notice something: that the central debate in our politics is completely bogus.
Since at least 1964, American politics has pitted conservatives who believe in a small government and a free market against liberals who believe in a bigger government.
But Niskanen thinkers like Ed Dolan, Samuel Hammond and Will Wilkinson made a simple and empirically verifiable observation. The nations that have the freest markets also generally have the most generous welfare states. The two are not in opposition. In the real world they go together.
The key distinction you have to make, Will Wilkinson writes, is between the redistributive state and the regulatory state. Nations like Denmark, Sweden and Canada built elaborate redistributive states to give their citizens a foundation of economic security. Then they realized they were going to have to liberalize their economies if they were going to be able to afford their welfare states.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/opin ... dline&te=1
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/26 ... d-country/
December 26, 2018
Could India Have Remained an Undivided Country?
by Arshad Khan
It would be a silly question indeed to ask why December 25th is celebrated. On the other hand, one could ask why it is a national holiday in Pakistan, for it is not because it’s Christmas. By an unusual coincidence it happens to be the birthday of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of the country. Exactly how Pakistan came into being is an interesting story as it also leads to the question whether the dismemberment of the Indian subcontinent — now three countries — could have been averted.
Jinnah started out as a voice for Hindu-Muslim unity, although wary of majoritarianism and Hindu domination. A highly successful lawyer with patrician tastes, he was averse to mob violence and wanted constitutional independence — the British handing over to an elected Indian government and a constitution safeguarding the rights of minorities.
The first step was to seek Dominion status in which Indians would run their own affairs although subject to control by the British government. Accordingly a London conference was convened. The Round Table Conference began in grand style on November 30, 1930 with a plenary session at the House of Lords; after which the participants retired to St. James Palace for the talks.
Hindu and Muslim members sought first to agree on a united front. His Highness The Aga Khan was leading the delegation and also spoke for the Muslims. Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, a prominent Hindu member, has written that the Aga Khan agreed to the Hindu demand for joint electorates, instead of separate Hindu and Muslim ones, but with the reservation of seats for Muslims, and he added magnanimously, “In that event you lead and we follow.” Jaswant Singh describes (p. 178) what transpired in his excellent book, “Jinnah: India — Partition, Independence.” Unfortunately the Hindu members receptive to the proposal were intimidated by the others and the Hindu Mahasaba (p. 179, ibid.), the precursor of the nationalist Hindutva movement. Prime Minister Modi’s Bharataya Janata Party (BJP) has a Hindu nationalist fervor which has unmasked the BJP that was in power with Jaswant Singh as Foreign Minister.
Without a united front, the Round Table Conference was doomed. The seeds of Pakistan had been sown, and as Jinnah repeatedly confronted majoritarianism devoid of any assurances for Muslims, his demands for Pakistan became more implacable.
The last chance for one India arrived in 1946 with the Cabinet Mission. Field Marshal Viscount Archibald Percival Wavell served as Viceroy of India from 1943 to early 1947. Lord Wavell hosted the Mission and served as a link to the parties i.e. Jinnah of the Muslim League and Nehru of the Congress Party. The somewhat ingenious plan devised coalesced the provinces into four groups, the western provinces (now Pakistan), the east, the center and the south. The first two were Muslim majority, the latter two Hindu. The individual provinces would elect members to a group constituent assembly which would then select representatives for the central government in Delhi. Equal Hindu and Muslim groups ensured reasonable parity in Delhi.
The interim government in Delhi that Wavell had in mind would consist of a council of twelve (p. 207, ibid.): five from the Muslim League, five from Congress, one Sikh and one Dalit. In accepting the plan and therefore less, Jinnah was putting his demand for Pakistan at risk. The gesture was unappreciated for with each letter and each communication with Congress, Wavell’s original parity suffered dilution. Moreover, Nehru even rejected the Cabinet Mission’s grouping plan claiming clearly falsely that, the “entire country is opposed” to it (p. 379, ibid.).
In the end there were fourteen members of the council without parity for Muslims. The plan was formally rejected by the Muslim League on July 27, 1946 (p. 382, ibid.). The era of a constitutional path to independence was over. Jinnah and the Muslim League had tired of Nehru’s repeated shifts on positions critical to Muslim interests.
Thus the call for Direct Action. The demonstrations began on August 16, 1946, and the confrontations led to riots leading to killings. The British government recalled Wavell in February 1947. Lord Mountbatten of Burma took over, and a precipitate rush to independence followed. Group enmities resulted in a mania of killing as Muslims fleeing violence in the new India and Hindus and Sikhs the same in Pakistan fled towards the borders without protection. Over two million lost their lives before the cataclysm ended. And occasional spasms still erupt such as the 2002 killings of Muslims in Gujarat during Modi’s rule plus numerous other incidents.
The leftovers include the continuing troubles in Indian Kashmir and the frequent blinding of the young during demonstrations. The security forces eschew rubber bullets for pellet loaded shotguns. The decades-long insurgency has cost the lives of up to 100,000 Kashmiris.
The two countries have fought four wars. In the first, Pakistan wrested control of a third of Kashmir from India after the Maharaja seceded the state to India against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of his people. In the third war, India repaid Pakistan in kind paving the way for East Pakistan to become the new country of Bangladesh. The other two wars ended in the status quo ante. If there is another war, the world could face a nuclear winter — about 300 nuclear weapons in the two countries are trained on each other.
What a price to pay for majoritarianism! In the meantime, the new Modi government with its Hindu nationalist agenda and continuing contempt for secularism — even centuries-old place names are being changed — confirms the fears of the Muslim minority, justifying their course of action during that fateful summer of 1946.
Arshad M. Khan is a former professor who has, over many years, written occasionally for the print and often for online media outlets.
December 26, 2018
Could India Have Remained an Undivided Country?
by Arshad Khan
It would be a silly question indeed to ask why December 25th is celebrated. On the other hand, one could ask why it is a national holiday in Pakistan, for it is not because it’s Christmas. By an unusual coincidence it happens to be the birthday of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of the country. Exactly how Pakistan came into being is an interesting story as it also leads to the question whether the dismemberment of the Indian subcontinent — now three countries — could have been averted.
Jinnah started out as a voice for Hindu-Muslim unity, although wary of majoritarianism and Hindu domination. A highly successful lawyer with patrician tastes, he was averse to mob violence and wanted constitutional independence — the British handing over to an elected Indian government and a constitution safeguarding the rights of minorities.
The first step was to seek Dominion status in which Indians would run their own affairs although subject to control by the British government. Accordingly a London conference was convened. The Round Table Conference began in grand style on November 30, 1930 with a plenary session at the House of Lords; after which the participants retired to St. James Palace for the talks.
Hindu and Muslim members sought first to agree on a united front. His Highness The Aga Khan was leading the delegation and also spoke for the Muslims. Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, a prominent Hindu member, has written that the Aga Khan agreed to the Hindu demand for joint electorates, instead of separate Hindu and Muslim ones, but with the reservation of seats for Muslims, and he added magnanimously, “In that event you lead and we follow.” Jaswant Singh describes (p. 178) what transpired in his excellent book, “Jinnah: India — Partition, Independence.” Unfortunately the Hindu members receptive to the proposal were intimidated by the others and the Hindu Mahasaba (p. 179, ibid.), the precursor of the nationalist Hindutva movement. Prime Minister Modi’s Bharataya Janata Party (BJP) has a Hindu nationalist fervor which has unmasked the BJP that was in power with Jaswant Singh as Foreign Minister.
Without a united front, the Round Table Conference was doomed. The seeds of Pakistan had been sown, and as Jinnah repeatedly confronted majoritarianism devoid of any assurances for Muslims, his demands for Pakistan became more implacable.
The last chance for one India arrived in 1946 with the Cabinet Mission. Field Marshal Viscount Archibald Percival Wavell served as Viceroy of India from 1943 to early 1947. Lord Wavell hosted the Mission and served as a link to the parties i.e. Jinnah of the Muslim League and Nehru of the Congress Party. The somewhat ingenious plan devised coalesced the provinces into four groups, the western provinces (now Pakistan), the east, the center and the south. The first two were Muslim majority, the latter two Hindu. The individual provinces would elect members to a group constituent assembly which would then select representatives for the central government in Delhi. Equal Hindu and Muslim groups ensured reasonable parity in Delhi.
The interim government in Delhi that Wavell had in mind would consist of a council of twelve (p. 207, ibid.): five from the Muslim League, five from Congress, one Sikh and one Dalit. In accepting the plan and therefore less, Jinnah was putting his demand for Pakistan at risk. The gesture was unappreciated for with each letter and each communication with Congress, Wavell’s original parity suffered dilution. Moreover, Nehru even rejected the Cabinet Mission’s grouping plan claiming clearly falsely that, the “entire country is opposed” to it (p. 379, ibid.).
In the end there were fourteen members of the council without parity for Muslims. The plan was formally rejected by the Muslim League on July 27, 1946 (p. 382, ibid.). The era of a constitutional path to independence was over. Jinnah and the Muslim League had tired of Nehru’s repeated shifts on positions critical to Muslim interests.
Thus the call for Direct Action. The demonstrations began on August 16, 1946, and the confrontations led to riots leading to killings. The British government recalled Wavell in February 1947. Lord Mountbatten of Burma took over, and a precipitate rush to independence followed. Group enmities resulted in a mania of killing as Muslims fleeing violence in the new India and Hindus and Sikhs the same in Pakistan fled towards the borders without protection. Over two million lost their lives before the cataclysm ended. And occasional spasms still erupt such as the 2002 killings of Muslims in Gujarat during Modi’s rule plus numerous other incidents.
The leftovers include the continuing troubles in Indian Kashmir and the frequent blinding of the young during demonstrations. The security forces eschew rubber bullets for pellet loaded shotguns. The decades-long insurgency has cost the lives of up to 100,000 Kashmiris.
The two countries have fought four wars. In the first, Pakistan wrested control of a third of Kashmir from India after the Maharaja seceded the state to India against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of his people. In the third war, India repaid Pakistan in kind paving the way for East Pakistan to become the new country of Bangladesh. The other two wars ended in the status quo ante. If there is another war, the world could face a nuclear winter — about 300 nuclear weapons in the two countries are trained on each other.
What a price to pay for majoritarianism! In the meantime, the new Modi government with its Hindu nationalist agenda and continuing contempt for secularism — even centuries-old place names are being changed — confirms the fears of the Muslim minority, justifying their course of action during that fateful summer of 1946.
Arshad M. Khan is a former professor who has, over many years, written occasionally for the print and often for online media outlets.
https://theprint.in/theprint-profile/th ... on/168968/
The ‘greatest envoy’ of Hindu-Muslim unity who later ensured a separate Muslim nation
Ratnadeep Choudhary
25 December, 2018
Muhammad Ali Jinnah |
remembers Pakistan’s founder and ‘Quaid-e-Azam’ (father of the nation) Muhammad Ali Jinnah on his 142nd birth anniversary.
New Delhi: 25 December is the birth anniversary of three important modern-day personalities in the sub-continent — late Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the country’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
While Vajpayee and Sharif, currently in Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat Jail following his conviction for corruption, emerged on the political horizon after Partition, Jinnah, the brain behind Partition, was a contemporary of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and was a frontline leader of the Congress till he was nudged out by the ‘Hindu” leadership.
Much before he advocated for a Muslim Pakistan, Jinnah was viewed as the one trying to bring Hindus and Muslims together.
In fact, freedom fighter Gopal Krishna Gokhale once said of Jinnah: “He is the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.”
Partition was Jinnah’s way of ensuring the safety of the subcontinent’s Muslims. Ironical, considering that he was often in the cross-hairs of the conservatives among the Muslim community for being married to a non-Muslim, a pork-eater and a lover of liquor.
Even though he is often criticised for being the single biggest reason behind Partition, not many know that after Pakistan was formed, Jinnah wanted it to be a country for all religions.
In an address to the constituent assembly of Pakistan on 11 August, Jinnah said: “You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan.
“You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” Jinnah continually emphasised equal citizenship for all Pakistanis irrespective of their religion or ethnicity.”
Early years
Jinnah was born on 25 December 1876 in Karachi. His father Jinnahbhai Poonja was a prosperous merchant. Jinnah was a member of the Khoja caste — Hindus who converted to Islam several centuries ago and followed the Aga Khan.
In 1887, Jinnah went to Sind Madrasat al-Islam (present-day Sindh Madressatul Islam University) in Karachi. He later attended the Christian Missionary Society High School and completed his graduation from the University of Bombay.
He was sent to Britain to learn business but Jinnah had made up his mind to pursue law. Jinnah married at a young age before moving to Britain. He joined the legal society of Lincoln’s Inn and in 1895, at the young age of 19 was called to the bar.
Always interested in the politics of British India, Jinnah campaigned for Parsi leader Dadabhai Naoroji when the latter ran for a seat in the British Parliament — his campaign paid off and Naoroji became the first Indian to be a part of the House of Commons.
On his return to Karachi in 1896, Jinnah found his father’s business in tatters, something that helped him choose law as a career.
He married Parsi millionaire Sir Dinshaw Petit’s daughter Rattenbai, his second marriage, which, didn’t last long. The couple had one daughter, Dina, who is the mother of prominent Indian businessman Nusli Wadia of the Bombay Dyeing fame.
Entry into politics
Jinnah entered politics by participating in the 1906 session of the Indian National Congress at Calcutta. In 1910, he was elected to the Imperial Legislative Council.
He was influenced by the ideology of Gokhale and aspired to become a “Muslim Gokhale”. He was seen as part of the moderates among the Congress leaders.
In the early years of the 20th century, there was a growing notion among the Muslim population of British India to preserve their separate identity. Jinnah channelised that to emerge as the voice of the Indian Muslims. However, he joined the All India Muslim League (AIML), formed in 1906 to safeguard Muslim interests, in 1913.
He also joined Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s Home Rule League and became president of its Bombay branch.
During World War I, Jinnah, alongside other moderates, supported the participation of Indian troops to support Britain. He believed that India would be given political freedom, in lieu of supporting Britain in the war, which proved to be a fallacy.
His final split with the Congress happened in 1920 after the Non-Cooperation Movement.
Best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity
During his early political career, he admired British political institutions and helped in developing a sense of nationalism among people.
Jinnah played a major role in trying to bring the Hindu and Muslim community together in their quest for freedom from British rule.
But after the drubbing the Muslim League received in the 1937 provincial elections — failing to form the government in any of the provinces — Jinnah realised he had to take a re-look at his strategy in order to get out the shadows of the Congress.
In 1925, Viceroy Lord Reading offered a knighthood to Jinnah. His response: “I prefer to be plain Mr Jinnah.”
Creation of Pakistan
Jinnah was of the view that the interest of the Muslim population can be safeguarded in a Muslim homeland within the Indian subcontinent.
He used the Muslim League as an instrument to convey to the Muslim population need for a new nation.
On 23 March 1940, at its Lahore session, the Muslim League adopted the Lahore
resolution to form a new Muslim state — Pakistan. The resolution called for the creation of an “independent state” for Muslims in British India.
Jinnah, in his speech at Lahore, said: “Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations that are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.”
In the 1946 Punjab provincial elections, the All India Muslim League won a total of 73 seats while Congress managed to win just 51 seats. The league also did well in the two other Muslim majority regions as well. In Bengal, it won 113 of the total 230 seats while in Sindh it managed 27 out of 60 seats.
The results of assembly elections bolstered the party’s demand to carve out a Muslim nation in the Indian subcontinent.
In the summer of 1946, communal riots broke out between Hindus and Muslims in Calcutta which quickly spread to several parts in eastern India. Partition was seen as the only solution to ensure Hindus and Muslims could live peacefully.
After the arrival of the last viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, with an ultimatum from the British government to grant India independence, Jinnah got his separate country.
He became the first governor-general of the newly created Pakistan while Liaquat Ali Khan served as the first Prime Minister.
However, the ‘Quaid-e-Azam’ didn’t live long to lead his newly-formed country. He died on 11 September 1948, felled by a bout of tuberculosis
The ‘greatest envoy’ of Hindu-Muslim unity who later ensured a separate Muslim nation
Ratnadeep Choudhary
25 December, 2018
Muhammad Ali Jinnah |
remembers Pakistan’s founder and ‘Quaid-e-Azam’ (father of the nation) Muhammad Ali Jinnah on his 142nd birth anniversary.
New Delhi: 25 December is the birth anniversary of three important modern-day personalities in the sub-continent — late Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the country’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
While Vajpayee and Sharif, currently in Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat Jail following his conviction for corruption, emerged on the political horizon after Partition, Jinnah, the brain behind Partition, was a contemporary of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and was a frontline leader of the Congress till he was nudged out by the ‘Hindu” leadership.
Much before he advocated for a Muslim Pakistan, Jinnah was viewed as the one trying to bring Hindus and Muslims together.
In fact, freedom fighter Gopal Krishna Gokhale once said of Jinnah: “He is the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.”
Partition was Jinnah’s way of ensuring the safety of the subcontinent’s Muslims. Ironical, considering that he was often in the cross-hairs of the conservatives among the Muslim community for being married to a non-Muslim, a pork-eater and a lover of liquor.
Even though he is often criticised for being the single biggest reason behind Partition, not many know that after Pakistan was formed, Jinnah wanted it to be a country for all religions.
In an address to the constituent assembly of Pakistan on 11 August, Jinnah said: “You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan.
“You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” Jinnah continually emphasised equal citizenship for all Pakistanis irrespective of their religion or ethnicity.”
Early years
Jinnah was born on 25 December 1876 in Karachi. His father Jinnahbhai Poonja was a prosperous merchant. Jinnah was a member of the Khoja caste — Hindus who converted to Islam several centuries ago and followed the Aga Khan.
In 1887, Jinnah went to Sind Madrasat al-Islam (present-day Sindh Madressatul Islam University) in Karachi. He later attended the Christian Missionary Society High School and completed his graduation from the University of Bombay.
He was sent to Britain to learn business but Jinnah had made up his mind to pursue law. Jinnah married at a young age before moving to Britain. He joined the legal society of Lincoln’s Inn and in 1895, at the young age of 19 was called to the bar.
Always interested in the politics of British India, Jinnah campaigned for Parsi leader Dadabhai Naoroji when the latter ran for a seat in the British Parliament — his campaign paid off and Naoroji became the first Indian to be a part of the House of Commons.
On his return to Karachi in 1896, Jinnah found his father’s business in tatters, something that helped him choose law as a career.
He married Parsi millionaire Sir Dinshaw Petit’s daughter Rattenbai, his second marriage, which, didn’t last long. The couple had one daughter, Dina, who is the mother of prominent Indian businessman Nusli Wadia of the Bombay Dyeing fame.
Entry into politics
Jinnah entered politics by participating in the 1906 session of the Indian National Congress at Calcutta. In 1910, he was elected to the Imperial Legislative Council.
He was influenced by the ideology of Gokhale and aspired to become a “Muslim Gokhale”. He was seen as part of the moderates among the Congress leaders.
In the early years of the 20th century, there was a growing notion among the Muslim population of British India to preserve their separate identity. Jinnah channelised that to emerge as the voice of the Indian Muslims. However, he joined the All India Muslim League (AIML), formed in 1906 to safeguard Muslim interests, in 1913.
He also joined Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s Home Rule League and became president of its Bombay branch.
During World War I, Jinnah, alongside other moderates, supported the participation of Indian troops to support Britain. He believed that India would be given political freedom, in lieu of supporting Britain in the war, which proved to be a fallacy.
His final split with the Congress happened in 1920 after the Non-Cooperation Movement.
Best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity
During his early political career, he admired British political institutions and helped in developing a sense of nationalism among people.
Jinnah played a major role in trying to bring the Hindu and Muslim community together in their quest for freedom from British rule.
But after the drubbing the Muslim League received in the 1937 provincial elections — failing to form the government in any of the provinces — Jinnah realised he had to take a re-look at his strategy in order to get out the shadows of the Congress.
In 1925, Viceroy Lord Reading offered a knighthood to Jinnah. His response: “I prefer to be plain Mr Jinnah.”
Creation of Pakistan
Jinnah was of the view that the interest of the Muslim population can be safeguarded in a Muslim homeland within the Indian subcontinent.
He used the Muslim League as an instrument to convey to the Muslim population need for a new nation.
On 23 March 1940, at its Lahore session, the Muslim League adopted the Lahore
resolution to form a new Muslim state — Pakistan. The resolution called for the creation of an “independent state” for Muslims in British India.
Jinnah, in his speech at Lahore, said: “Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations that are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.”
In the 1946 Punjab provincial elections, the All India Muslim League won a total of 73 seats while Congress managed to win just 51 seats. The league also did well in the two other Muslim majority regions as well. In Bengal, it won 113 of the total 230 seats while in Sindh it managed 27 out of 60 seats.
The results of assembly elections bolstered the party’s demand to carve out a Muslim nation in the Indian subcontinent.
In the summer of 1946, communal riots broke out between Hindus and Muslims in Calcutta which quickly spread to several parts in eastern India. Partition was seen as the only solution to ensure Hindus and Muslims could live peacefully.
After the arrival of the last viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, with an ultimatum from the British government to grant India independence, Jinnah got his separate country.
He became the first governor-general of the newly created Pakistan while Liaquat Ali Khan served as the first Prime Minister.
However, the ‘Quaid-e-Azam’ didn’t live long to lead his newly-formed country. He died on 11 September 1948, felled by a bout of tuberculosis
What the Left and Right Can Learn From Each Other
It’s no secret that we’re living through a period of widening political polarization. Social media and social fragmentation have secluded us in our own political bubbles, where we rage against our ideological enemies from the comfort of our own unchecked biases. As a result, most intellectual engagement between the left and the right today amounts to nothing more than a slew of vitriolic ad hominems thrown back and forth, with both parties presuming, smugly, their own moral superiority. Needless to say, this undermines any possibility that these interactions will result in increased self-knowledge or collective enlightenment. In fact, they often deepen the cleavages separating political foes.
Various theories have been offered to explain what undergirds the left–right split, but perhaps the most illuminating is that offered by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind. Haidt argues that political differences largely stem from differing moral psychologies: that is, progressives and conservatives, in their moral evaluations, place weight on distinct moral values. According to Haidt, then, it is not ridiculous to say that the left and right inhabit distinct moral universes. Haidt has contributed much to our collective self-understanding, but I don’t believe his theory explains the reasons for political polarization in toto. Merely knowing the psychology behind our divergent political opinions is insufficient to inspire us to understand our adversaries. In fact, it seems just as likely that progressives and conservatives will co-opt Haidt’s theory to shore up their own assumptions, and avoid contaminating contact, under the motto my psychology is different than yours, plain and simple—so leave me alone.
However, in addition to having distinct moral psychologies, the left and right disagree so vehemently due to their differing conceptions of society and social change. They espouse different social theories.
More....
https://areomagazine.com/2018/11/02/wha ... ach-other/
It’s no secret that we’re living through a period of widening political polarization. Social media and social fragmentation have secluded us in our own political bubbles, where we rage against our ideological enemies from the comfort of our own unchecked biases. As a result, most intellectual engagement between the left and the right today amounts to nothing more than a slew of vitriolic ad hominems thrown back and forth, with both parties presuming, smugly, their own moral superiority. Needless to say, this undermines any possibility that these interactions will result in increased self-knowledge or collective enlightenment. In fact, they often deepen the cleavages separating political foes.
Various theories have been offered to explain what undergirds the left–right split, but perhaps the most illuminating is that offered by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind. Haidt argues that political differences largely stem from differing moral psychologies: that is, progressives and conservatives, in their moral evaluations, place weight on distinct moral values. According to Haidt, then, it is not ridiculous to say that the left and right inhabit distinct moral universes. Haidt has contributed much to our collective self-understanding, but I don’t believe his theory explains the reasons for political polarization in toto. Merely knowing the psychology behind our divergent political opinions is insufficient to inspire us to understand our adversaries. In fact, it seems just as likely that progressives and conservatives will co-opt Haidt’s theory to shore up their own assumptions, and avoid contaminating contact, under the motto my psychology is different than yours, plain and simple—so leave me alone.
However, in addition to having distinct moral psychologies, the left and right disagree so vehemently due to their differing conceptions of society and social change. They espouse different social theories.
More....
https://areomagazine.com/2018/11/02/wha ... ach-other/
Millennial socialism
A new kind of left-wing doctrine is emerging. It is not the answer to capitalism’s problems
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the 20th century’s ideological contest seemed over. Capitalism had won and socialism became a byword for economic failure and political oppression. It limped on in fringe meetings, failing states and the turgid liturgy of the Chinese Communist Party. Today, 30 years on, socialism is back in fashion. In America Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a newly elected congresswoman who calls herself a democratic socialist, has become a sensation even as the growing field of Democratic presidential candidates for 2020 veers left. In Britain Jeremy Corbyn, the hardline leader of the Labour Party, could yet win the keys to 10 Downing Street.
Socialism is storming back because it has formed an incisive critique of what has gone wrong in Western societies. Whereas politicians on the right have all too often given up the battle of ideas and retreated towards chauvinism and nostalgia, the left has focused on inequality, the environment, and how to vest power in citizens rather than elites (see article). Yet, although the reborn left gets some things right, its pessimism about the modern world goes too far. Its policies suffer from naivety about budgets, bureaucracies and businesses.
More...
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/ ... -socialism
A new kind of left-wing doctrine is emerging. It is not the answer to capitalism’s problems
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the 20th century’s ideological contest seemed over. Capitalism had won and socialism became a byword for economic failure and political oppression. It limped on in fringe meetings, failing states and the turgid liturgy of the Chinese Communist Party. Today, 30 years on, socialism is back in fashion. In America Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a newly elected congresswoman who calls herself a democratic socialist, has become a sensation even as the growing field of Democratic presidential candidates for 2020 veers left. In Britain Jeremy Corbyn, the hardline leader of the Labour Party, could yet win the keys to 10 Downing Street.
Socialism is storming back because it has formed an incisive critique of what has gone wrong in Western societies. Whereas politicians on the right have all too often given up the battle of ideas and retreated towards chauvinism and nostalgia, the left has focused on inequality, the environment, and how to vest power in citizens rather than elites (see article). Yet, although the reborn left gets some things right, its pessimism about the modern world goes too far. Its policies suffer from naivety about budgets, bureaucracies and businesses.
More...
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/ ... -socialism
Everything Is War and Nothing Is True
When democracy becomes combat, facts become weapons.
LONDON — A good indication of liberalism’s declining health is the rising profile of the military in domestic politics.
As the clock ticks down on Britain’s Brexit negotiations and the prospect of “no deal” rises, the fallback of military security looms into view. Britain’s defense secretary, Gavin Williamson, has stated that an additional 3,500 troops will be on standby to help ensure supplies get into the country, and government officials reportedly have examined the option of martial law in the event of major civil unrest. It is hard not to detect a whiff of excitement about all of this in the reactions of hard-core Brexiteers and their supporters in the media.
A similar sickness is evident across the Atlantic. President Trump has declared a state of emergency, provoked by a supposed crisis at the Mexican border, and he has deployed American troops on home soil. Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro, a former army captain who exemplifies many of the most frightening trends about the new strongman leaders around the world, has been steadily putting military personnel in key government positions.
These are more explicit demonstrations of military muscle, but the sense that politics has become warlike has been brewing for a while. War metaphors (“culture war,” “social justice warrior”) accumulate steadily, each implying a breakdown of common political ground. One way to understand the upheavals of the past decade, manifest in political populism and the surge in talk about “post-truth” and “fake news,” is as the penetration of warlike mobilization and propaganda into our democracies.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/opin ... ogin-email
When democracy becomes combat, facts become weapons.
LONDON — A good indication of liberalism’s declining health is the rising profile of the military in domestic politics.
As the clock ticks down on Britain’s Brexit negotiations and the prospect of “no deal” rises, the fallback of military security looms into view. Britain’s defense secretary, Gavin Williamson, has stated that an additional 3,500 troops will be on standby to help ensure supplies get into the country, and government officials reportedly have examined the option of martial law in the event of major civil unrest. It is hard not to detect a whiff of excitement about all of this in the reactions of hard-core Brexiteers and their supporters in the media.
A similar sickness is evident across the Atlantic. President Trump has declared a state of emergency, provoked by a supposed crisis at the Mexican border, and he has deployed American troops on home soil. Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro, a former army captain who exemplifies many of the most frightening trends about the new strongman leaders around the world, has been steadily putting military personnel in key government positions.
These are more explicit demonstrations of military muscle, but the sense that politics has become warlike has been brewing for a while. War metaphors (“culture war,” “social justice warrior”) accumulate steadily, each implying a breakdown of common political ground. One way to understand the upheavals of the past decade, manifest in political populism and the surge in talk about “post-truth” and “fake news,” is as the penetration of warlike mobilization and propaganda into our democracies.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/opin ... ogin-email
The Trump Musical: ‘Anything Goes’
Leaders around the world have learned that they can do as they wish without the U.S. calling them out.
Goodness knows I’m loath to write anything these days that would feed Donald Trump’s ego. But this time it’s unavoidable. There is a new global political era emerging that, while not entirely attributable to Trump, his party and his administration, they’ve surely played a huge role in fostering. A variety of analysts have now given this era the same name: “Anything goes.” And for good reason.
Look around the world and not only do you see a democratic recession — the number of democracies abandoning their democratic bona fides with sham elections is steadily mounting — but you see something much more grotesque: Leaders are grabbing power for life, murdering or jailing even the mildest of critics and shamelessly building coalitions with openly racist and bigoted parties.
Most important, they’re doing it with utter impunity — confident that either no one is watching or no one will meaningfully call them out.
This is what happens when people think America isn’t looking, doesn’t care or worse, has a president, himself having uttered over 9,000 lies and misleading statements, who has zero moral authority to call out others. When it comes to being a global watchdog that tries to enforce some basic norms of decency, America under Trump is out to lunch — and a lot of people have figured that out, and so anything goes.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/opin ... dline&te=1
Leaders around the world have learned that they can do as they wish without the U.S. calling them out.
Goodness knows I’m loath to write anything these days that would feed Donald Trump’s ego. But this time it’s unavoidable. There is a new global political era emerging that, while not entirely attributable to Trump, his party and his administration, they’ve surely played a huge role in fostering. A variety of analysts have now given this era the same name: “Anything goes.” And for good reason.
Look around the world and not only do you see a democratic recession — the number of democracies abandoning their democratic bona fides with sham elections is steadily mounting — but you see something much more grotesque: Leaders are grabbing power for life, murdering or jailing even the mildest of critics and shamelessly building coalitions with openly racist and bigoted parties.
Most important, they’re doing it with utter impunity — confident that either no one is watching or no one will meaningfully call them out.
This is what happens when people think America isn’t looking, doesn’t care or worse, has a president, himself having uttered over 9,000 lies and misleading statements, who has zero moral authority to call out others. When it comes to being a global watchdog that tries to enforce some basic norms of decency, America under Trump is out to lunch — and a lot of people have figured that out, and so anything goes.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/opin ... dline&te=1
China’s “social credit” scheme involves cajolery and sanctions
Some people shrug it off, others worry
Just over a year ago, the eastern city of Suqian announced a plan to score the “trustworthiness” of every adult resident. Everyone would start with 1,000 points. They could get more for performing good deeds, such as voluntary work, giving blood, donating bone-marrow or being a model worker. Points would be deducted for bad behaviour such as defaulting on loans, late payment of utility bills, breaking the rules of the road or being convicted of a crime. Scores would be recalculated monthly and allow residents to be sorted into eight categories, from aaa (model citizen) to d (untrustworthy).
Suqian calls the system “Xichu Points”, after the ancient kingdom of Western Chu to which the area once belonged. It appears to be up and running. A government office in the city offers leaflets explaining how it works. Residents can look up their rating by entering their identity-card number into a mini-app running on WeChat, a popular instant-messaging programme. Their score is indicated by a virtual pointer on a dial that is coloured green at one extreme and red at the other. Scorers at the green end can receive rewards, such as a discount of up to 80 yuan ($12) a month on local-transport passes and admission to hospital without having to pay a deposit.
More...
https://www.economist.com/china/2019/03 ... -sanctions
Some people shrug it off, others worry
Just over a year ago, the eastern city of Suqian announced a plan to score the “trustworthiness” of every adult resident. Everyone would start with 1,000 points. They could get more for performing good deeds, such as voluntary work, giving blood, donating bone-marrow or being a model worker. Points would be deducted for bad behaviour such as defaulting on loans, late payment of utility bills, breaking the rules of the road or being convicted of a crime. Scores would be recalculated monthly and allow residents to be sorted into eight categories, from aaa (model citizen) to d (untrustworthy).
Suqian calls the system “Xichu Points”, after the ancient kingdom of Western Chu to which the area once belonged. It appears to be up and running. A government office in the city offers leaflets explaining how it works. Residents can look up their rating by entering their identity-card number into a mini-app running on WeChat, a popular instant-messaging programme. Their score is indicated by a virtual pointer on a dial that is coloured green at one extreme and red at the other. Scorers at the green end can receive rewards, such as a discount of up to 80 yuan ($12) a month on local-transport passes and admission to hospital without having to pay a deposit.
More...
https://www.economist.com/china/2019/03 ... -sanctions
The United Kingdom Has Gone Mad
The problem with holding out for a perfect Brexit plan is that you can’t fix stupid.
LONDON — Politico reported the other day that the French European affairs minister, Nathalie Loiseau, had named her cat “Brexit.” Loiseau told the Journal du Dimanche that she chose the name because “he wakes me up every morning meowing to death because he wants to go out, and then when I open the door he stays in the middle, undecided, and then gives me evil looks when I put him out.”
If you can’t take a joke you shouldn’t have come to London right now, because there is political farce everywhere. In truth, though, it’s not very funny. It’s actually tragic. What we’re seeing is a country that’s determined to commit economic suicide but can’t even agree on how to kill itself. It is an epic failure of political leadership.
I say bring back the monarchy. Where have you gone, Queen Elizabeth II, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Seriously, the United Kingdom, the world’s fifth-largest economy — a country whose elites created modern parliamentary democracy, modern banking and finance, the Industrial Revolution and the whole concept of globalization — seems dead-set on quitting the European Union, the world’s largest market for the free movement of goods, capital, services and labor, without a well-conceived plan, or maybe without any plan at all.
Both Conservative and Labour members of Parliament keep voting down one plan after another, looking for the perfect fix, the pain-free exit from the E.U. But there is none, because you can’t fix stupid.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/opin ... dline&te=1
The problem with holding out for a perfect Brexit plan is that you can’t fix stupid.
LONDON — Politico reported the other day that the French European affairs minister, Nathalie Loiseau, had named her cat “Brexit.” Loiseau told the Journal du Dimanche that she chose the name because “he wakes me up every morning meowing to death because he wants to go out, and then when I open the door he stays in the middle, undecided, and then gives me evil looks when I put him out.”
If you can’t take a joke you shouldn’t have come to London right now, because there is political farce everywhere. In truth, though, it’s not very funny. It’s actually tragic. What we’re seeing is a country that’s determined to commit economic suicide but can’t even agree on how to kill itself. It is an epic failure of political leadership.
I say bring back the monarchy. Where have you gone, Queen Elizabeth II, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Seriously, the United Kingdom, the world’s fifth-largest economy — a country whose elites created modern parliamentary democracy, modern banking and finance, the Industrial Revolution and the whole concept of globalization — seems dead-set on quitting the European Union, the world’s largest market for the free movement of goods, capital, services and labor, without a well-conceived plan, or maybe without any plan at all.
Both Conservative and Labour members of Parliament keep voting down one plan after another, looking for the perfect fix, the pain-free exit from the E.U. But there is none, because you can’t fix stupid.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/opin ... dline&te=1
It’s Not the Collusion, It’s the Corruption
What the Mueller report says about our world.
The Mueller report is like a legal version of a thriller movie in which three malevolent forces are attacking a city all at once. Everybody’s wondering if the three attackers are working together. The report concludes that they weren't, but that doesn’t make the situation any less scary or the threat any less real.
The first force is Donald Trump, who represents a threat to the American systems of governance. Centuries ago our founders created a system of laws and not men. In our system of government there are procedures in place, based on certain values — impartiality, respect for institutions, the idea that a public office is a public trust, not a private bauble.
When Trump appears in the Mueller report, he is often running roughshod over these systems and violating these values. He asks his lawyer to hamper an investigation. He asks his F.B.I. director to take the heat off his allies. He tries to get the relevant investigators fired. I don’t know if his actions meet the legal standard of obstruction of justice, but they certainly meet the common-sense standard of interference with justice.
The second force is Russia. If Trump is a threat to the institutional infrastructure, the Russians are a threat to our informational infrastructure. We knew this already, but it was still startling to see the fact declared so bluntly — that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election “in sweeping and systematic fashion.”
It may not be bombing buildings or shooting at people, but if a foreign government is attacking the factual record on which democracy runs, it is still a sort of warfare. The Russians are trying to undermine the information we use to converse, and the trust that makes conversation possible.
The third force is Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. They are a threat to our deliberative infrastructure. Any organization needs to be able to hold private conversations in order to deliberate. Whether it is State Department cables or Democratic National Committee emails, WikiLeaks has violated privacy and made it harder for institutions to function. We’re now in a situation in which some of the worst people on earth get to determine what gets published.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opin ... 3053090419
What the Mueller report says about our world.
The Mueller report is like a legal version of a thriller movie in which three malevolent forces are attacking a city all at once. Everybody’s wondering if the three attackers are working together. The report concludes that they weren't, but that doesn’t make the situation any less scary or the threat any less real.
The first force is Donald Trump, who represents a threat to the American systems of governance. Centuries ago our founders created a system of laws and not men. In our system of government there are procedures in place, based on certain values — impartiality, respect for institutions, the idea that a public office is a public trust, not a private bauble.
When Trump appears in the Mueller report, he is often running roughshod over these systems and violating these values. He asks his lawyer to hamper an investigation. He asks his F.B.I. director to take the heat off his allies. He tries to get the relevant investigators fired. I don’t know if his actions meet the legal standard of obstruction of justice, but they certainly meet the common-sense standard of interference with justice.
The second force is Russia. If Trump is a threat to the institutional infrastructure, the Russians are a threat to our informational infrastructure. We knew this already, but it was still startling to see the fact declared so bluntly — that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election “in sweeping and systematic fashion.”
It may not be bombing buildings or shooting at people, but if a foreign government is attacking the factual record on which democracy runs, it is still a sort of warfare. The Russians are trying to undermine the information we use to converse, and the trust that makes conversation possible.
The third force is Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. They are a threat to our deliberative infrastructure. Any organization needs to be able to hold private conversations in order to deliberate. Whether it is State Department cables or Democratic National Committee emails, WikiLeaks has violated privacy and made it harder for institutions to function. We’re now in a situation in which some of the worst people on earth get to determine what gets published.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opin ... 3053090419
An Era Defined by Fear
The emotional tone underneath the political conflicts.
Another synagogue shooting. Another day of shock. Another lonely fanatic. Another cascade of insecurity and fear.
I wonder if we’ve fully grasped how fear pervades our society and sets the emotional tone for our politics. When historians define this era they may well see it above all else as a time defined by fear. The era began on Sept. 11, 2001, a moment when a nation that had once seemed invulnerable suddenly felt tremendously unsafe. In the years since, the shootings have been a series of bloody strikes out of the blue.
It’s been an era when politicians rise by stoking fear. Donald Trump declared an “American carnage” and made it to the White House by warning of an immigrant crime wave that doesn’t exist.
Fear also comes up from below, in the form of childhood trauma and insecurity. It sometimes seems as if half of America’s children grow up in strained families and suffer Adverse Childhood Experiences that make it hard for them to feel safe. The other half grow up in overprotective families and emerge into adulthood unready to face the risks that will inevitably come. Depression rates rise. Safe spaces proliferate. Collegiate mental health systems are overwhelmed.
We in the media have contributed too. Everybody is a broadcast journalist now, competing for ratings and page views. The sure way to win is to ratchet up the crisis atmosphere. All news is Breaking News!
We get to the point where the fear itself begins to take control. Fear generates fear. Everybody feels besieged — power is somehow elsewhere, with the malevolent forces who are somewhere out there, who will stop at nothing.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/opin ... dline&te=1
The emotional tone underneath the political conflicts.
Another synagogue shooting. Another day of shock. Another lonely fanatic. Another cascade of insecurity and fear.
I wonder if we’ve fully grasped how fear pervades our society and sets the emotional tone for our politics. When historians define this era they may well see it above all else as a time defined by fear. The era began on Sept. 11, 2001, a moment when a nation that had once seemed invulnerable suddenly felt tremendously unsafe. In the years since, the shootings have been a series of bloody strikes out of the blue.
It’s been an era when politicians rise by stoking fear. Donald Trump declared an “American carnage” and made it to the White House by warning of an immigrant crime wave that doesn’t exist.
Fear also comes up from below, in the form of childhood trauma and insecurity. It sometimes seems as if half of America’s children grow up in strained families and suffer Adverse Childhood Experiences that make it hard for them to feel safe. The other half grow up in overprotective families and emerge into adulthood unready to face the risks that will inevitably come. Depression rates rise. Safe spaces proliferate. Collegiate mental health systems are overwhelmed.
We in the media have contributed too. Everybody is a broadcast journalist now, competing for ratings and page views. The sure way to win is to ratchet up the crisis atmosphere. All news is Breaking News!
We get to the point where the fear itself begins to take control. Fear generates fear. Everybody feels besieged — power is somehow elsewhere, with the malevolent forces who are somewhere out there, who will stop at nothing.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/opin ... dline&te=1
Has Our Luck Run Out?
Most crucial problems today are global in nature and can be dealt with only by a global coalition.
The year 2019 will be remembered for a lot of things, but in foreign policy it may well be remembered as the year our luck ran out.
How so? The period after World War II was one of those incredibly plastic moments in history, and we were incredibly lucky that a group of leaders appeared who understood that this moment of Western and U.S. dominance would not necessarily last. It was vital, therefore, to lock in our democratic values and interests in a set of global institutions and alliances that would perpetuate them.
They were leaders like George Marshall and Dean Acheson and Harry Truman in America, and Jean Monnet, a founding father of the European Union, and Konrad Adenauer, Germany’s first postwar chancellor, across the Atlantic.
In 1989, we saw another plastic moment, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Again, we were lucky that a group of leaders came together who peacefully managed the fall of communism, the reunification of Germany and the rise of a quasi-capitalist, China. They were Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, George Shultz, George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, Helmut Kohl, Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterrand and James Baker.
Now we are at another hugely plastic moment — a moment when the world is experiencing four climate changes at once: There’s a change in the climate of the climate — the hots are getting hotter, the wets wetter, the droughts drier, the forest fires fiercer. There’s been a change in the climate of globalization — we are going from an interconnected world to an interdependent one. There’s been a change in the climate of work — machines can think, reason and manipulate as fast, and increasingly better, than human beings.
And there’s been a change in the climate of communications. Smartphones connected to the cloud are super-empowering good people to be reporters, photographers, filmmakers, innovators and entrepreneurs — with a global reach — and they’re super-empowering bad guys to be cybercriminals and breakers with a global reach.
These four climate changes are creating a whole new set of governing challenges. They are not the obvious challenges of communism and economic dislocation — as occurred after World War II — when building a NATO, a Marshall Plan and an E.U. were the obvious antidotes. And it is not the obvious challenge and opportunity of spreading democracy and free markets into the vacuum created by the end of communism in 1989. It’s the less obvious challenge of stemming the erosion of the pillars of democracy and order built in the previous two eras — but without a single big, obvious bogeyman or falling wall to galvanize us.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/opin ... dline&te=1
Most crucial problems today are global in nature and can be dealt with only by a global coalition.
The year 2019 will be remembered for a lot of things, but in foreign policy it may well be remembered as the year our luck ran out.
How so? The period after World War II was one of those incredibly plastic moments in history, and we were incredibly lucky that a group of leaders appeared who understood that this moment of Western and U.S. dominance would not necessarily last. It was vital, therefore, to lock in our democratic values and interests in a set of global institutions and alliances that would perpetuate them.
They were leaders like George Marshall and Dean Acheson and Harry Truman in America, and Jean Monnet, a founding father of the European Union, and Konrad Adenauer, Germany’s first postwar chancellor, across the Atlantic.
In 1989, we saw another plastic moment, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Again, we were lucky that a group of leaders came together who peacefully managed the fall of communism, the reunification of Germany and the rise of a quasi-capitalist, China. They were Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, George Shultz, George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, Helmut Kohl, Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterrand and James Baker.
Now we are at another hugely plastic moment — a moment when the world is experiencing four climate changes at once: There’s a change in the climate of the climate — the hots are getting hotter, the wets wetter, the droughts drier, the forest fires fiercer. There’s been a change in the climate of globalization — we are going from an interconnected world to an interdependent one. There’s been a change in the climate of work — machines can think, reason and manipulate as fast, and increasingly better, than human beings.
And there’s been a change in the climate of communications. Smartphones connected to the cloud are super-empowering good people to be reporters, photographers, filmmakers, innovators and entrepreneurs — with a global reach — and they’re super-empowering bad guys to be cybercriminals and breakers with a global reach.
These four climate changes are creating a whole new set of governing challenges. They are not the obvious challenges of communism and economic dislocation — as occurred after World War II — when building a NATO, a Marshall Plan and an E.U. were the obvious antidotes. And it is not the obvious challenge and opportunity of spreading democracy and free markets into the vacuum created by the end of communism in 1989. It’s the less obvious challenge of stemming the erosion of the pillars of democracy and order built in the previous two eras — but without a single big, obvious bogeyman or falling wall to galvanize us.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/opin ... dline&te=1
Democracy Is for the Gods
It should be no surprise that humans cannot sustain it.
“Why do democracies fail?”
We’ve heard that question a lot in the past few years, in books, on opinion pages and cable news shows, and in an increasingly anxious public debate. But I almost always find myself answering the question with another question: Why shouldn’t they?
History — the only true guide we have on this matter — has shown us that democracy is rare and fleeting. It flares up almost mysteriously in some fortunate place or another, and then fades out, it seems, just as mysteriously. Genuine democracy is difficult to achieve and once achieved, fragile. In the grand scheme of human events, it is the exception, not the rule.
Despite democracy’s elusive nature, its core idea is disarmingly simple: As members of a community, we should have an equal say in how we conduct our life together. “In democracy as it ought to be,” writes Paul Woodruff in his 2006 book “First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea,” “all adults are free to chime in, to join the conversation on how they should arrange their life together. And no one is left free to enjoy the unchecked power that leads to arrogance and abuse.” Have you ever heard of anything more reasonable? But who says we are reasonable?
Fundamentally, humans are not predisposed to living democratically. One can even make the point that democracy is “unnatural” because it goes against our vital instincts and impulses. What’s most natural to us, just as to any living creature, is to seek to survive and reproduce. And for that purpose, we assert ourselves — relentlessly, unwittingly, savagely — against others: We push them aside, overstep them, overthrow them, even crush them if necessary. Behind the smiling facade of human civilization, there is at work the same blind drive toward self-assertion that we find in the animal realm.
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/05/opin ... 3053090706
It should be no surprise that humans cannot sustain it.
“Why do democracies fail?”
We’ve heard that question a lot in the past few years, in books, on opinion pages and cable news shows, and in an increasingly anxious public debate. But I almost always find myself answering the question with another question: Why shouldn’t they?
History — the only true guide we have on this matter — has shown us that democracy is rare and fleeting. It flares up almost mysteriously in some fortunate place or another, and then fades out, it seems, just as mysteriously. Genuine democracy is difficult to achieve and once achieved, fragile. In the grand scheme of human events, it is the exception, not the rule.
Despite democracy’s elusive nature, its core idea is disarmingly simple: As members of a community, we should have an equal say in how we conduct our life together. “In democracy as it ought to be,” writes Paul Woodruff in his 2006 book “First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea,” “all adults are free to chime in, to join the conversation on how they should arrange their life together. And no one is left free to enjoy the unchecked power that leads to arrogance and abuse.” Have you ever heard of anything more reasonable? But who says we are reasonable?
Fundamentally, humans are not predisposed to living democratically. One can even make the point that democracy is “unnatural” because it goes against our vital instincts and impulses. What’s most natural to us, just as to any living creature, is to seek to survive and reproduce. And for that purpose, we assert ourselves — relentlessly, unwittingly, savagely — against others: We push them aside, overstep them, overthrow them, even crush them if necessary. Behind the smiling facade of human civilization, there is at work the same blind drive toward self-assertion that we find in the animal realm.
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/05/opin ... 3053090706
The global gag on free speech is tightening
In both democracies and dictatorships, it is getting harder to speak up
Excerpt:
According to Freedom House, a watchdog, free speech has declined globally over the past decade. The most repressive regimes have become more so: among those classed as “not free” by Freedom House, 28% have tightened the muzzle in the past five years; only 14% have loosened it. “Partly free” countries were as likely to improve as to get worse, but “free” countries regressed. Some 19% of them (16 countries) have grown less hospitable to free speech in the past five years, while only 14% have improved (see map).
There are two main reasons for this. First, ruling parties in many countries have found new tools for suppressing awkward facts and ideas. Second, they feel emboldened to use such tools, partly because global support for free speech has faltered. Neither of the world’s superpowers is likely to stand up for it. China ruthlessly censors dissent at home and exports the technology to censor it abroad. The United States, once a champion of free expression, is now led by a man who says things like this:
“We certainly don’t want to stifle free speech, but ... I don’t think that the mainstream media is free speech ... because it’s so crooked. So, to me, free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad. To me, that’s very dangerous speech and you become angry at it.”
Really? Seeing something that the government claims is good and pointing out why it is bad is an essential function of journalism. Indeed, it is one of democracy’s most crucial safeguards. President Donald Trump cannot censor the media in America, but his words contribute to a global climate of contempt for independent journalism. Censorious authoritarians elsewhere often cite Mr Trump’s catchphrases, calling critical reporting “fake news” and critical journalists “enemies of the people”.
More...
https://www.economist.com/international ... a/294305/n
In both democracies and dictatorships, it is getting harder to speak up
Excerpt:
According to Freedom House, a watchdog, free speech has declined globally over the past decade. The most repressive regimes have become more so: among those classed as “not free” by Freedom House, 28% have tightened the muzzle in the past five years; only 14% have loosened it. “Partly free” countries were as likely to improve as to get worse, but “free” countries regressed. Some 19% of them (16 countries) have grown less hospitable to free speech in the past five years, while only 14% have improved (see map).
There are two main reasons for this. First, ruling parties in many countries have found new tools for suppressing awkward facts and ideas. Second, they feel emboldened to use such tools, partly because global support for free speech has faltered. Neither of the world’s superpowers is likely to stand up for it. China ruthlessly censors dissent at home and exports the technology to censor it abroad. The United States, once a champion of free expression, is now led by a man who says things like this:
“We certainly don’t want to stifle free speech, but ... I don’t think that the mainstream media is free speech ... because it’s so crooked. So, to me, free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad. To me, that’s very dangerous speech and you become angry at it.”
Really? Seeing something that the government claims is good and pointing out why it is bad is an essential function of journalism. Indeed, it is one of democracy’s most crucial safeguards. President Donald Trump cannot censor the media in America, but his words contribute to a global climate of contempt for independent journalism. Censorious authoritarians elsewhere often cite Mr Trump’s catchphrases, calling critical reporting “fake news” and critical journalists “enemies of the people”.
More...
https://www.economist.com/international ... a/294305/n
The Original Evil Corporation
The East India Company, a trading firm with its own army, was masterful at manipulating governments for its own profit. It’s the prototype for today’s multinationals.
The rise and rise of giant oil and tech companies, with their campaign contributions, commercial lobbying, predictive data harvesting and surveillance capitalism, has lent a certain urgency to old questions: How are we to cope with the power and perils of multinational corporations and how can a nation-state protect itself and its citizens from corporate excess?
As the international subprime bubble and bank collapses of 2007-09 demonstrated, just as corporations can enrich and positively shape the destiny of nations, so they can also drag down their economies. The Federal Reserve’s bank bailout has been estimated to be $7.77 trillion dollars. The collapse of all three of Iceland’s major privately owned commercial banks brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy.
Corporate influence, with its fatal blend of power, money and unaccountability, is particularly potent and dangerous in frail states where corporations are insufficiently regulated, and where the purchasing power of a large company can outbid or overwhelm an underfunded government.
The lobbying power of the largest corporations can even make and break governments: The Anglo-Persia Oil Company was able to induce a coup that toppled the government in Iran in 1953; United Fruit Company which owned 42 percent of Guatemala’s land, lobbied to bring about a C.I.A.-backed coup a year later in 1954. The International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation campaigned for the ouster of Chile’s Salvador Allende in the 1970s, while more recently Exxon Mobil has lobbied the United States to protect its interests in Indonesia and Iraq.
The roots of this predatory corporate culture go back 400 years to the foundation and the global rise of the East India Company. Many modern corporations have attempted to match its success at bending state power to their own ends, but the Company remains unmatched for its violence and sheer military might.
The East India Company, which was established in London in 1599, was authorized by its charter to wage war, and from its maiden voyage in 1602, it used corporate violence to enhance its trade. In the mid-18th century, the Company began seizing by brute military force great chunks of the most prosperous provinces of the Mughal Empire, which then embraced most of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and half of Afghanistan.
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opin ... ogin-email
The East India Company, a trading firm with its own army, was masterful at manipulating governments for its own profit. It’s the prototype for today’s multinationals.
The rise and rise of giant oil and tech companies, with their campaign contributions, commercial lobbying, predictive data harvesting and surveillance capitalism, has lent a certain urgency to old questions: How are we to cope with the power and perils of multinational corporations and how can a nation-state protect itself and its citizens from corporate excess?
As the international subprime bubble and bank collapses of 2007-09 demonstrated, just as corporations can enrich and positively shape the destiny of nations, so they can also drag down their economies. The Federal Reserve’s bank bailout has been estimated to be $7.77 trillion dollars. The collapse of all three of Iceland’s major privately owned commercial banks brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy.
Corporate influence, with its fatal blend of power, money and unaccountability, is particularly potent and dangerous in frail states where corporations are insufficiently regulated, and where the purchasing power of a large company can outbid or overwhelm an underfunded government.
The lobbying power of the largest corporations can even make and break governments: The Anglo-Persia Oil Company was able to induce a coup that toppled the government in Iran in 1953; United Fruit Company which owned 42 percent of Guatemala’s land, lobbied to bring about a C.I.A.-backed coup a year later in 1954. The International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation campaigned for the ouster of Chile’s Salvador Allende in the 1970s, while more recently Exxon Mobil has lobbied the United States to protect its interests in Indonesia and Iraq.
The roots of this predatory corporate culture go back 400 years to the foundation and the global rise of the East India Company. Many modern corporations have attempted to match its success at bending state power to their own ends, but the Company remains unmatched for its violence and sheer military might.
The East India Company, which was established in London in 1599, was authorized by its charter to wage war, and from its maiden voyage in 1602, it used corporate violence to enhance its trade. In the mid-18th century, the Company began seizing by brute military force great chunks of the most prosperous provinces of the Mughal Empire, which then embraced most of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and half of Afghanistan.
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opin ... ogin-email
Are You a Moderate? Think Again
A lack of moral imagination can make deeply ethical actions seem like crimes.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” was written as a response to a group of “white moderate” clergy members who claimed to be supportive of the civil rights movement — but who had also called Dr. King’s activism both “unwise and untimely.” For these moderates, civil rights activists were not courageous adversaries of a horribly unjust society, but lawless “outside agitators” threatening the tranquillity of the status quo. And so, rather than commending these activists, they condemned them and blamed the outbreak of violence on their resistance to Jim Crow rather than on Jim Crow itself.
In his response to their calls for slow and incremental change, Dr. King made a provocative claim: He argued that these white moderates were a potentially greater threat than the members of the Ku Klux Klan. Whereas the “ill will” of the rabid segregationist was out in the open and could therefore be combated, the “shallow understanding from people of good will” threatened to enervate the civil rights movement into acceptance of an intolerable status quo. For King, moderation in the face of injustice might have been a worse problem than injustice itself.
A half-century later we find ourselves, domestically and globally, in a similar crisis, arguably more divided than ever. Those fighting against inequality, sexism, racism and xenophobia face an entrenched and increasingly emboldened reactionary opposition. In between them lies our current equivalent of Dr. King’s “white moderate.” And these moderates, with their outsized political power and their nostalgia for a lost status quo, similarly represent a greater threat to progress than do the reactionaries.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/opin ... ogin-email
A lack of moral imagination can make deeply ethical actions seem like crimes.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” was written as a response to a group of “white moderate” clergy members who claimed to be supportive of the civil rights movement — but who had also called Dr. King’s activism both “unwise and untimely.” For these moderates, civil rights activists were not courageous adversaries of a horribly unjust society, but lawless “outside agitators” threatening the tranquillity of the status quo. And so, rather than commending these activists, they condemned them and blamed the outbreak of violence on their resistance to Jim Crow rather than on Jim Crow itself.
In his response to their calls for slow and incremental change, Dr. King made a provocative claim: He argued that these white moderates were a potentially greater threat than the members of the Ku Klux Klan. Whereas the “ill will” of the rabid segregationist was out in the open and could therefore be combated, the “shallow understanding from people of good will” threatened to enervate the civil rights movement into acceptance of an intolerable status quo. For King, moderation in the face of injustice might have been a worse problem than injustice itself.
A half-century later we find ourselves, domestically and globally, in a similar crisis, arguably more divided than ever. Those fighting against inequality, sexism, racism and xenophobia face an entrenched and increasingly emboldened reactionary opposition. In between them lies our current equivalent of Dr. King’s “white moderate.” And these moderates, with their outsized political power and their nostalgia for a lost status quo, similarly represent a greater threat to progress than do the reactionaries.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/opin ... ogin-email
The Happy, Healthy Capitalists of Switzerland
Forget Scandinavia. Switzerland is richer and yet has a surprisingly equal wealth distribution.
Like many progressive intellectuals, Bernie Sanders traces his vision of economic paradise not to socialist dictatorships like Venezuela but to their distant cousins in Scandinavia, which are just as wealthy and democratic as the United States but have more equitable distributions of wealth, as well as affordable health care and free college for all.
There is, however, a country far richer and just as fair as any in the Scandinavian trio of Sweden, Denmark and Norway. But no one talks about it.
This $700 billion European economy is among the world’s 20 largest, significantly bigger than any in Scandinavia. It delivers welfare benefits as comprehensive as Scandinavia’s but with lighter taxes, smaller government, and a more open and stable economy. Steady growth recently made it the second richest nation in the world, after Luxembourg, with an average income of $84,000, or $20,000 more than the Scandinavian average. Money is not the final measure of success, but surveys also rank this nation as one of the world’s 10 happiest.
This less socialist but more successful utopia is Switzerland.
While widening its income lead over Scandinavia in recent decades, Switzerland has been catching up on measures of equality. Wealth and income are distributed across the populace almost as equally as in Scandinavia, with the middle class holding about 70 percent of the nation’s assets. The big difference: The typical Swiss family has a net worth around $540,000, twice its Scandinavian peer.
Switzerland did draw 15 minutes of media attention around 2010, when Obamacare was still new — but only for its health care system, which requires all residents to buy insurance from private providers and subsidizes those who can least afford it. Admirers said Swiss health care had something for everyone: universal coverage for liberals, private providers and consumer choice for conservatives.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/opin ... d=45305309
Forget Scandinavia. Switzerland is richer and yet has a surprisingly equal wealth distribution.
Like many progressive intellectuals, Bernie Sanders traces his vision of economic paradise not to socialist dictatorships like Venezuela but to their distant cousins in Scandinavia, which are just as wealthy and democratic as the United States but have more equitable distributions of wealth, as well as affordable health care and free college for all.
There is, however, a country far richer and just as fair as any in the Scandinavian trio of Sweden, Denmark and Norway. But no one talks about it.
This $700 billion European economy is among the world’s 20 largest, significantly bigger than any in Scandinavia. It delivers welfare benefits as comprehensive as Scandinavia’s but with lighter taxes, smaller government, and a more open and stable economy. Steady growth recently made it the second richest nation in the world, after Luxembourg, with an average income of $84,000, or $20,000 more than the Scandinavian average. Money is not the final measure of success, but surveys also rank this nation as one of the world’s 10 happiest.
This less socialist but more successful utopia is Switzerland.
While widening its income lead over Scandinavia in recent decades, Switzerland has been catching up on measures of equality. Wealth and income are distributed across the populace almost as equally as in Scandinavia, with the middle class holding about 70 percent of the nation’s assets. The big difference: The typical Swiss family has a net worth around $540,000, twice its Scandinavian peer.
Switzerland did draw 15 minutes of media attention around 2010, when Obamacare was still new — but only for its health care system, which requires all residents to buy insurance from private providers and subsidizes those who can least afford it. Admirers said Swiss health care had something for everyone: universal coverage for liberals, private providers and consumer choice for conservatives.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/opin ... d=45305309
Is Politics a War of Ideas or of Us Against Them?
The struggle between pro-Trump and anti-Trump forces has researchers — and party strategists — grasping for an answer.
Is the deepening animosity between Democrats and Republicans based on genuine differences over policy and ideology or is it a form of tribal warfare rooted in an atavistic us-versus-them mentality?
Is American political conflict relatively content-free — emotionally motivated electoral competition — or is it primarily a war of ideas, a matter of feuding visions both of what America is and what it should become?
Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at Brookings, recently put the issue this way in an essay at the National Affairs website: “Here we reach an interesting, if somewhat surreal, question. What if, to some significant extent, the increase in partisanship is not really about anything?”
This debate has both strategic and substantive consequences. If left and right are split mainly because of differences over policy, the chances of achieving compromise and overcoming gridlock are higher than if the two sides believe that their values, their freedom, their right to express themselves, their very identity, are all at stake. It’s easier to bend on principle than to give up a piece of yourself.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/opin ... d=45305309
The struggle between pro-Trump and anti-Trump forces has researchers — and party strategists — grasping for an answer.
Is the deepening animosity between Democrats and Republicans based on genuine differences over policy and ideology or is it a form of tribal warfare rooted in an atavistic us-versus-them mentality?
Is American political conflict relatively content-free — emotionally motivated electoral competition — or is it primarily a war of ideas, a matter of feuding visions both of what America is and what it should become?
Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at Brookings, recently put the issue this way in an essay at the National Affairs website: “Here we reach an interesting, if somewhat surreal, question. What if, to some significant extent, the increase in partisanship is not really about anything?”
This debate has both strategic and substantive consequences. If left and right are split mainly because of differences over policy, the chances of achieving compromise and overcoming gridlock are higher than if the two sides believe that their values, their freedom, their right to express themselves, their very identity, are all at stake. It’s easier to bend on principle than to give up a piece of yourself.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/opin ... d=45305309
Judge Halim Dhanidina Speaks on Dissent, Democracy and Public Service
At the International Athens Democracy Forum in 2015, Mawlana Hazar Imam stated, "The progress of democracy in our world is fundamentally linked to improving the quality of human life." He cited four elements that could help advance democracy: an improved constitutional understanding, independent and pluralistic media, the potential of civil society, and a genuine democratic ethic.
On September 27, 2019, the Ismaili Council for the Southeastern United States, in collaboration with Emory's Candler School of Theology, and the Leadership and Multifaith Program (LAMP), hosted a Lunch and Learn at the Ismaili Center and Jamatkhana in Decatur, Georgia, on the topic of "Dissent in Democracy."
Judge Halim Dhanidina, appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court bench by Governor Jerry Brown in 2012, served as the keynote speaker. Judge Dhanidina is an Ismaili Muslim with the distinct honor of being the first Muslim and first South Asian American to serve as a Superior Court justice in the United States.
Judge Dhanidina’s inspiring lecture included an interactive discussion on how healthy democracies rely on dissent, where individuals must constructively question the status quo in order to ensure a just and prosperous society, where all voices are heard.
Photos and more...
https://the.ismaili/usa/judge-halim-dha ... ic-service
At the International Athens Democracy Forum in 2015, Mawlana Hazar Imam stated, "The progress of democracy in our world is fundamentally linked to improving the quality of human life." He cited four elements that could help advance democracy: an improved constitutional understanding, independent and pluralistic media, the potential of civil society, and a genuine democratic ethic.
On September 27, 2019, the Ismaili Council for the Southeastern United States, in collaboration with Emory's Candler School of Theology, and the Leadership and Multifaith Program (LAMP), hosted a Lunch and Learn at the Ismaili Center and Jamatkhana in Decatur, Georgia, on the topic of "Dissent in Democracy."
Judge Halim Dhanidina, appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court bench by Governor Jerry Brown in 2012, served as the keynote speaker. Judge Dhanidina is an Ismaili Muslim with the distinct honor of being the first Muslim and first South Asian American to serve as a Superior Court justice in the United States.
Judge Dhanidina’s inspiring lecture included an interactive discussion on how healthy democracies rely on dissent, where individuals must constructively question the status quo in order to ensure a just and prosperous society, where all voices are heard.
Photos and more...
https://the.ismaili/usa/judge-halim-dha ... ic-service
Countries are increasingly willing to censor speech online
That will make life hard for the tech giants
In 2016 the World Health Organisation (who) declared Britain to be officially free from measles, a highly infectious illness that killed about 110,000 people around the world in 2017. The success was short-lived. After 991 infections were recorded in England and Wales in 2018, the who revoked Britain’s disease-free label.
Cases of measles are rising in many countries, fuelled in part by conspiracy theories claiming that vaccines given to children cause autism (they do not). “Anti-vaxxers” have long used internet forums and social media to spread their nonsense. Matt Hancock, Britain’s health minister, would like to see that stopped. In March he said that internet giants such as Facebook and Google should have a “duty of care” to their users, putting them in the same legal position as schools or doctors. If firms would not stop the spread of anti-vaccination messages voluntarily, said Mr Hancock, he would consider changing the law to force them to do so.
An election is due in December, so Mr Hancock may not get his way—though the opposition Labour Party is also keen. But Britain is far from alone. In recent months attention has focused on the threat to big internet companies from trustbusting politicians in America. Now they face a second regulatory assault elsewhere. Citing reasons ranging from combating terrorism to safeguarding elections to discouraging self-harm, politicians around the world are increasingly eager to censor the material that appears on the tech giants’ platforms.
Many authoritarian governments already restrict what their citizens see online. China has heavily censored the internet since its early days; Twitter and Facebook are banned outright. Iran also outlaws Facebook. Saudi Arabia restricts access to information on everything from gay rights and evolution to Shia Islam. Attitudes are hardening in democracies, too. Rather than simply being blocked, big tech firms face a raft of new laws controlling what they can host on their platforms.
More...
https://www.economist.com/international ... a/341210/n
That will make life hard for the tech giants
In 2016 the World Health Organisation (who) declared Britain to be officially free from measles, a highly infectious illness that killed about 110,000 people around the world in 2017. The success was short-lived. After 991 infections were recorded in England and Wales in 2018, the who revoked Britain’s disease-free label.
Cases of measles are rising in many countries, fuelled in part by conspiracy theories claiming that vaccines given to children cause autism (they do not). “Anti-vaxxers” have long used internet forums and social media to spread their nonsense. Matt Hancock, Britain’s health minister, would like to see that stopped. In March he said that internet giants such as Facebook and Google should have a “duty of care” to their users, putting them in the same legal position as schools or doctors. If firms would not stop the spread of anti-vaccination messages voluntarily, said Mr Hancock, he would consider changing the law to force them to do so.
An election is due in December, so Mr Hancock may not get his way—though the opposition Labour Party is also keen. But Britain is far from alone. In recent months attention has focused on the threat to big internet companies from trustbusting politicians in America. Now they face a second regulatory assault elsewhere. Citing reasons ranging from combating terrorism to safeguarding elections to discouraging self-harm, politicians around the world are increasingly eager to censor the material that appears on the tech giants’ platforms.
Many authoritarian governments already restrict what their citizens see online. China has heavily censored the internet since its early days; Twitter and Facebook are banned outright. Iran also outlaws Facebook. Saudi Arabia restricts access to information on everything from gay rights and evolution to Shia Islam. Attitudes are hardening in democracies, too. Rather than simply being blocked, big tech firms face a raft of new laws controlling what they can host on their platforms.
More...
https://www.economist.com/international ... a/341210/n
In Praise of Washington Insiders
The people who are showing us what public service looks like.
Let me tell you a secret. The public buildings of Washington are filled with very good people working hard for low pay and the public good. There are thousands of them and they are very much like the Foreign Service officers that we’ve seen or are expected to see testifying at the impeachment hearings: William Taylor, George Kent, Marie Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill.
These public servants tend to be self-effacing and deeply knowledgeable about some small realm of public policy. They’re generally not all that interested in partisan politics but are deeply committed to the process and substance of good government. Whenever I get to sit in on off-the-record meetings at this or that federal agency, I’m impressed by the quality, professionalism and basic goodness of the people there.
We don’t celebrate these people. Trumpian conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit. Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo.
Everybody who runs for office wants to be seen as an outsider and condemns the insiders. That is, until weeks like this one when we realize how much we need them.
At this week’s hearings, the civil servant witnesses answering questions inspired a lot more confidence than the elected officials who were asking them. Why are they so impressive? It’s precisely because they are Washington insiders. The witnesses have worked in a long line of institutions — the State Department, the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, the National Security Council.
For all their flaws, these institutions possess what the political scientist Hugh Heclo called “sedimented deposits” of inherited knowledge. If you are a Foreign service officer long enough, you learn to think like a Foreign Service officer. You absorb the skills, practices and moral codes you need to do the work well. When someone breaks the code, you know immediately, and if you are brave enough, like the whistle-blower, you move to defend the code.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/opin ... d=45305309
The people who are showing us what public service looks like.
Let me tell you a secret. The public buildings of Washington are filled with very good people working hard for low pay and the public good. There are thousands of them and they are very much like the Foreign Service officers that we’ve seen or are expected to see testifying at the impeachment hearings: William Taylor, George Kent, Marie Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill.
These public servants tend to be self-effacing and deeply knowledgeable about some small realm of public policy. They’re generally not all that interested in partisan politics but are deeply committed to the process and substance of good government. Whenever I get to sit in on off-the-record meetings at this or that federal agency, I’m impressed by the quality, professionalism and basic goodness of the people there.
We don’t celebrate these people. Trumpian conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit. Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo.
Everybody who runs for office wants to be seen as an outsider and condemns the insiders. That is, until weeks like this one when we realize how much we need them.
At this week’s hearings, the civil servant witnesses answering questions inspired a lot more confidence than the elected officials who were asking them. Why are they so impressive? It’s precisely because they are Washington insiders. The witnesses have worked in a long line of institutions — the State Department, the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, the National Security Council.
For all their flaws, these institutions possess what the political scientist Hugh Heclo called “sedimented deposits” of inherited knowledge. If you are a Foreign service officer long enough, you learn to think like a Foreign Service officer. You absorb the skills, practices and moral codes you need to do the work well. When someone breaks the code, you know immediately, and if you are brave enough, like the whistle-blower, you move to defend the code.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/opin ... d=45305309
The Revolt Against Populism
These days, the protesters are fighting for freedom.
Have you noticed that the world is on fire?
Crowds are chanting “Death to Khamenei” in Iran while the regime kills them en masse and shuts down the internet. Throngs are marching to preserve democratic rights in Hong Kong, Warsaw, Budapest, Istanbul and Moscow. The masses are angry in Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia and toppling leaders in Lebanon and Bolivia.
This is the most widespread surge in global civic unrest since 1989. It’s a story 10 times bigger than impeachment, although the two are related.
The seeds of today’s unrest were planted in those events of 30 years ago — the fall of the Soviet Union, the spread of globalization and all the rest. That was the heyday of liberal democratic capitalism, free market fundamentalism, the end of history.
We all know now what many of us didn’t appreciate then: Globalized democratic capitalism was going to spark a backlash. It led to growing economic and cultural clashes between the educated urbanites, who thrived, and the rural masses, who were left behind. It was too spiritually thin, too cosmopolitan and deracinated. People felt that their national cultures were being ripped away from them.
The populist backlash came in different forms in different parts of the world. In Central and Eastern Europe it came in the form of nationalist strongmen — Victor Orban, Vladimir Putin, the Law and Justice party in Poland. In Latin America it came in the form of the Pink Tide — a group of left-wing economic populists like Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. In the Anglosphere it was white ethnic nationalism of Donald Trump and Brexit. In the Middle East it was Muslim fundamentalism. In China it was the increasing authoritarianism of Xi Jinping. In India it was the Hindu nationalism of Narendra Modi.
In places, the populist wave is still rising. The Yellow Vests in France and the protests in Chile are led by those who feel economically left behind. But it’s also clear that when in power the populists can’t deliver goods. So now in many places we’re seeing a revolt against the revolt, urban middle-class uprisings against the populists themselves.
The core problem is economic. Populist economic policies of left and right destroy growth. Venezuela is an economic disaster. In Mexico the left-wing populist policies of Andrés Manuel López Obrador have brought growth to a halt. The International Monetary Fund projects Latin American growth could fall to 0.2 percent.
Lebanon is creating only 3,000 jobs a year, when it needs at least 20,000. Meanwhile, debt has soared. Trump’s trade war has lowered American economic dynamism. Xi has walked away from market reforms and ushered in an economic slowdown. Under the tax-hiking populist leader Imran Khan in Pakistan, car sales fell 39 percent in the latest quarter.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/opin ... 0920191122
These days, the protesters are fighting for freedom.
Have you noticed that the world is on fire?
Crowds are chanting “Death to Khamenei” in Iran while the regime kills them en masse and shuts down the internet. Throngs are marching to preserve democratic rights in Hong Kong, Warsaw, Budapest, Istanbul and Moscow. The masses are angry in Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia and toppling leaders in Lebanon and Bolivia.
This is the most widespread surge in global civic unrest since 1989. It’s a story 10 times bigger than impeachment, although the two are related.
The seeds of today’s unrest were planted in those events of 30 years ago — the fall of the Soviet Union, the spread of globalization and all the rest. That was the heyday of liberal democratic capitalism, free market fundamentalism, the end of history.
We all know now what many of us didn’t appreciate then: Globalized democratic capitalism was going to spark a backlash. It led to growing economic and cultural clashes between the educated urbanites, who thrived, and the rural masses, who were left behind. It was too spiritually thin, too cosmopolitan and deracinated. People felt that their national cultures were being ripped away from them.
The populist backlash came in different forms in different parts of the world. In Central and Eastern Europe it came in the form of nationalist strongmen — Victor Orban, Vladimir Putin, the Law and Justice party in Poland. In Latin America it came in the form of the Pink Tide — a group of left-wing economic populists like Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. In the Anglosphere it was white ethnic nationalism of Donald Trump and Brexit. In the Middle East it was Muslim fundamentalism. In China it was the increasing authoritarianism of Xi Jinping. In India it was the Hindu nationalism of Narendra Modi.
In places, the populist wave is still rising. The Yellow Vests in France and the protests in Chile are led by those who feel economically left behind. But it’s also clear that when in power the populists can’t deliver goods. So now in many places we’re seeing a revolt against the revolt, urban middle-class uprisings against the populists themselves.
The core problem is economic. Populist economic policies of left and right destroy growth. Venezuela is an economic disaster. In Mexico the left-wing populist policies of Andrés Manuel López Obrador have brought growth to a halt. The International Monetary Fund projects Latin American growth could fall to 0.2 percent.
Lebanon is creating only 3,000 jobs a year, when it needs at least 20,000. Meanwhile, debt has soared. Trump’s trade war has lowered American economic dynamism. Xi has walked away from market reforms and ushered in an economic slowdown. Under the tax-hiking populist leader Imran Khan in Pakistan, car sales fell 39 percent in the latest quarter.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/opin ... 0920191122
I Was Once a Socialist. Then I Saw How It Worked.
Two cheers for capitalism, now and forever.
I was a socialist in college. I read magazines like The Nation and old issues of The New Masses. I dreamed of being the next Clifford Odets, a lefty playwright who was always trying to raise proletarian class consciousness. If you go on YouTube and search “David Brooks Milton Friedman,” you can see a 22-year-old socialist me debating the great economist. I’m the one with the bushy hair and the giant 1980s glasses that were apparently on loan from the Palomar lunar observatory.
The best version of socialism is defined by Michael Walzer’s phrase, “what touches all should be decided by all.” The great economic enterprises should be owned by all of us in common. Decisions should be based on what benefits all, not the maximization of profit.
That’s not what “democratic socialists” like Bernie Sanders are talking about, but I get why some of their socialist concerns are popular. Why do we have to live with such poverty and inequality? Why can’t we put people over profits? What is the best life in the most just society? Socialism is the most compelling secular religion of all time. It gives you an egalitarian ideal to sacrifice and live for.
My socialist sympathies didn’t survive long once I became a journalist. I quickly noticed that the government officials I was covering were not capable of planning the society they hoped to create. It wasn’t because they were bad or stupid. The world is just too complicated.
I came to realize that capitalism is really good at doing the one thing socialism is really bad at: creating a learning process to help people figure stuff out. If you want to run a rental car company, capitalism has a whole bevy of market and price signals and feedback loops that tell you what kind of cars people want to rent, where to put your locations, how many cars to order. It has a competitive profit-driven process to motivate you to learn and innovate, every single day.
Socialist planned economies — the common ownership of the means of production — interfere with price and other market signals in a million ways. They suppress or eliminate profit motives that drive people to learn and improve.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opin ... 0920191206
Two cheers for capitalism, now and forever.
I was a socialist in college. I read magazines like The Nation and old issues of The New Masses. I dreamed of being the next Clifford Odets, a lefty playwright who was always trying to raise proletarian class consciousness. If you go on YouTube and search “David Brooks Milton Friedman,” you can see a 22-year-old socialist me debating the great economist. I’m the one with the bushy hair and the giant 1980s glasses that were apparently on loan from the Palomar lunar observatory.
The best version of socialism is defined by Michael Walzer’s phrase, “what touches all should be decided by all.” The great economic enterprises should be owned by all of us in common. Decisions should be based on what benefits all, not the maximization of profit.
That’s not what “democratic socialists” like Bernie Sanders are talking about, but I get why some of their socialist concerns are popular. Why do we have to live with such poverty and inequality? Why can’t we put people over profits? What is the best life in the most just society? Socialism is the most compelling secular religion of all time. It gives you an egalitarian ideal to sacrifice and live for.
My socialist sympathies didn’t survive long once I became a journalist. I quickly noticed that the government officials I was covering were not capable of planning the society they hoped to create. It wasn’t because they were bad or stupid. The world is just too complicated.
I came to realize that capitalism is really good at doing the one thing socialism is really bad at: creating a learning process to help people figure stuff out. If you want to run a rental car company, capitalism has a whole bevy of market and price signals and feedback loops that tell you what kind of cars people want to rent, where to put your locations, how many cars to order. It has a competitive profit-driven process to motivate you to learn and innovate, every single day.
Socialist planned economies — the common ownership of the means of production — interfere with price and other market signals in a million ways. They suppress or eliminate profit motives that drive people to learn and improve.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opin ... 0920191206
The Media Is Broken
And not for the reasons you think.
Those of us in journalism primarily do one thing: cover events. We report and opine about events like election campaigns, wars and crimes. A lot of the events we cover are decisions — a decision to reform health care or write a tweet — so we tend to congregate in the cities where decision makers live. The internet has sped up the news cycle. Now we put more emphasis on covering the last event that just happened. But it’s still mostly events.
But a funny thing has happened to events in this era. They have ceased to drive politics the way they used to. We’ve seen gigantic events like impeachment, the Kavanaugh hearings, the Mueller investigation and the “Access Hollywood” tapes. They come and go and barely leave a trace on the polls, the political landscape or evaluations of Donald Trump.
Events don’t seem to be driving politics. Increasingly, sociology is.
Do you want to predict how a certain region is going to vote in the 2020 presidential race? Discover who settled the region in the 17th and 18th centuries. If the settlers were from the East Anglia section of Britain, then that region is probably going Democratic. If the settlers were from the north of Britain, that region is very likely to vote for Donald Trump.
Do you want to predict how a state is going to vote? Find out how that state voted in the 1896 presidential election. As Washington University political scientists Gary Miller and Norman Schofield have observed, 22 out of the 23 states that voted Democratic in 1896 had turned Republican by 2000. Similarly, 17 of the 22 states that voted Republican in 1896 had turned Democratic by 2000. The parties have flipped regions.
Do you want to predict how an individual is going to vote? Ask a simple question: Is she urban or rural?
Geographic and psycho-sociological patterns now overshadow events in driving political loyalties and national electoral outcomes. Demography is destiny.
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/26/opin ... 0920191227
And not for the reasons you think.
Those of us in journalism primarily do one thing: cover events. We report and opine about events like election campaigns, wars and crimes. A lot of the events we cover are decisions — a decision to reform health care or write a tweet — so we tend to congregate in the cities where decision makers live. The internet has sped up the news cycle. Now we put more emphasis on covering the last event that just happened. But it’s still mostly events.
But a funny thing has happened to events in this era. They have ceased to drive politics the way they used to. We’ve seen gigantic events like impeachment, the Kavanaugh hearings, the Mueller investigation and the “Access Hollywood” tapes. They come and go and barely leave a trace on the polls, the political landscape or evaluations of Donald Trump.
Events don’t seem to be driving politics. Increasingly, sociology is.
Do you want to predict how a certain region is going to vote in the 2020 presidential race? Discover who settled the region in the 17th and 18th centuries. If the settlers were from the East Anglia section of Britain, then that region is probably going Democratic. If the settlers were from the north of Britain, that region is very likely to vote for Donald Trump.
Do you want to predict how a state is going to vote? Find out how that state voted in the 1896 presidential election. As Washington University political scientists Gary Miller and Norman Schofield have observed, 22 out of the 23 states that voted Democratic in 1896 had turned Republican by 2000. Similarly, 17 of the 22 states that voted Republican in 1896 had turned Democratic by 2000. The parties have flipped regions.
Do you want to predict how an individual is going to vote? Ask a simple question: Is she urban or rural?
Geographic and psycho-sociological patterns now overshadow events in driving political loyalties and national electoral outcomes. Demography is destiny.
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/26/opin ... 0920191227