MOVEMENT TO BAN OR BURN BOOKS GAINS MOMENTUM

Although we just barely survived our hangover from the previous election, we are again ready to embark on a new electoral journey in 2022. Primaries around the middle of the year, and a hotly contested midterm election scheduled for November. The issues are being developed while many of us are still asleep. In most states, aggressive gerrymandering set the parameters, and political action committees are digging in in support of a set of policy concerns sold as essential values for the survival of the country. The current focus is on a renewed interest in public education. What began as a misplaced concern with Critical Race Theory (CRT) (see my blog entry of July 13, 2021) morphed into opposition to mask mandates and other Covid-19 measures, and presently into a movement to ban "objectionable books" from school libraries and curricula, including social justice, gender, race and related history. We have even reached the point when newly elected school board members openly suggest that, in addition to removing dozens of books from library shelves, literature they reject as reprehensible ought to be burned. By essentially promoting thought control, we are slowly beginning to descent further into the quicksand of authoritarianism. Calls for book burning came from two school board members in Spotsylvania county, Virginia, following the election of Glenn Youngkin to governor. The election turned on parental control of school curricula after former governor Terry McAuliffe declared: "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach." Youngkin retorted that he would ban CRT on his first day in office. He also ran an ad featuring a local mother who tried to get "Beloved," the Pulitzer prize winning novel by Toni Morrison, removed from her son's A.P. English curriculum, claiming the book contained "some of the most explicit material you can imagine." This, of course, is true because the book depicts the horrors of slavery, which some parents would rather their children don't learn about. School board member Rabih Abuismail, supported by another member, Kirk Twigg, exclaimed that just removing books like this was not enough - "We should throw those books in a fire." The emergence of traditionally a-political school boards into the election year dialogue grew out of contentious, sometimes venomous, meetings dominated by parents opposed to regulations generated by the Covid-19 pandemic. School board members were routinely targeted, and ultimately threatened to be tried for treason for "poisoning the minds of children," when the discussion mutated into full-scale parental control issues. Unsupportive existing board members were being recalled in multiple states, while replacements appeared ready to take over, winning across the board, financially supported by national organizations like the "1776 Project PAC," which opposes CRT in education and which favors a more "patriotic curriculum." One of their slogans read: "The left is coming for our kids." It is not terribly surprising that in the heat of the moment, or for political expediency, the topic of book burning tends to emerge. In state after state books are being removed from circulation in response to parental objections. In Texas a school district even demanded that teachers using a book on the Holocaust must provide books with "an opposing perspective." At a time when burning books might appear as ignorant symbolic activities, since their content is usually still available on social media, the act itself sets a dangerous precedent. History is replete with similar acts designed to eradicate unwanted information or instigate unmistakable attempts at rewriting history. Book burning has a long and dark history, tied to censorship and oppressive regimes, most famously the one in Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler. On May 10, 1933, Fascist university students burned upward of 25,000 books on the Opern Platz in Berlin.These included works by Jewish authors like Albert Einstein, and those "corrupting influences" like Ernest Hemingway. Goebbels spoke at the event, telling the students: "You do well at this late hour to entrust to the flames the intellectual garbage of the past." (U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.) More recently, in 2006, "The Diary of Anne Frank" was burned in Pretzien, Germany, at a far-right summer festival. In this country, in 1956, on two occasions, books by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich were burned, overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In Drake, North Dakota, its school board had objectionable books thrown into the school furnace, including 32 copies of "Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut and 60 copies of "Deliverance" by James Dickey. And in 2001, Harry Potter books were targets at of at least six book burnings. Parents occupying positions on local school boards want to control what their kids are being taught. Sometimes this desire leads to a contortion of history, as it did in Texas when, in 2010, textbooks were essentially rewritten using a new set of standards: "The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies." These standards were adopted in the printing of 48 million textbooks, insuring that students in that state would receive a vastly different view of history than those in most other states. Sometimes entire nations rewrite their own history, and destroy materials depicting their verifiable past. China is doing that right now. Hungary and Poland are beginning that process incrementally. They can, because revisionists are in control. As George Orwell wrote in "1984": "Who controls the past controls the future, and who controls the present controls the past." As historical content is being "reinterpreted" or "sanitized" to eliminate uncomfortable historic truths from adoption in our curricula, we are wasting significant teaching opportunities. In the words of one observer: "We should learn to get past our discomfiture and use the warts of our past as tools for a less blemished future." (Michael Rosenbaum, "Rewriting history and the pursuit of ignorance," The Hill, Feb. 26, 2015). Parents should certainly have control over the quality of their kids' education. However, they should not be empowered to erase or sanitize factual content and turn the process into a partisan political agenda item. Politicizing curricula and attempts at erasing unwanted information, be it by burning books or replacing their subject matter, are historically precursors to an autocratic future. Theo Wierdsma

SEASONAL NOSTALGIA, A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD

Each holiday season, the period following Thanksgiving, culminating in Christmas and New Year, including Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, becomes for many of us a time for nostalgic reflection. What triggers a multitude of sentimental recollections for me every year is the erection and trimming of our Christmas tree. Each ornament seems to elicit its own story, evoking its own set of wistful memories. There is the first ornament my wife and I displayed the year we got married, 41 years ago; pictures of past pets; commemorative decorations; sweeping collections of travel related items accumulated over the years; miniaturized exhibits of short-lived interests and hobbies; and some relics passed on by generations of ornament hoarders. In some ways, our annual Christmas tree reflects our accumulated history, and seems to remind us of our disposition at multiple intervals over time. It provides us with the sense that life has roots and continuity, awakening nostalgic feelings, usually invoking pleasant associations, although simultaneously regretting the passage of time. One of the downsides of retirement is that you have a lot of time on your hands to think about things. While caught up in bouts of nostalgia, it is not difficult to wonder whether it is actually healthy to reconnect with your past. Neither can you escape pondering how others process memories accentuated by seasonal sentiments. For centuries, nostalgia was treated as a "neurological disease." The noun "nostalgia" was first used in 1688 by a Swiss physician, Johannes Hofer, to describe a medical diagnosis for mercenary soldiers. He equated it to the German word "heimweh," or "homesickness," and attributed soldiers' mental and physical maladies to their longing to return home. By the 18th century, nostalgia was no longer considered a provincial disease. Physicians across Europe studied the nostalgic condition, often advancing different theories about evolving forms of homesickness. Nostalgia became an established pathology, a mental disorder that continued to afflict soldiers separated from home, or people displaced by the onset of modernity. Nostalgia was very familiar to Union and Confederate army doctors and surgeons during the Civil War as well. They recognized the condition as a legitimate mental disorder. Terminally ill soldiers were frequently diagnosed as dying from nostalgia. It was not until relatively recently that nostalgia as a condition became a field of study with a broader focus. Students now believe that nostalgia occurs universally, appears to be common around the world, and has positive qualities. It has been shown to counteract loneliness, boredom and anxiety. It tends to make people more generous to strangers and more tolerant of outsiders. It seems to be more prevalent on cold days, and can be induced through music. Some of which may suggest why the holiday season seems to be prime time for nostalgic reflection. (John Tierney, "What is Nostalgia Good For? Quite a Bit Research Shows," NY Times, July 8, 2013). It should be reassuring to recognize that people reflecting on memories this holiday season are no longer considered to be suffering from some type of pathological condition, and that for many the consequences tend to be positive. However, we should also acknowledge that nostalgic reminiscences are not necessarily the result of a deliberate act, but a process involuntarily evoked by the trappings of the season. For a growing number of individuals and families the contrast between their current condition and sentimental past experiences can be devastatingly painful. Hundreds, if not thousands, of families affected by the result of the disastrous tornadoes ripping through five states a week ago lost everything they held dear. Well over a hundred family members were killed, and entire communities were destroyed. Calamitous events of this magnitude are often amplified by seasonal sentiments for years to come. Close to 800,000 Covid related deaths are leaving voids at family gatherings, and more than 1,165 teens and children killed this year alone by never-ending gun violence won't take their seat at the dinner table this season. More than 553,000 homeless individuals may have their memories, but nothing to celebrate. And about 38 million Americans, including 12 million children, will go hungry. Countless others are struggling with their personal demons. Chances are that, unless impaired, most of these will experience their own nostalgic feelings, wondering "What could have been? What would have been? What if...? If only..." Those of us who are able and comfortable with our own nostalgic recollections ought to consider trying to make nostalgia work for some of those who are unable to reconcile their current situation with their past. This would be an excellent time to help those who need it create new memories. Theo Wierdsma

ARE MASS MIGRATIONS THE NEW NORMAL?

Few recent international developments have been as contentious and politically charged as the response to mass migration and the plight of refugees. Politicians and actual policy makers on all sides of the ideological spectrum have chimed in on the issue, and multiple administrations in the U.S. and the E.U. have been forced to include the subject in their respective agendas. From the very beginning of his election campaign, past President Donald Trump made clear that opposing uncontrolled migration was a prominent element of his electoral program. Most of us will remember his descent from the escalator chastising Mexico for bringing people to our border that were bringing drugs, crime, were rapists, and some were assumed to be good people. His obsession with building a wall on our Southern border continued to dominate his political objectives. President Biden's administration was forced to respond quickly when a flood of migrants, mostly Haitian nationals, began sheltering near Del Rio, Texas. The numbers were overwhelming. Ultimately, 30,000 were apprehended or expelled. About 8,000 willingly returned to Mexico, and 12,000 were allowed to enter to have their request for asylum evaluated. Meanwhile another 19,000 were waiting to cross the border into Panama. And few interested observers will forget the European refugee crisis, which began around 2011, and peaked in 2015 when more than 1.3 million refugees, mostly Syrians, entered Europe and destabilized the E.U. in the process. While much of this may be new to the casual observer, mass migration has gone on for centuries. The current movement of people is minuscule by comparison. Between the 16th and 19th centuries, during the slave trade, 12.8 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic. Beginning in the 1840s, the so-called "Great Atlantic Migration," brought in more than 3 million immigrants from Ireland and Germany. And between 1880 and 1910 an additional 17 million Europeans, mostly from Eastern Europe, followed. All in all, between 1820 and 1980, 37 million Europeans reached our shores. Over a period of 400 years, from the late 1600s through the 20th century, the northern half of Asia and parts of Africa were colonized by European migrants. The overseas migration of Europeans during this period exceeded 60 million people. Within recorded history, human migration transformed the entire aspects of lands and continents, and the racial, ethnic, and linguistic composition of their populations. Until fairly recently, there was a consensus among target countries that migration was a good thing - a central value to Western society. It was a given that letting immigrants in was beneficial for the society and the economy. Proponents saw increased economic growth, more flexible labor markets, filling vacancies in unpopular jobs. However, during the past decade or so, these principles are now being questioned - especially in the U.S. and Europe. New cultures, languages and economic demands of immigrants have roiled western societies during the past decade, making migration a new focus of international concern. Much of this seems to stem from a growing identity crisis among native born populations which are beginning to see dramatic shifts in their cultural composition as a result of an influx of non-white groups into their demographic make-up. Recent election results, dominated by populist candidates, reflect a growing reaction of predominantly white majorities in the U.S., France, the U.K. and Germany to their own demographic demise. While migration is a complex story, many are beginning to see it in simplistic terms. There are "natives" who belong, and "foreigners" who don't. In the U.S. and Europe we are now seeing the rise of openly anti-immigrant parties that are willing to pay fairly high costs in order to "regain control of their borders." Brexit in the U.K., Lega-Nord in Italy, Alternative for Germany (AFD), and the Party for Freedom in The Netherlands are just a few. In the mean time, autocrats are attempting to weaponize migrant movements, organizing or threatening to organize a sudden influx of refugees into another country with the intent of overwhelming its borders or causing political discomfort. Belarus dictator Aleksander Lukashenko is doing just that on the country's border with Poland. And almost daily we are confronted with the human tragedy of hundreds of desperate migrants drowning in the Mediterranean or languishing in detention camps. The current global estimate is that, in 2020, there were around 281 million international migrants in the world. This amounts to 3.6% of the global population. While this may be the culmination of what could be considered the new normal, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that, at some point, we could foresee a substantial turnaround in popular attitudes. The western world is getting older. The replacement fertility rate is dropping, especially in developed countries. Populations are not being replaced as needed. Soon we will be looking again for younger, skilled workers to keep our economies healthy. Multiple countries are already revising their immigration policies. We may have to come to grips with our identity problems out of necessity. Theo Wierdsma

EUROPEAN UNION BACK IN CRISIS MODE

The 27 member European Union, the strongest economic community in the world, is approaching a new set of predicaments - an imminent leadership crisis, and what amounts to a management dilemma reminiscent of the 2016 Brexit crisis. After 16 years in office, highly competent, authoritative, marginally charismatic German Chancellor Angela Merkel is retiring. As the dominant force in European politics for much of that time, Ms. Merkel's exit creates a significant power vacuum in the Union, which is rich in functionaries but light on visionaries, with few legitimate leaders to take her place. French president Emmanuel Macron will doubtlessly attempt to take over where the chancellor is leaving off. He has always shown a desire to be the dominant force in the EU, proposing multiple ideas for a more independent and integrated Europe. However, his leadership style has not always been well received, and he could be vulnerable domestically. Mr. Macron will be up for reelection in April next year, again facing opposition from far-right Marine Le Pen, leader of the "National Rally," a perennial euro-skeptic. His focus will most likely be predominantly on challenging domestic issues. Angela Merkel's potential replacements as chancellor are lesser known, unfamiliar players in European politics. Olaf Scholz, until recently Germany's finance minister in Merkel's coalition government, leader of the Social Democrats which won the last election, is the odds on favorite to take her place. His only conceivable rival is Armin Laschet, Ms. Merkel's successor as leader of the Christian Democrats, which lost the election by 1.6%. Neither one comes with significant EU credentials. By virtue of its dominant economic position within the EU, Germany's leadership is essential to the Union. Without Merkel's guidance, its influence will almost certainly diminish, leaving the organization potentially rudderless. This development comes at a time when the organization faces critical challenges on its eastern border. So much so that the term "polexit" has crept into the vernacular used in Warsaw and Brussels alike. While Poland's departure from the EU may still be unlikely, its government's six year long feud with EU leaders remain very real. Poland joined the EU in 2004. It has probably benefited more from this Union than any other member. However, in 2015, the conservative nationalist "Law and Justice" party took control of its government, and rapidly became an irritant to EU leaders in Brussels. The dispute originated largely over changes to the Polish judiciary system designed to give the ruling party greater control over the courts, seeking to "reform a corrupt and inefficient justice system." The European Commission believed that the changes would actually erode the country's democratic system of checks and balances. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Poland warned that the judicial reforms planned by the ruling party could result in Poland having to leave the EU, as it undermined the independence of its judiciary and challenged the primacy of EU law - a key condition for membership. Earlier this year, Poland's Constitutional Court, dominated by ruling party loyalists, challenged the notion that EU law supersedes the laws of the 27 member states with a ruling that some EU laws are incompatible with the nation's own constitution. And on October 7 of this year, its Constitutional Tribunal bluntly rejected the primacy of EU law. In response, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission, stated that: "This ruling calls into question the foundation of the European Union. It is a direct challenge to the unity of the European legal order." The legal battle between Poland and the EU has escalated into a full blown political crisis, even bigger than Brexit back in 2016, because it undermines the entire foundation of the EU. Thus far, as punishment, the organization has withheld about $42 billion in grants and loans from its coronavirus recovery fund. And last month, it asked the European Court of Justice to impose daily fines on Warsaw for defying its rulings. What counters the largely right-wing endorsement of a Polexit is that the EU remains overwhelmingly popular among Polish citizens. A national public opinion poll conducted in October found that 64.4% of those interviewed wanted to stay in the Union. Only 14.8% expressed a desire to leave. A majority, 42.6% to 36.9%, did indicate a preference for a 2nd national referendum. Poland's population generally seems to recognize that a departure from the EU would come with significant economic consequences. In 2018, 80% of its exports went to member states, while 58% of imports came from EU countries. Since 2004, the country has received an infusion of $127 billion - more than any other member. More than 2 million Poles have taken advantage of the freedom to work abroad. And, politically, its ties to NATO removed it from the influence of the Kremlin, something that could well change if the country returned to "unaffiliated" status in the harsh political reality of Central Europe. Poland is not alone in its challenge to the EU. Viktor Orban, Hungary's prime minister, has backed the "Law and Justice" party's position rejecting the supremacy of EU law, strongly suggesting that the EU must respect member states' identity. Adam Bodnar, a former ombudsman for citizens' rights, and law professor at the University of Warsaw, submits that the government may be in favor of European integration, but that it should just be economic - it is "not so interested in all the other aspects, such as political union and having respect for European values." Needless to say, the European Union has its hands full. Theo Wierdsma

TIME TO UNWIND

Scrutinizing the world-wide assault on democratic principles, the relative inactivity in our Congress, or periods of ignorance displayed by representatives of significant segments of the population, can be intense, sometimes emotional and often challenging. Every once in a while all of us need to take some time to unwind from it all, and focus on less contentious, less controversial debating points quarreling about what bothers us. For me, one of the ways to do this is by reviewing random words of wisdom expressed by others who struggled to communicate their insights for communal consumption. Some of these are profound, some irreverent, and others just plain funny. I have made a habit of collecting these over the years as I come across them, and decided to share some in this column. Citations are added when I have them. Be inspired, or simply enjoy! - "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." (Bernard Baruch). - "If you don't like me: remember - it's mind over matter. I don't mind, and you don't matter." - "A man never steps so tall as when he stoops to help a boy." - "May those who love us, love us. And those who don't, may God turn their hearts. And if He doesn't turn their hearts, may He turn their ankles so we'll know them by their limping." (Old Irish proverb). - "Human behavioral traits are shaped by evolution and passed along genetically." (Ed Wilson - "Sociobiology") - "Nothing in life is as important as you think it is when you are thinking about it." (Daniel Kahneman -"Thinking Fast and Slow") - "Don't make enemies by accident." - "Don't bother to hate what you think is contemptible." - "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." (Mark Twain). - "If only closed minds came with closed mouths." - "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog." (Twain) - "Life is a challenge. Smile when you still have teeth." - "It is not what you look at that matters, it's what you see." (Henry David Thoreau). - "Never look back unless you are planning to go that way." (Thoreau) - "Not all who wonder are lost." - "Don't believe everything you think." - "A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is defeated when he quits." (Richard Nixon). - "When you are dead in the water, you need to rock the boat." (TW). - "Position determines perspective." - "If you have to eat a frog, do it the first thing in the morning." (Twain). - "Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance." - "You were born an original. Don't die a copy." - "A man's reach should exceed his grasp." - "There comes a time when you have to choose between turning the page and closing the book." - "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans." (John Lennon). - "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." - "The opposite for love is not hate, it's indifference." (Elie Wiesel). - "One death is a tragedy. One million is a statistic." - "Consequence is no coincidence." - "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow mindedness." - "Married men live longer but want to die more often." (old Russian proverb). - "Go to heaven for the climate, hell for the company." (Twain). - "If your parents did not have any children, there is a good chance you won't have any. (Clarence Day). - "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." (Sam Goldwyn). - "I hate being bipolar - it's awesome." - "The closest thing to eternal life is a government program." (Ronald Reagan). - "Penicillin - A gift for the man who has everything." (Bumper sticker). - "Let's eat grandma. Let's eat, grandma - Commas save lives." Theo Wierdsma

TOXIC POLARIZATION OBSTRUCTS CONGRESSIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

Pernicious polarization, which divides society into mutually distrustful "Us versus Them" camps, in which political identity threatens to resemble social identity, is clogging up any attempt at compromise necessary to legislate in Congress. It is making a mockery of our political system. Hyper partisanship in Washington has evolved into a type of gridlock not seen since the run up to the Civil War in 1860. Today we can't agree on what pour problems are, much less on solutions. Even on infrastructure, there is a Democratic way to fill a pothole, and a Republican way to fill a pothole. Consequently, nothing gets done. In 1962, during John F. Kennedy's presidency, Congress passed 484 bills. In 2014, when Barack Obama was president, Congress passed 23 bills. If we are ever going to break through the effects of this polarized stagnation, we first ought to attempt to identify how and why we ended up here in the first place. The conservative 19th century German statesman Otto von Bismarck, who masterminded Germany's unification, used to express his belief that: "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best." Even during autocratic times this country's "iron chancellor" recognized that compromise was at the core of the decision making process. If we don't compromise, nothing gets done and nobody wins. In today's political world, compromise has become a dirty word. We no longer compromise, we demonize. Member of opposing parties, and sometimes even rival factions within parties, no longer see their political adversaries as just opposition, but as a genuine threat to the well-being of the country. As that happens, support for democratic norms fade, and "winning" becomes everything. Politics collapses into an all-out war of "Us against Them." It's all about the next election and scoring political points. Part of the issue is that the characteristics of our political parties have shifted significantly over time. In 1994, 64% of Republicans were more conservative than Democrats. In 2014, that number had changed to 92%. In 1994, 70% of Democrats were more liberal than Republicans. In 2014, this shifted to 94%. We used to acknowledge that "moderates" governed, and that "extremists" disrupted. We now tend to elect extremists. Some other underlying complications provoking this debilitating radicalization of our political process are economic, social and systemic in nature. Today, our elections are virtually supported by unlimited amounts of money used to produce prime-time campaign ads telling us whatever we want to hear, or whatever candidates want their audiences to believe. The 2010 Supreme Court decision in the "Citizens United" case, holding essentially that corporations and other deep-pocket organizations can't be restricted in how much they can contribute to a campaign, undoubtedly assisted disproportionately to the accumulation of operating funds. Moreover, social media has provided convenient platforms for anyone to create, seldom fact-checked, sensationalist fake news to feed the frenzy with a complete lack of inhibition or restraint. And, since we are currently in the midst of "gerrymandering" season, political parties dominating their respective state governments are reapportioning congressional districts based on census data collected last year. This process can affect the future of sitting and prospective members of the House of Representatives. But the exercise has frequently resulted in parties redrawing district lines in a way that supports or advantages their existent constituency while restricting that of their political rivals. As a consequence, currently only 31 out of 435 House seats are competitive. The remainder are safe, limiting the potential for change. Ergo, the public no longer picks the politicians, the politicians pick the public. The economic downturn of the past decade, festering national security concerns, a growing identity crisis intensifying the divide between rural and urban population centers, fed by a destabilizing, unnerving rate of social change, have resulted in a perfect storm. Fear and paranoia have become the recurring refrain feeding hyper polarization. Fear has replaced facts and paranoia has taken the place of civility. Former Senator Daniel Moynihan used to admonish his colleagues that: "You are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts." Today many politicians and their constituents believe that they are, indeed, entitled to their own facts. The truth is what you want it to be. None of this serves to suggest that we have a patent on polarization. Democracies around the world have been under pressure from constituencies protesting the relative inefficiency of their respective governments. But, with arguable exception of Hungary, Poland and Turkey, polarization in other western democracies rarely reach the level of venom ubiquitous in our hyper partisan political environment. A lot of this emanates from our two-party electoral system. Most European democracies feature proportional representation, which effectively results in multi-party coalition governments in which polarization is much less pronounced or more diffused. If you dislike any of the political choices offered up to you, you could essentially start your own party, and if you manage to get 5% of the vote, you gain representation in Parliament, where you can state your case without demonizing others. During the past few decades, "Comparative Polarization" has become an active specialization in Political Science. While a complex subject, many academics agree that polarization is more intense in democratic systems with less proportional representation - like ours - than in systems where multiple parties vie for political power. The evidence suggests that breaking people into multiple groups, rather than two, tends to lessen animosity. The more binary the party system, the stronger the out-party hatred. Our Constitution does not prescribe a two party political system. However, it developed this way. Intra party rivalry could ultimately dismantle this system for the benefit of all. Although this outcome might outwardly appear relatively inefficient, it could potentially bring civil discourse back to Washington D.C. However, we should not hold our collective breath for this to happen any time soon. Theo Wierdsma

WHY DO WE FAIL TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY?

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson declared that the United States had to enter World War I to "make the world safe for democracy." Ever since, our foreign policy has included efforts to encourage democratic developments in foreign countries. In 2004, President George W. Bush announced that "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." And, more recently, President Joe Biden told world leaders at the Munich Security Conference that "we must demonstrate that democracy can still deliver for our people in this changed world." It is not much of a stretch to claim that ever since the Cold War our foreign policy establishment has used "democracy" as an export commodity, convinced that it is a substitute for violence, and, hence, a desirable objective to pursue. We favor democratic regime types because stable democracies tend to have better long-term economic growth records, and do much better in terms of protecting basic human rights. Democracies are less likely to kill vast numbers of their own citizens through famine or ill-planned acts of social engineering, because corrective information is more readily accessible, and officials can be held accountable. And even though democracies are just as likely to start wars as any other state, there is some (contested) evidence that they tend to not fight each other. On balance, many politicians believe that it would be better for most human beings if the number of democracies in the world increased. Lofty language and repetitively articulated political objectives aside, our efforts at transitioning undemocratic governments, including during our 20 year endeavor in Afghanistan, have largely failed. Political scientist Abraham Lowenthal, professor of international relations at U.S.C, stated the obvious when he concluded that "U.S. attempts to export democracy have been [unsuccessful], often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive." If we are convinced that pursuing such a policy objective should be dominant and desirable, we ought to question why we have such a poor success rate accomplishing it. The answers percolating to the surface include that these goals are largely naive, ignoring essential preconditions in target countries, and that our execution appears ill considered and even duplicitous. Critics have long recognized our ineffectiveness, lack of consistency, and a one-size-fits-all approach, while suspecting that we callously use "democracy" as justification for military intervention abroad. Over and over again we discovered that military involvement does not foster enduring regime change. The idea that the U.S. could march in, depose a despot-in-chief and his henchmen, write a new constitution, hold a few elections, and produce a stable democracy was always delusional. However, a lot of smart people bought the idea despite overwhelming evidence against it. If we are unwilling to believe that all of these are hopelessly naive, we must assume that much of the rhetoric is designed for domestic consumption. Otherwise, why would policy makers continue to attempt the same, mostly military, pursuits with a history of predictable negative outcomes, somehow expecting a different result every time? Policy wonks need to recognize that there is no quick, cheap or reliable way for outsiders to engineer a democratic transition, especially when the country in question has little or no prior experience with it and contains deep social divisions. A successful liberal democracy depends on a lot more than a written constitution and elections. To have any chance for success in another country, the prospective state needs to possess effective legal systems, have an established, broad commitment to pluralism - a system in which multiple sources of authority coexist, a decent level of income and education, and widespread confidence that political groups that lose out in a particular election have a decent chance of doing better in the future, and thus have an incentive to keep working within the system. Creating reasonably effective democracies took centuries in the West, and it was often a highly contentious, even violent process. Using force to spread democracy almost always triggers violent resistance from groups that have lost power, wealth or status in the course of democratic transition. Violence tends to empower leaders who are good at stopping the transition instead of those skilled at building institutions or promoting democratic values. Three decades after the end of the Cold War it is no longer clear that American style democracy has carried the day. Multiple studies suggest that many countries still want democracy, but not necessarily the American version. Research completed by the Eurasia Group Foundation, based on a survey of citizens in eight countries, concluded that we would be more successful if we promoted democracy around the world without the explicit American package, often delivered by our military. We should accept that each country will need to find its own path to adopt democracy. "Attraction" will prove more effective than "promotion" as a way to help the concept expand. In other words, we should lead by example. Former president Jimmy Carter put it succinctly: "The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation." Our democratic ideals are more likely emulated by others if we are widely regarded as just, prosperous, vibrant and tolerant, instead of displaying rampant inequality, the world's largest prison population, a decaying infrastructure, millions of qualified citizens excluded from voting and exhibiting one of the greatest income inequality in the developed world. Theo Wierdsma