This quote, attributed to a toast offered by Stephen Decatur, a U.S. naval officer during the early 19th century, has been repeated over and over by those who want to either demonstrate their sense of patriotism, or censure an extreme form of it. Years after these words were absorbed into our culture, English writer Gilbert Chesterton rebutted that "no patriot would ever think of using these words, except when desperate." He continued by comparing that statement to saying: "My mother, drunk or sober."
Given the extremely contentious political climate our country is currently experiencing, believers on both sides of the fence routinely accuse the opposing contingent of being un-patriotic. With aggressive attitudes dominating the discussion, we might easily be convinced that patriotism, as a cultural characteristic, has become an endangered species. However, in a report which analyzed the results of a research project, Christian Rovsek, after traveling 12,500 miles through 44 states, and interviewing thousands of people, concluded that patriotism is still alive and flourishing. ("Is Patriotism Dead in America?," The Huffington Post, December 21, 2011.)
With the exception of some observers who straddle the fringes of the political spectrum, many who write about this subject seem to agree. Their conclusions ought to be comforting for most of us. However, we need to point out that not everyone agrees on how to define patriotism. Depending on our perspective, many of us may disagree on how to express our love of country. James Grossman, Executive Director of the American Historical Association, coined the question appropriately: "What constitutes patriotism in a nation founded on dissent and notable for its deep and vibrant traditions of activism and debate from every corner of the country and the political spectrum?" ("On Patriotism," May, 2015)
Throughout our history we have encountered many periods dominated by significant dispute, sometimes expressed violently, during which all sides question the patriotism of those they disagree with. Our Civil War stands out as a prime example. And those who lived through the Vietnam War era may well remember the mantra: "America , love it or leave it." When our country is at war, expressions of patriotism tend to veer towards the extreme, approaching a form of "nationalism." George Orwell distinguished between the two, defining patriotism as "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world, but has no wish to force upon other people." He considered nationalism to be inseparable from the desire for power, and the drive to secure greater prestige for the nation.
Having said this, it is significant to acknowledge that patriotism is not just some concept we can discard at will. We ought to recognize that if it were no longer alive, the continued homogeneity or national cohesion of our country would be in jeopardy. During war times patriotism instills "esprit de corps" among our soldiers. It clarifies their objectives, and drives them to give the extra effort in battle. Domestically patriotism in all its forms is used to arouse the popular support for the war effort in other ways.
Over time countries created symbols intended to unite people through visual, verbal or iconic representations of the national psyche, values, goals or history. Examples of these are flags, anthems, monuments, myths, national colors, and others. Historical events represented by our Independence Day celebration or France's Bastille Day are symbolic representations of important occurrences in history, designed to regenerate a feeling of national pride or remembrance. These symbols help us maintain our identity as a people. One of the major challenges supranational organizations like the European Union has is the relative lack of these unifying symbols. The current reincarnation of nativist attitudes in some of its member states appear to be a reflection of heightened patriotism at home, feeding an identity crisis many of their citizens have begun to experience as a result of increased immigration and a weakening of national unity. The resulting increase in euroscepticism and anti-globalization sentiments are largely a result of this growing exhibition of domestic patriotism.
While patriotism tends to be a positive force for the viability of a state, be it in a supportive or critical capacity, we need to recognize that there will always be some who subscribe to a flexible form of patriotism, while others may adopt the concept as an article of faith in manner reminiscent of adhering to a fundamentalist religion. Uncritical love of country can become pathological. People whose belief system is that extreme will invoke patriotism in defense of principles that they can't logically defend in any other way. The propaganda machines that operate in Nazi-Germany and those that are state controlled in present-day Russia feed this extreme form of what would otherwise be a good thing.
When patriotism bleeds into nationalism, chauvinism or jingoism, we need to be vigilant, and resist these impulses before hey take hold and become dangerous. "Our Country, right or wrong" is an attitude politicians will attempt to take advantage of, to the detriment of us all.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Saturday, June 24, 2017
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALS ARE EMBLEMATIC OF LARGER PROBLEMS
On June 1 President Donald Trump announced to the world that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. During an hour-long, 2,000 word, speech in which the president never made mention of "climate change," he made the unsubstantiated assertion that the agreement would cost the U.S. as many as 2.7 million jobs by the year 2025. This move placed our country in opposition to 194 treaty participants and alongside Syria and Nicaragua, the only two countries that did not sign on.
International and national condemnation was fierce and predictable, dividing Mr. Trump's inner circle as well. While the expressed rationale for terminating our participation in the accord appeared designed to appease his political base, the thought process behind the decision seems grounded in Mr. Trump's distrust of the science behind climate change - something he referred to as a "hoax" during the campaign.
Many of Mr. Trump's core supporters reject the expertise of the vast majority of scientists who believe that global warming is linked to human activity. Politicians like Texas Senator Ted Cruz even deny that any warming has been recorded during the past 15 years. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, does not believe that human activity causes climate change. Michele Bachmann believes that nature itself is to blame. And Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is famous for stating categorically: "My point is, God is still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
While this may seem like an isolated issue, the attitude of many people, politicians most prominently, is emblematic of what appears to be an expression of a pervasive anti-intellectual attitude lodged in our culture. The literature supporting this line of argument is quite substantial. In 1963 Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter published a study entitled "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," for which he received the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction the following year. For a case study Hofstadter analyzed the 1952 presidential election battle between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. He argued that the contest ultimately came down to a campaign contrasting relative ignorance and superior intellect. Intellect lost. Hofstadter ultimately concluded that, perhaps as a consequence of the "democratization of knowledge," the acquisition and spread of knowledge among the "common people," anti-intellectualism had become embedded in our national fabric.
Our intellectual history has long been grounded in what political scientists refer to as the "protestant ethic," which dictates that a person's duty is to achieve success through hard work and thrift. Success reflects a sign that we are "saved." Combined with "utilitarianism," an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, these ideas became the underpinning of capitalism, a dominant building block for U.S. success. (See Max Weber, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"). Over time intellectual pursuit for its own sake began to be looked at as an impediment to economic development. Enter politicians of various stripes, and analysts observing what they see, and worrying about what we are in for.
For decades politicians have realized that scientific expertise did not sell well. Simplistic bombast, usually confused with ego-infused "common sense" did. Elected officials frequently attacked intellectuals by identifying them in terms such as an "effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as individuals," (Spiro Agnew), or publishing statements like: "I would sooner live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory, than in a society governed by the 2,000 faculty members of Harvard University." (William F. Buckley). When Donald Trump mentions that he wants to "drain the swamp," he really means getting rid of arrogant technocrats, bookish intellectuals and politically correct elites.
The transition from intellectual pursuit to a dominantly utilitarian focus also infiltrated our educational institutions. U.C. Irvine professor Catherine Liu recently remarked that "We don't educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs." Our students used to rank at the top of the world in math and science. In a recent PEW Research Center test for 15-year-olds from 35 participating OECD countries, we now only placed 30th in math and 19th in science. Hardly surprising, since our educational emphasis has shifted, and since many of our supposed role-models pride themselves on their ignorance.
Decades ago Isaac Asimov warned us of "a culture of ignorance in the United States, nurtured by the fake notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good a your knowledge." In April of this year EPA administrator Scott Pruitt eliminated all climate change references from its website, and instructed his staff to eliminate them from their lexicon. The administration apparently does not want to talk about this.
The question is: "Do we still accept that 'E=MC squared,' or do we want to vote on this?" Ignorance may be comforting to some of our leaders, it is a curse for the future of our country.
International and national condemnation was fierce and predictable, dividing Mr. Trump's inner circle as well. While the expressed rationale for terminating our participation in the accord appeared designed to appease his political base, the thought process behind the decision seems grounded in Mr. Trump's distrust of the science behind climate change - something he referred to as a "hoax" during the campaign.
Many of Mr. Trump's core supporters reject the expertise of the vast majority of scientists who believe that global warming is linked to human activity. Politicians like Texas Senator Ted Cruz even deny that any warming has been recorded during the past 15 years. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, does not believe that human activity causes climate change. Michele Bachmann believes that nature itself is to blame. And Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is famous for stating categorically: "My point is, God is still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
While this may seem like an isolated issue, the attitude of many people, politicians most prominently, is emblematic of what appears to be an expression of a pervasive anti-intellectual attitude lodged in our culture. The literature supporting this line of argument is quite substantial. In 1963 Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter published a study entitled "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," for which he received the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction the following year. For a case study Hofstadter analyzed the 1952 presidential election battle between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. He argued that the contest ultimately came down to a campaign contrasting relative ignorance and superior intellect. Intellect lost. Hofstadter ultimately concluded that, perhaps as a consequence of the "democratization of knowledge," the acquisition and spread of knowledge among the "common people," anti-intellectualism had become embedded in our national fabric.
Our intellectual history has long been grounded in what political scientists refer to as the "protestant ethic," which dictates that a person's duty is to achieve success through hard work and thrift. Success reflects a sign that we are "saved." Combined with "utilitarianism," an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, these ideas became the underpinning of capitalism, a dominant building block for U.S. success. (See Max Weber, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"). Over time intellectual pursuit for its own sake began to be looked at as an impediment to economic development. Enter politicians of various stripes, and analysts observing what they see, and worrying about what we are in for.
For decades politicians have realized that scientific expertise did not sell well. Simplistic bombast, usually confused with ego-infused "common sense" did. Elected officials frequently attacked intellectuals by identifying them in terms such as an "effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as individuals," (Spiro Agnew), or publishing statements like: "I would sooner live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory, than in a society governed by the 2,000 faculty members of Harvard University." (William F. Buckley). When Donald Trump mentions that he wants to "drain the swamp," he really means getting rid of arrogant technocrats, bookish intellectuals and politically correct elites.
The transition from intellectual pursuit to a dominantly utilitarian focus also infiltrated our educational institutions. U.C. Irvine professor Catherine Liu recently remarked that "We don't educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs." Our students used to rank at the top of the world in math and science. In a recent PEW Research Center test for 15-year-olds from 35 participating OECD countries, we now only placed 30th in math and 19th in science. Hardly surprising, since our educational emphasis has shifted, and since many of our supposed role-models pride themselves on their ignorance.
Decades ago Isaac Asimov warned us of "a culture of ignorance in the United States, nurtured by the fake notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good a your knowledge." In April of this year EPA administrator Scott Pruitt eliminated all climate change references from its website, and instructed his staff to eliminate them from their lexicon. The administration apparently does not want to talk about this.
The question is: "Do we still accept that 'E=MC squared,' or do we want to vote on this?" Ignorance may be comforting to some of our leaders, it is a curse for the future of our country.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
ARE WE GETTING READY TO PROVIDE A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME FOR EVERYONE?
Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg's commencement address to Harvard's class of 2017 on May 25 included a suggestion that appears to be gaining increasing support among contemporary business leaders. In his address Mr. Zuckerberg proposed that: "we should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas." For us, on the west coast, this came on the heels of a similar recommendation made by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Y-Combinator president Sam Altman, which was quoted in an article written by Marisa Kendall for the Bay Area News Group, and published on May 21st. Initial responses to these suggestions indicate that the concept is not well understood by the public at large, and, for many, appears to be something entirely new and coming out of left field.
A substantially similar proposal was first published in 1797 when Thomas Paine, in a pamphlet titled "Agrarian Justice," advocated for what he called "asset based egalitarianism," a social insurance system for young and old financed by a 10% tax on inherited property. During the 1960s and 1970s other proposals emerged. Economist Milton Friedman, in his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962), proposed a "negative income tax," while Austrian Nobel Laureate economist Friedrich Hayek in "Law, Legislation and Liberty" (1973) made the case for a Universal Basic Income as well. President Nixon once even contemplated a policy that would have provided "unconditional income for all poor families." (Rutger Bregman, "Nixon's Basic Income Plan," Jacobin, May 5, 2016.)
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) refers to a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money in addition to any income received from elsewhere. With technology and automation changing the labor market at an increasing pace, and as new technologies replace working conditions, in many minds the question for the future becomes how to best provide economic security for all. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich produced a column entitled: "The "iEverything and the Redistributional Imperative" (March 16, 2015). In it Reich postulates a little gadget called "iEverything"," which will give us anything we need, and which will be here before we know it. He suggests, however, that once it arrives we won't be able to buy it, because there won't be any paying jobs left. Researchers estimate that almost half of all U.S.jobs are at risk of being automated in the next two decades. Reich and others conclude that because of the speed of technological change a universal basic income will eventually be inevitable.
It is tempting to compare today's technological revolution with the industrial revolution that started in the mid 18th century. Both of these significantly transformed society. At a superficial level, however, we should recognize two important differences. The industrial revolution matured over a period of a hundred years or so. The pace of change was relatively slow, giving workers more time to adjust. Although many workers were shifted from being highly skilled and valued specialists into a fairly cheap, easily replaceable unskilled labor force, they did not typically lose their ability to make a living. The revolution we are experiencing today is much more rapid, giving many workers not enough time or resources to shift into new marketable skills. Elon Musk and others foresee an impending robot revolution expected to leave a trail of unemployment in its wake. "Futurism," a newsletter designed to "cover breakthrough technologies and scientific discoveries that will shape humanity's future," report that robot to worker ratios are rapidly increasing, currently running from 1.64 per 100 workers in the U.S. to 4.78 per 100 workers in South Korea. It projects that occupations like insurance underwriters, farm laborers construction workers, fast food cooks, truck drivers and mail carriers are among the many that are at risk.
Proponents of the UBI approach argue that it will free welfare recipients from the paternalistic oversight of conditional welfare-state policies. They suggest that traditional welfare schemes create a disincentive to work, because they cause people to lose benefits at the same rate that their income rises. They project that UBI will be affordable because it serves as a substitute of a wide range of social welfare programs. Since most people are above the median income level, they will, in fact, financially underwrite a basic income for all through their income tax. They look at UBI as a promise of equal opportunity, and a new starting line set above the poverty line. Opponents basically disagree on all counts. Even though they might support the "trickle down" concept, they don't see it here.
Several countries have experimented with some form of UBI. Alaska implemented its own brand in 1982. Its system is called the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), which is derived from earnings on investment of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF), a portfolio of diversified assets. Because of market fluctuations, the amount given to Alaskan residents vary. Canada, Finland, The Netherlands, and numerous developing African countries have also started to experiment with this approach. In June of 2016 Swiss citizens participated in a referendum asking whether a form of UBI should be incorporated into their constitution. The proposal was to provide a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss Francs to each citizen. It failed with 76.9% of voters voting against.
Even though many are still uncomfortable with the idea of giving people money simply for being a citizen, the heightened interest in these kinds of proposals suggest that intelligent people from all walks of life contemplate an impending need to address the negative consequences of a technological revolution that continues to pick up speed. Current conditional welfare-state policies may well be obsolete, and need rethinking.
A substantially similar proposal was first published in 1797 when Thomas Paine, in a pamphlet titled "Agrarian Justice," advocated for what he called "asset based egalitarianism," a social insurance system for young and old financed by a 10% tax on inherited property. During the 1960s and 1970s other proposals emerged. Economist Milton Friedman, in his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962), proposed a "negative income tax," while Austrian Nobel Laureate economist Friedrich Hayek in "Law, Legislation and Liberty" (1973) made the case for a Universal Basic Income as well. President Nixon once even contemplated a policy that would have provided "unconditional income for all poor families." (Rutger Bregman, "Nixon's Basic Income Plan," Jacobin, May 5, 2016.)
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) refers to a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money in addition to any income received from elsewhere. With technology and automation changing the labor market at an increasing pace, and as new technologies replace working conditions, in many minds the question for the future becomes how to best provide economic security for all. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich produced a column entitled: "The "iEverything and the Redistributional Imperative" (March 16, 2015). In it Reich postulates a little gadget called "iEverything"," which will give us anything we need, and which will be here before we know it. He suggests, however, that once it arrives we won't be able to buy it, because there won't be any paying jobs left. Researchers estimate that almost half of all U.S.jobs are at risk of being automated in the next two decades. Reich and others conclude that because of the speed of technological change a universal basic income will eventually be inevitable.
It is tempting to compare today's technological revolution with the industrial revolution that started in the mid 18th century. Both of these significantly transformed society. At a superficial level, however, we should recognize two important differences. The industrial revolution matured over a period of a hundred years or so. The pace of change was relatively slow, giving workers more time to adjust. Although many workers were shifted from being highly skilled and valued specialists into a fairly cheap, easily replaceable unskilled labor force, they did not typically lose their ability to make a living. The revolution we are experiencing today is much more rapid, giving many workers not enough time or resources to shift into new marketable skills. Elon Musk and others foresee an impending robot revolution expected to leave a trail of unemployment in its wake. "Futurism," a newsletter designed to "cover breakthrough technologies and scientific discoveries that will shape humanity's future," report that robot to worker ratios are rapidly increasing, currently running from 1.64 per 100 workers in the U.S. to 4.78 per 100 workers in South Korea. It projects that occupations like insurance underwriters, farm laborers construction workers, fast food cooks, truck drivers and mail carriers are among the many that are at risk.
Proponents of the UBI approach argue that it will free welfare recipients from the paternalistic oversight of conditional welfare-state policies. They suggest that traditional welfare schemes create a disincentive to work, because they cause people to lose benefits at the same rate that their income rises. They project that UBI will be affordable because it serves as a substitute of a wide range of social welfare programs. Since most people are above the median income level, they will, in fact, financially underwrite a basic income for all through their income tax. They look at UBI as a promise of equal opportunity, and a new starting line set above the poverty line. Opponents basically disagree on all counts. Even though they might support the "trickle down" concept, they don't see it here.
Several countries have experimented with some form of UBI. Alaska implemented its own brand in 1982. Its system is called the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), which is derived from earnings on investment of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF), a portfolio of diversified assets. Because of market fluctuations, the amount given to Alaskan residents vary. Canada, Finland, The Netherlands, and numerous developing African countries have also started to experiment with this approach. In June of 2016 Swiss citizens participated in a referendum asking whether a form of UBI should be incorporated into their constitution. The proposal was to provide a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss Francs to each citizen. It failed with 76.9% of voters voting against.
Even though many are still uncomfortable with the idea of giving people money simply for being a citizen, the heightened interest in these kinds of proposals suggest that intelligent people from all walks of life contemplate an impending need to address the negative consequences of a technological revolution that continues to pick up speed. Current conditional welfare-state policies may well be obsolete, and need rethinking.
Friday, May 19, 2017
HAVE CHILDREN BECOME TARGETS IN TODAY'S WARS?
I APOLOGIZE UP FRONT THAT THIS ENTRY SEEMS CHRONOLOGICALLY OUT OF ORDER.
The optics triggered by Bashar al-Assad's chemical strike against civilians in Khan Sheikhoun, resulting in close to 90 casualties, including women, children and babies, prompted a response which is still reverberating in several national capitals. President Trump's decision to send 59 missiles into the airfield from which the Syrian government's planes took off for the attack has been revered by many, regretted by some, and condemned by a number of governments involved in the Syrian civil war which is now in its sixth year.
Mr.Trump proclaimed that the sarin gas attack was an "affront to humanity," which affected him profoundly and transformed his thinking about the Syrian president, and led him to order the missile attack. Skeptics believe that Barack Obama's failure to enforce a "red line" over Assad's use of chemical weapons provided a powerful impetus to show that there was "a new sheriff in town." But even if, for the sake of argument, we take the comments surrounding this military event at face value, some of the questions we should ask, especially as they relate to the millions of children that have become the victims of warfare, are: Where was the outrage when barrel bombs rained down on hospitals, market places and other civilian targets? And, while in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries roughly half of all deaths in conflict zones were civilian, by the end of the 20th century almost 90 percent have been civilian, many of them children. What changed to make these more vulnerable today?
Warfare has changed, and these changes include the identity of combatants and the relative vulnerability of civilian populations. Most early wars were wars of aggression, generally for conquest or subjugation. The conquests by Alexander the Great and Gaius Julius Ceasar and others were well documented, and mostly military "events." The religious conflicts, from the crusades of the 11th through the 13th centuries, the wars of religion during the 16th and 17th century, the Napoleonic wars, and even World War I, were also essentially dominated by competing military forces, only incidentally affecting civilian populations. World War II produced a shift when the Nazis eventually combined conquest with ethnic cleansing, which, by its nature involved significant numbers of vulnerable children.
As wars evolved from predominantly interstate conflicts - fought between two or more states, - to intra-state armed conflicts, civil conflicts between a government and a non-state group, which largely takes place within the territory of the state in question, the incidence of civilian casualties increased dramatically. These conflict are as likely to be fought in villages and on suburban streets as anywhere else. The enemy camp is all around, and distinctions between combatants and no-combatants melt away in the suspicions and confusions of daily strife. Casualties are often not random. Where civil wars resulted from an ethnic conflict between two or more groups fighting for their ethnic group's position in society, children have often been targeted for "preventative" reasons.
Although the Nazi experience could not be identified as an ethnic conflict per-se, Hitler's enforcers unquestionably practiced ethnic cleansing. They openly, for political purposes, scapegoated various ethnic groups, and advocated killing children of "unwanted" or "dangerous" groups, either as part of the "racial struggle" or as a measure of preventative security. During a five-year period they killed as many as 1.5 million children, including over 1 million Jewish children and tens of thousands gypsy children and children with physical or mental disabilities. (Holocaust Encyclopedia - U.S Holocaust Memorial Museum).
In previous centuries children sometimes ended up in the cross-fire. In contemporary conflicts they have often become targets. Today one billion children are living in countries and territories affected by war or conflict. It is fair to conclude that large numbers suffer violent injuries and death. In Afghanistan, since 1979, at least 35,000 children have been victims of land mines alone (U.N. reports). As of 2015, the estimated civilian death toll in Afghanistan was 26,000. Iraq counted 120,000 since 2003. Well over 50 percent are children. After six years of civil war in Syria, the death count stands at 470,000 - 55,000 of these are children. ("I Am Syria," February, 2017). As early as 1996, UNICEF reported that during the preceding decade 2 million children were killed; 4.5 million disabled; 12 million left homeless; more than 1 million orphaned or separated from their parents; and some 10 million psychologically traumatized. ("The State of the World's Children." UNICEF, 1996). This was well before the Syrian civil war and myriad other conflicts broke out.
Whereas the optics of vulnerable children dying while foaming at their mouths might signify that a "red line" was crossed, justifying an international response, these "red lines" are set way too high. Barrel bombs dropped on civilian targets have produced significantly more carnage. Still, government forces are getting away with these criminal acts by hiding behind the concept of "national sovereignty" and blaming "terrorists."
This should be enough to force the international community to pull its collective head out of the sand, increase the visibility of these atrocities, and begin to hold governments and institutions perpetrating these acts accountable. National sovereignty be damned.
COMEY DISMISSAL FUELS TEMPEST IN WASHINGTON D.C.
Donald trump's decision to fire James Comey fueled a national uproar, predictably especially among members of Congress. While apologists for the administration suggested that terminating his appointment had been favored by everyone on both sides of the aisle, others remarked that this would have been O.K. had it been done immediately following Mr. Trump's inauguration, but that at this juncture the discussion turned to the motive behind the decision. In an interview shortly after Mr. Comey was terminated Mr. Trump confirmed that the FBI investigation into collusion between his campaign staff and Russian operatives very much influenced his decision. Threats tweeted subsequently, suggesting that the president employed some kind of recording device in the oval office, conjured up images of President Nixon's Watergate scandal. The optics did not improve when Mr. Trump met with Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and ambassador Sergei Kislyak in the Oval Office the day after the firing.
Reactions to what turned out to be a very eventful week were predictable. Republicans stayed on the fence, be it uncomfortably. Democrats and activists throughout the country cried foul. The charges heard throughout concentrated on "obstruction of Justice" linked to suggestions that impeachment proceedings might be in order, and to the fear that the administration precipitated sliding down the slippery slope towards autocratic governance.
Anti-Trump forces have regularly charged that the administration displays a tendency to be autocratic. Coming from the business world, the president appears to be more comfortable making independent, rash decisions, without considering the consequences to democratic norms. His use of executive orders, he signed 32 in 100 days, rather than going the legislative route, appears to support that notion. His constant battle with the media, identifying coverage unflattering to him as "fake news," demonizing Muslims and illegal immigrants, derogatory comments about judicial decisions and "so-called judges," and arbitrary, impulsive, decisions, all fuelled the fear that we may be on the cusp of a dictatorial take-over.
The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences states that dictatorship refers to the "unrestricted domination of the state by an individual, a clique, or a small group." Its supporting article states that all forms of dictatorship share the following characteristics: "1. Exclusivity and arbitrariness in the exercise of power; 2. Abolition or loosening of the judicial bonds of political power; 3. Elimination or substantial restriction of civil liberties; 4. The predominantly aggressive, impulsive, form of decision making; and 5. Employment of despotic methods of political and social control." Stephen Walt, in the November 23, 2016 issue of "Foreign Policy," in an article titled: "10 Ways to tell if your president is a dictator," adds a few other features to the mix. These include: "Systematic efforts to intimidate the media, using state power to reward corporate backers and punish opponents, fear mongering, and demonizing the opposition." Benjamin Friedman, in "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth," argues that growth, "more often than not, fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity and dedication to democracy." When living standards stagnate or decline most societies retrogress. When we start blaming the rest of the world for loss of our prestige "we'd be ripe for a demagogue who feeds those insecurities with xenophobic sloganeering." For a totalitarian takeover to take root, ordinary people would have to let it happen.
While we consider the implications of the elements involved in this discussion, we should turn to a demand we are beginning to hear with greater frequency: "impeachment." During the summer of 1973, as a relatively recent immigrant to this country, I was engrossed in the televised hearings into the Watergate burglary, which ultimately led to President Nixon's resignation. The first article of impeachment Nixon was charged with was "obstruction of justice." Subsequent to Director Comey's dismissal this concept resurfaced. Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, in a Washington Post op-ed, called for an impeachment investigation into Donald Trump for obstruction of justice. According to professor Tribe "the firing of FBI Director James Comey was an obvious effort to interfere with a probe involving national security." Obstruction involves any interference with a judicial or congressional proceeding, or attempt to do so. The real question is whether Trump intended to impede the FBI's investigation. Key words in a relevant charge will be "corrupt intent."
Article II of our Constitution stipulates that "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment charges for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Historically, and cynically, President Gerald Ford observed that "impeachable offenses are whatever Congress says they are." An impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representative, which is currently controlled by the Republican Party, and unlikely to start the process.
The inquiry has a long way to go before any of this becomes relevant. It helps to remember that only twice in our history has the House impeached a president, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. In neither case did the Senate convict. Richard Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were voted on by the full House.
So, sit back and let events unfold. They most likely will.
Reactions to what turned out to be a very eventful week were predictable. Republicans stayed on the fence, be it uncomfortably. Democrats and activists throughout the country cried foul. The charges heard throughout concentrated on "obstruction of Justice" linked to suggestions that impeachment proceedings might be in order, and to the fear that the administration precipitated sliding down the slippery slope towards autocratic governance.
Anti-Trump forces have regularly charged that the administration displays a tendency to be autocratic. Coming from the business world, the president appears to be more comfortable making independent, rash decisions, without considering the consequences to democratic norms. His use of executive orders, he signed 32 in 100 days, rather than going the legislative route, appears to support that notion. His constant battle with the media, identifying coverage unflattering to him as "fake news," demonizing Muslims and illegal immigrants, derogatory comments about judicial decisions and "so-called judges," and arbitrary, impulsive, decisions, all fuelled the fear that we may be on the cusp of a dictatorial take-over.
The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences states that dictatorship refers to the "unrestricted domination of the state by an individual, a clique, or a small group." Its supporting article states that all forms of dictatorship share the following characteristics: "1. Exclusivity and arbitrariness in the exercise of power; 2. Abolition or loosening of the judicial bonds of political power; 3. Elimination or substantial restriction of civil liberties; 4. The predominantly aggressive, impulsive, form of decision making; and 5. Employment of despotic methods of political and social control." Stephen Walt, in the November 23, 2016 issue of "Foreign Policy," in an article titled: "10 Ways to tell if your president is a dictator," adds a few other features to the mix. These include: "Systematic efforts to intimidate the media, using state power to reward corporate backers and punish opponents, fear mongering, and demonizing the opposition." Benjamin Friedman, in "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth," argues that growth, "more often than not, fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity and dedication to democracy." When living standards stagnate or decline most societies retrogress. When we start blaming the rest of the world for loss of our prestige "we'd be ripe for a demagogue who feeds those insecurities with xenophobic sloganeering." For a totalitarian takeover to take root, ordinary people would have to let it happen.
While we consider the implications of the elements involved in this discussion, we should turn to a demand we are beginning to hear with greater frequency: "impeachment." During the summer of 1973, as a relatively recent immigrant to this country, I was engrossed in the televised hearings into the Watergate burglary, which ultimately led to President Nixon's resignation. The first article of impeachment Nixon was charged with was "obstruction of justice." Subsequent to Director Comey's dismissal this concept resurfaced. Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, in a Washington Post op-ed, called for an impeachment investigation into Donald Trump for obstruction of justice. According to professor Tribe "the firing of FBI Director James Comey was an obvious effort to interfere with a probe involving national security." Obstruction involves any interference with a judicial or congressional proceeding, or attempt to do so. The real question is whether Trump intended to impede the FBI's investigation. Key words in a relevant charge will be "corrupt intent."
Article II of our Constitution stipulates that "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment charges for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Historically, and cynically, President Gerald Ford observed that "impeachable offenses are whatever Congress says they are." An impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representative, which is currently controlled by the Republican Party, and unlikely to start the process.
The inquiry has a long way to go before any of this becomes relevant. It helps to remember that only twice in our history has the House impeached a president, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. In neither case did the Senate convict. Richard Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were voted on by the full House.
So, sit back and let events unfold. They most likely will.
Thursday, May 4, 2017
EUROPE STILL ON EDGE
After the results of the first round of voting in the long anticipated French election became known, mainstream EU politicians breathed a sigh of relief, and expressed cautious optimism about the eventual outcome of another nationalist-populist attack on the eventual viability of the European Union. Out of a field of eleven candidates, Emmanuel Macron, the centrist leader of "En Marche!" (On the move), came in first, 2.2% ahead of second place finisher Marine Le Pen, long-time euroskeptic leader of the far-right National Front.
Headlines throughout the west proclaimed: "French Vote Calms EU Fears," (Wall Styreet Journal); "The Right Knocked Out," (Le Figaro); "Presidentielle: One Step Away," (Liberation). The Euro surged to a six month high as the markets shook off fears of two anti-European candidates, Marine Le Pen and hard-left Communist endorsed Jean-Luc Melenchon, making the run-off. Pro European diplomats rushed to congratulate Mr. Macron, who never held elected office, but who was Economic Minister in France's Socialist government. European Union foreign policy chief Frederick Mogherini praised Mr. Macron, calling him "the hope of a generation.." And former UK Chancellor George Osborne congratulated Mr. Macron, expressing his belief that, at last, France "may acquire the leadership it needs." Ms. Le Pen received supporting comments from other European populists like Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who lost his race back in January, and Nigel Farage, architect of the UK Brexit movement.
The nervously anticipated run-off, scheduled for May 7, could not be between more contrasting candidates. Marine Le Pen, far-right candidate with a populist economic agenda, is a known quantity in French politics. She wants to see legal immigration reduced from 200,000 to 10,000, and access to public services significantly limited. She believes in political isolationism, and is adamantly opposed to "Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism" and politically correct liberalism. Being anti-EU and anti-Euro, she favors return to the French Franc currency and proposes to hold a Brexit-like referendum (Frexit) on remaining in the EU. She wants closer ties with Russia, and has received millions in financial support from Russian banks.
Socially liberal centrist and pro-business candidate Emmanuel Macron, a former member of the Socialist Party, is strongly pro EU, pro Euro,, and believes the EU needs more integration, not less. However, he does want to initiate some changes to make it stronger, and proposes to strengthen the EU's external borders, while believing that France's security policies have unfairly targeted Muslims. He strongly identifies with the business community, and supports reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. Macron also favors increasing defense spending to 2% of GDP, and encourages intervention in Syria.
Where in other European elections in which populists threatened mainstream positions, establishment parties survived by co-opting populist positions and moving further to the right, this French election has exposed a contrasting strategy. Macron campaigns from the center, strongly supporting the EU and what it stands for. Le Pen may be softening her positions on some aspects of her well documented anti-EU platform, if not fully co-opting a more centrist position - at least for the duration of the campaign. The rhetoric is shifting from "France or Europe"
to "France in Europe."
Polling preceding the May 7 run-off gives Mr. Macron a 59% to 41% edge over Ms. Le Pen. While these numbers ought to be comforting for EU leaders, all remember the polls leading up to the Brexit referendum results in the UK and Donald Trump's surprise victory in the US. Another imponderable comes from supporters of Jean-Luc Melenchon, whose candidacy led to a relatively strong 4th place finish in the first round, winning 19.6% of the vote, only 4% behind Macron and 2% behind Le Pen. While most mainstream losin g candidates endorsed Macron immediately following announcement of the results of the vote, Mr. Melanchon, whose positions substantially reflect those of the National Front, be it from the political left, has refused to do so. In the US significant numbers of Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Donald Trump, suggesting that populists on the right and the left share many policy positions. Something similar could happen in France and lead to a surprise outcome. It is not entirely surprising why many in Europe are still on edge.
Headlines throughout the west proclaimed: "French Vote Calms EU Fears," (Wall Styreet Journal); "The Right Knocked Out," (Le Figaro); "Presidentielle: One Step Away," (Liberation). The Euro surged to a six month high as the markets shook off fears of two anti-European candidates, Marine Le Pen and hard-left Communist endorsed Jean-Luc Melenchon, making the run-off. Pro European diplomats rushed to congratulate Mr. Macron, who never held elected office, but who was Economic Minister in France's Socialist government. European Union foreign policy chief Frederick Mogherini praised Mr. Macron, calling him "the hope of a generation.." And former UK Chancellor George Osborne congratulated Mr. Macron, expressing his belief that, at last, France "may acquire the leadership it needs." Ms. Le Pen received supporting comments from other European populists like Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who lost his race back in January, and Nigel Farage, architect of the UK Brexit movement.
The nervously anticipated run-off, scheduled for May 7, could not be between more contrasting candidates. Marine Le Pen, far-right candidate with a populist economic agenda, is a known quantity in French politics. She wants to see legal immigration reduced from 200,000 to 10,000, and access to public services significantly limited. She believes in political isolationism, and is adamantly opposed to "Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism" and politically correct liberalism. Being anti-EU and anti-Euro, she favors return to the French Franc currency and proposes to hold a Brexit-like referendum (Frexit) on remaining in the EU. She wants closer ties with Russia, and has received millions in financial support from Russian banks.
Socially liberal centrist and pro-business candidate Emmanuel Macron, a former member of the Socialist Party, is strongly pro EU, pro Euro,, and believes the EU needs more integration, not less. However, he does want to initiate some changes to make it stronger, and proposes to strengthen the EU's external borders, while believing that France's security policies have unfairly targeted Muslims. He strongly identifies with the business community, and supports reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. Macron also favors increasing defense spending to 2% of GDP, and encourages intervention in Syria.
Where in other European elections in which populists threatened mainstream positions, establishment parties survived by co-opting populist positions and moving further to the right, this French election has exposed a contrasting strategy. Macron campaigns from the center, strongly supporting the EU and what it stands for. Le Pen may be softening her positions on some aspects of her well documented anti-EU platform, if not fully co-opting a more centrist position - at least for the duration of the campaign. The rhetoric is shifting from "France or Europe"
to "France in Europe."
Polling preceding the May 7 run-off gives Mr. Macron a 59% to 41% edge over Ms. Le Pen. While these numbers ought to be comforting for EU leaders, all remember the polls leading up to the Brexit referendum results in the UK and Donald Trump's surprise victory in the US. Another imponderable comes from supporters of Jean-Luc Melenchon, whose candidacy led to a relatively strong 4th place finish in the first round, winning 19.6% of the vote, only 4% behind Macron and 2% behind Le Pen. While most mainstream losin g candidates endorsed Macron immediately following announcement of the results of the vote, Mr. Melanchon, whose positions substantially reflect those of the National Front, be it from the political left, has refused to do so. In the US significant numbers of Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Donald Trump, suggesting that populists on the right and the left share many policy positions. Something similar could happen in France and lead to a surprise outcome. It is not entirely surprising why many in Europe are still on edge.
Saturday, April 8, 2017
COULD BREXIT DISMANTLE THE UNITED KINGDOM?
On March 29 Tim Barrow, UK Permanent Representative to the EU, handed EU Council President Donald Tusk UK Prime Minister Theresa May's letter triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the mechanism for nations to exit the European Union. In London, in the House of Commons, the UK Prime Minister announced: "This is a historic moment from which there can be no turning back." Invoking Article 50 opened a two year window for Britain, after having been a member for 44 years, to negotiate an exit agreement from the EU. By all accounts the negotiations promise to be messy and acrimonious. Within the UK the British government needs to start working on an enormous legislative to-do list. CNN published "50 things the UK needs to do after triggering Article 50." These include transposing all current EU laws into the UK statute books. "Nearly 20,000 EU legislative acts are in force, dictating everything from how much clean energy a country should use to the acceptable curvature of a grocery store banana." (Kara Fox et.al., CNN, March 29, 207). Within the remaining 27 EU bloc members' attitudes towards Britain have significantly hardened. The concern is that the bloc can't afford to grant Britain a better deal outside of the EU than it had in it. They can't afford to set a precedent other current members might want to take advantage of in the future. Ms. May proclaimed that she recognizes that negotiations will be difficult, and that "there will be consequences for the United Kingdom of leaving the EU." Not all of these consequences are existential. Some of these could well pop up in her own backyard, threatening to dismantle the cohesion of the UK as it exists today.
The most immediate threat to UK cohesion is Scotland's demand for another referendum on independence. Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, angered Theresa May days before March 29 by calling for a new referendum to be held in early 2019. In their 2014 referendum Scotland voted to stay in the UK by a 55%-45% margin. But in the Brexit referendum Scotland voted 62% to 38% to remain in the European Union, in dramatic contrast to the overall outcome. On March 31, when Ms. Sturgeon, with support of the Scottish Parliament, sent a pointed request to the UK Prime Minister, she remarked that: "The UK government has decided to remove Scotland not just from the European Union but from the single market as well, and that is clearly against the will of the majority of people who live here." Ms. May has already said that the referendum cannot happen until two years from now when Britain leaves the European Union. (Steven Erlanger, "Brexit Moves Drives the Push," NY Times, April 2, 2017.) In reality the British government would need to give permission for such a referendum. Its Prime Minister has made it clear in the past that keeping the UK intact was a priority of her premiership, reiterating: "It means we believe in the Union; The precious bond between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." Even if Ms. Sturgeon succeeds in completing a successful referendum, Scotland would the need to apply for EU membership, which could well take several more years.
Another potentially significant challenge to UK unity rests in Ireland. Ireland consists of the independent Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is now a part of the UK. The Good Friday Agreement - a.k.a. the Belfast Agreement - which ended what was referred to euphemistically as "The Troubles," that lasted from the late 1960s until the agreement was signed on April 10, 1998, stipulated that: "The agreement reached that Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK until a majority, both of the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish government would be under a "binding obligation" to implement that choice." As long as the UK and Ireland were members of the EU, this agreement held together quite comfortably. The UK is the Republic of Ireland's biggest trading partner. Around $1.3 billion worth of goods and services criss - cross the border every week. However, after Brexit the Irish border becomes an EU frontier. While currently no border controls exist between the signatories, Brexit would prompt the EU to re-establish customs barriers, thereby increasing the cost of doing business. Besides, Brexit would also end the 3.5 billion Euros in farm subsidies and structural grants Northern Ireland is receiving for the 2014-2020 period. Needless to say, the push to unify the two Irish entities is intensifying. Sinn Fein MPs are already touring England and Scotland to open the
unity debate. According to Pat Doherty, one of the MPs, "It isn't a matter of if we will achieve a united Ireland, it is a matter of how and when."
And finally there is the matter of Gibraltar. This British Overseas Territory on Spain's south coast with a population of 30,000 voted overwhelmingly, by 96 percent, to stay in the EU during the Brexit referendum, even though most of its inhabitants apparently want to remain British subjects. This territory, ceded to Britain by Spain in 1713, is twelve miles off the coast of Africa. It borders Spain, and it houses a British military base. After Brexit Spain could effectively isolate Gibraltar by reinforcing border controls that now don't exist. The European Council, whose members comprise the EU member states, shocked Downing Street recently by announcing that Gibraltar could only be included in a trade deal between London and Brussels with Spain's consent, effectively giving the latter a veto over whether any deal would apply to this territory.
Thus far last June's vote to exit the EU has appeared much less consequential than initially expected. However, the effects of actually initiating the divorce negotiations will relatively soon begin to sink in. It is not clear that Brexit's potentially destabilizing effect on domestic cohesion was anticipated. The British government recently did appoint a functionary whose sole task is to head off any potential Brexit-related consequential challenges to national unity. Nevertheless, David Martin, Scotland's longest serving Member of the European Parliament, made headlines just a few days ago predicting that the United Kingdom would no longer exist unless a "flexible and imaginative" Brexit solution could be found for Scotland.
It is clear that Britain's Prime Minister will have her hands full during the next few years.
The most immediate threat to UK cohesion is Scotland's demand for another referendum on independence. Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, angered Theresa May days before March 29 by calling for a new referendum to be held in early 2019. In their 2014 referendum Scotland voted to stay in the UK by a 55%-45% margin. But in the Brexit referendum Scotland voted 62% to 38% to remain in the European Union, in dramatic contrast to the overall outcome. On March 31, when Ms. Sturgeon, with support of the Scottish Parliament, sent a pointed request to the UK Prime Minister, she remarked that: "The UK government has decided to remove Scotland not just from the European Union but from the single market as well, and that is clearly against the will of the majority of people who live here." Ms. May has already said that the referendum cannot happen until two years from now when Britain leaves the European Union. (Steven Erlanger, "Brexit Moves Drives the Push," NY Times, April 2, 2017.) In reality the British government would need to give permission for such a referendum. Its Prime Minister has made it clear in the past that keeping the UK intact was a priority of her premiership, reiterating: "It means we believe in the Union; The precious bond between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." Even if Ms. Sturgeon succeeds in completing a successful referendum, Scotland would the need to apply for EU membership, which could well take several more years.
Another potentially significant challenge to UK unity rests in Ireland. Ireland consists of the independent Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is now a part of the UK. The Good Friday Agreement - a.k.a. the Belfast Agreement - which ended what was referred to euphemistically as "The Troubles," that lasted from the late 1960s until the agreement was signed on April 10, 1998, stipulated that: "The agreement reached that Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK until a majority, both of the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish government would be under a "binding obligation" to implement that choice." As long as the UK and Ireland were members of the EU, this agreement held together quite comfortably. The UK is the Republic of Ireland's biggest trading partner. Around $1.3 billion worth of goods and services criss - cross the border every week. However, after Brexit the Irish border becomes an EU frontier. While currently no border controls exist between the signatories, Brexit would prompt the EU to re-establish customs barriers, thereby increasing the cost of doing business. Besides, Brexit would also end the 3.5 billion Euros in farm subsidies and structural grants Northern Ireland is receiving for the 2014-2020 period. Needless to say, the push to unify the two Irish entities is intensifying. Sinn Fein MPs are already touring England and Scotland to open the
unity debate. According to Pat Doherty, one of the MPs, "It isn't a matter of if we will achieve a united Ireland, it is a matter of how and when."
And finally there is the matter of Gibraltar. This British Overseas Territory on Spain's south coast with a population of 30,000 voted overwhelmingly, by 96 percent, to stay in the EU during the Brexit referendum, even though most of its inhabitants apparently want to remain British subjects. This territory, ceded to Britain by Spain in 1713, is twelve miles off the coast of Africa. It borders Spain, and it houses a British military base. After Brexit Spain could effectively isolate Gibraltar by reinforcing border controls that now don't exist. The European Council, whose members comprise the EU member states, shocked Downing Street recently by announcing that Gibraltar could only be included in a trade deal between London and Brussels with Spain's consent, effectively giving the latter a veto over whether any deal would apply to this territory.
Thus far last June's vote to exit the EU has appeared much less consequential than initially expected. However, the effects of actually initiating the divorce negotiations will relatively soon begin to sink in. It is not clear that Brexit's potentially destabilizing effect on domestic cohesion was anticipated. The British government recently did appoint a functionary whose sole task is to head off any potential Brexit-related consequential challenges to national unity. Nevertheless, David Martin, Scotland's longest serving Member of the European Parliament, made headlines just a few days ago predicting that the United Kingdom would no longer exist unless a "flexible and imaginative" Brexit solution could be found for Scotland.
It is clear that Britain's Prime Minister will have her hands full during the next few years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)