"Moderation in the Realm of Politics"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Moderation in the Realm of Politics”

November 13, 2017

“Moderation in all things, especially moderation.”

                                                                                                Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

When considering moderation in politics, we must differentiate between outcomes and process – ideologies versus behavior. The French political philosopher Montesquieu claimed humans naturally migrate toward the center – that policies are best that accommodate the greatest number. On the other hand, Adam Smith, in his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, suggested it is moderation in social interactions, regardless of political opinions, which allow people to relate to and understand one another.

Most Americans believe in a mixture of government and personal independence – an equilibrium allowing the country to prosper, while preserving the obligations society demands. Politics is the search for that balance, but it is a Sisyphean struggle that never satisfies everyone. Polarization is today’s political nemesis. Mainstream media argues that extremism, especially from the right, has made people yearn for moderation. As well, blame is laid on social media that gives expression to myriad views and inspires populist politicians to take advantage of the resulting (seemingly) broken system. Blame is also attributed to media outlets like C-SPAN, venues for posturing politicians playing to their ideological bases.

Those desirous for moderation in politics often hark back to the 1950s, a period seen as relatively quiet – a time of normalcy, to borrow a word from the 1920s. But that era of uniformity, in the long history of our country, was atypical. The number of newspapers had declined, and was still falling. Talk radio did not exist. Television was in its infancy, with only three network television stations, each with fifteen-minute or half-hour news segments. There was little difference between John Chancellor of NBC, Walter Cronkite of CBS and John Daly of ABC. There were no forums for alternative views. We were trapped in a monolith, with little option but to conform. But that is not as it always was. Pamphleteers and writers of broadsheets, in the early years of our republic, provided thousands of people the opportunity to vent individual opinions, much like bloggers today.

Five years ago, David Brooks wrote: “The moderate tries to preserve the tradition of conflict, keeping opposite sides balanced…that most public issues involve trade-offs.” But he added, “Being moderate does not mean being tepid.” I agree. It is not moderate outcomes we need, but moderation in the way we present and debate ideas – we should be civil, but should never underestimate the rarity and value of freedom. It is fundamental to our being, as Senator Barry Goldwater made clear when he declared in 1964: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

In the years since Goldwater spoke, our government has become more bureaucratic and, consequently, less free. Those who support more government search for opportunities that give breath to their desire for more bureaucracy. We saw it in the last Administration, from the environment to healthcare to education. The internet, its ubiquity, the memes it creates and its unwitting promotion of extremism, is another example. Claims that Russia hacked our election has given legitimacy to the demand for more regulation of the internet and social media. “The Economist” jumped into the fray this past week, with a title story sub-headlined, “Once considered a boon to democracy, social media have started to look like its nemesis.” The article referenced the disinformation campaigns of Vladimir Putin’s Russia into Ukraine, France, Germany and the U.S. They quoted officials from Facebook who claimed that Russian-paid ads reached about 40% of our population. But, keep in mind, Facebook has said that Russian ads added $100,000 to revenues last year, while total fourth quarter 2016 ad revenues were $8.81 billion. In the scheme of things, Russia was not that important to Facebook. Social media has allowed millions to express themselves, some in polarizing fashion, with many – perhaps most – making unsupported allegations. But, legitimate opinions, based on facts and solid work, are also expressed. (I could not write and publish as I do, without the internet.) Separating fact from fiction is difficult. In 1971, the economist Herbert Simon warned: “A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.” With knowledge doubling every twelve months, the amount of data readily available has vastly increased and methods of communication are more varied and numerous than forty-six years ago. But, we restrict it at our peril.

Attempts to control or regulate social media lead to bigger concerns. Who, for example, will watch the watchers? Could not this become Orwell’s Big Brother in Oceania? The problem is not dissimilar to attempts to control campaign finance spending. Those in favor may be well-intentioned, but consequences are not always as intended. Well-funded candidates with smart lawyers find loopholes. I am not an anarchist, but I do know that every regulation imposed diminishes someone’s freedom. As a paid-up citizen of the U.S., I appreciate the need for government and regulation, but I also know that authoritarianism can descend from a bureaucratic administrative state.

In his recent book, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in the Age of Extremes, Aurelian Craitu, Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, wrote that Plato defined moderation as “the virtue that allows us to control our passions, emotions and desires.” He noted that democratic institutions depend on politicians acting with “self-restraint, common sense and moderation;” yet “we live in a world of hyperbole and political intransigence.” In such a world, “moderation appears as a bland, incoherent and undesirable virtue,” unlikely to succeed in a political campaign. (Think of Mitt Romney – smart, decent, but unexciting.)

Political extremism does cause people to yearn for moderation. But, we should be careful, less moderation leads to uniformity. Many want the balance of which David Brooks wrote. But, do we arrive there with moderate-thinking politicians? Or, are we better off with those who believe passionately in their causes, but are flexible and pragmatically inclined to accept what they can? Like Stuart Little’s quest, the search for perfection in government goes on. We are a diverse nation, with multiple ideologies. We can and should debate issues, but in a forum of civility where principles are not sacrificed and where moderators (and the media) are impartial. It is compromise that is missing in Washington. When selective colleges put together freshmen classes they don’t seek the best all-round high school seniors; they look for the best musician, the best athlete, the best artist, the best math, science, history and literature students – all ‘extremists’ in their fields – to compose, in composite, a class that reflects the ideal they desire. Should not Washington have the best legislators, men and women who are principled but not inflexible?

Professor Craitu added: “An able politician…resembles a good funambulist: he or she needs balance in all respects, must be prudent, alert and quick to react…He or she must have the courage to go against the grain when needed, and should always demand the other side be heard on any controversial topic.” Self-righteousness and partisanship have become common in Washington. The moderation we need is in behavior, not policies. One should not be moderate in one’s views toward liberty, freedom and democracy.

"A Political Philosophy"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“A Political Philosophy[1]”

October 23, 2017

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when

 they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than

 generally understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else.”

                                                                 John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)

                                                                 The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, 1936

In universities, we were exposed – at times through the lens of prejudicial teachers, but ones with less bias than today – to the writings of political philosophers, from Socrates to Locke to Marx. We glimpsed the ancient Greeks and Romans. We read history and surveyed the Bible.  We grazed on the works of economists, like Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek. While most of us did not study these philosophers and economists in detail, they were, at least, unmasked for our inspection. We were taught to think – to reason for ourselves – to determine what principles would help guide us past the Scyllas and the Charybdis’ we were bound to encounter. Today, too much focus in our universities is on issue-specific, special studies that pass as education.

It is the ability to think independently that is critical for democracy. Today, that is at risk. STEM programs help with jobs, but a vibrant democracy depends on a broadly educated electorate. For most older American, the concepts of personal liberty and economic freedom, along with a legacy of democracy and respect for institutions, are deeply ingrained. These beliefs have kept us free and democratic. Yet, youth today seems less critical, less challenging of their teachers. They believe what they hear and read in the mainstream media and on social media. The threat to democracy comes not from coarse, loud-mouthed people like Mr. Trump, but from subtle, cavalier politicians who surreptitiously insinuate themselves into our minds under the guise of doing good. To me, the biggest risk to our country is from within – elitists on both coasts, in the media, academia and in Washington, who use the threat of populism as justification for plutocracy.

Politics is an empirical process. Ours has changed over the past two hundred plus years, adapting to differing conditions and mores. The President is more isolated and more powerful. Congress has not expanded in line with the population growth, and has ceded responsibility to the Executive. Today, the judiciary (at least, those who are not activists) and local government most closely resemble what the Founders envisioned. Politicians, regardless of Party, exude an arrogance that sets them above those they represent. Many are hypocrites, spouting promises, with no intention of upholding them; passing laws, while exempting themselves; beholden to lobbyists and special interests, rather than the people; pledging prudence, but practicing profligacy. They use identity politics, which are counter-productive to assimilation and unity, leading, as they do, toward pluralism – a salad bowl instead of a melting pot.

Beware dogmatism born of ignorance. Like all self-respecting pundits, I see things I like and things I don’t. I have beliefs, and I have doubts. I do not believe climate skeptics are deniers, or that extremists come only from the Right, or that Francis Fukuyama was correct in proclaiming that the fall of the Soviet Union represented the end of history. I do not want to be lectured to by a supercilious Al Gore on climate – a man who made millions, while frightening gullible innocents. I do not want to be instructed on morality by cocky, ethically-challenged late-night hosts, like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert. I do not want to be preached to by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton on civility in politics, when they look upon conservatives as gun-toting, Bible-thumping “deplorables.” I do not want to listen to anti-Trump rants from sanctimonious Ivy League professors, hiding behind ivory towers. I don’t like duplicity or hypocrisy. I don’t like those who invoke identity politics, and I don’t respect those who use public fame to generate private wealth. I do not believe that any country, government, system or political party is perfect, but I do believe ours comes closest. I do like a sense of humor, civility and respect. I also believe that citizens have the responsibility to be conversant on matters of public policy, or, at least within reason, and that they should always exercise their right to vote. While unions have served a useful purpose, in recent times public sector ones have become more interested in preserving jobs and benefits, regardless of the costs to taxpayers. As well, in impeding progress by delaying or denying innovation, they have become advocates for the status quo.

We learn through discussion and debate, not propaganda-filled lectures. Life is a constant learning process. Since the advent of the industrial revolution, science has altered the lens through which we view the world. Religious faith had to be reconciled with Darwin’s findings. What had been certain gave way to doubt. But doubt led to creativity, and to improvements in living standards. Before the Industrial Revolution, our forefathers could predict what life would be like for their descendants. Afterwards, they could not. Today, we cannot foretell how our grandchildren’s lives will differ from ours, but we know they will.

The importance of reading political and economic philosophers, like Hume, Kant, Rousseau, Paine and Ricardo, is not to discover the answer one has long sought, but to provide a base of knowledge, to challenge one’s beliefs, to ensure one can argue cogently. We do not have to be disciples of a particular school of thought, but we should understand why we think as we do. We should be able to debate and defend our positions. Most importantly, we should be prepared for whatever lies ahead, and to ensure the survival of that that which is (and what we hope always will be) most important – freedom.

Authoritarianism emerges from ignorance and propaganda. Ignorance is born when students are encouraged to seek safe places, where they will not be exposed to arguments they find uncomfortable. Consequently, they are uninformed of alternative views. Most professors preach from the same political handbook. In the 2017, (William F.) Buckley Free Speech Survey, 93% of respondents agreed that there is educational value in listening to and understanding views and opinions that are contrary to their own. Yet 30% of the students believe that physical violence can be justified to prevent someone from using “hate” speech or making racially charged comments. A recent op-ed in The New York Times by Professor Clay Routledge of North Dakota State University noted that parental behavior has become “increasingly guarded and safety focused.” He worried that such attitudes, taken to extremes, delay personal independence. He found that “today’s teenagers and young adults are less likely than those in past generations to engage in a range of activities that involve personal independence, such as working for pay, driving, dating and spending time without adult supervision.” In a recent speech, former President George Bush noted: “There are some signs that the intensity of support for democracy itself has waned, especially among the young.” That would be a death knell for freedom.

We learn through reading, experience, mistakes, pain and fear. We do not want to unnecessarily expose children to risk, but if we want future generations to value freedom, as Mr. Routledge concludes, “we need to restore our faith in them.” Learning to handle disappointment and failure is part of growing up.

My advice to the next generation: Read as much and as widely as possible, but don’t rely on social media. Let commonsense be your guide. Remember, no one – parent, teacher, professor, economist, philosopher, pundit or politician – has all the answers. And be humble; we are all fallible.

---

[1] On March 14, 2016, I wrote a piece titled, “I Believe…” On May 29 of this year, I wrote “Things I Think About.” This can be read as an extension of those two pieces.

"The Thucydides Trap - As It Applies to Europe"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

October 16, 2017

“The Thucydides Trap – As It Applies to Europe”

“There is no week, nor day, nor hour when tyranny may not

enter our country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.”

                                                                                                            Walt Whitman (1819-1892)

The Greek Historian Thucydides (460BC-395BC) wrote that the growth of Athens and the fear that caused in Sparta would lead inevitably to war. It did, the Peloponnesian Wars (431-404BC), which were ultimately won by Sparta. Graham Allison, Harvard professor of political science coined the term “Thucydides Trap,” otherwise known as the “security dilemma,” to describe the rise of a new power and the fear it instills in an established, dominant power – China and the United States. A clash, he argues, almost always ensues. Such phenomena are not limited to geo-politics. In physics, it would be an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. And, all of us were once recalcitrant teen-agers, pushing back against resolute parents.

In his book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap?, Professor Allison looks to history to provide lessons for managing “great power” rivalries that were resolved without full-blown war: the Spanish-Portuguese match-up in the 15^th Century, the rise of the U.S. in the 19^th Century against the British Empire, the more recent peaceful resolution of the Cold War, among others.

While a nuclear conflagration between great powers represents the world’s biggest risk, the desire for self-rule, for security is not limited to great powers.  Its consequences can be seen in the rise of nationalism, and the desire for sovereignty and respect, throughout many parts of the world – Scotland, Catalonia and Ukraine in Europe; the Kurds in the Middle East, and secessionists in the West African nations of Cameroon and Nigeria. It is in those areas where the unwary might be ensnared.

Each part of the world is unique, as is each group’s desire for independence. Regardless of the merits of each bid for independence, it is the causes that must be addressed. We can treat symptoms, and we can play the “blame” game, but cures require an understanding of causation.

In Africa, causes relate to centuries of colonization, along with the tribal nature of their indigenous people. Two countries on that continent are now experiencing separatist movements – Cameroon and Nigeria, both which became independent in the early 1960s. Cameroon, one of the oldest continuously populated parts of the world, had been occupied from the 15^th through the 19^th Centuries by Portuguese and Germans. After World War I, the French and English divided the country. It is the English-speaking regions that today want to split off. Nigeria, the largest country in Africa, in terms of population (and the 7^th largest in the world), was once part of the British Empire. The natives of Biafra, in the southeast of the country, want independence. Like most African nations, their borders were drawn by Europeans who cared more about mineral extraction and commodities produced, than the tribes that comprise their populations. (There are, for example, over 500 languages spoken in Nigeria.) A civil war in that region fifty years ago left a million dead. Nigerian forces have again been deployed to put down this new rebellion.

In the Middle East, the Kurds seek independence from four countries – Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria – where they comprise significant minorities. Apart from Turkey, which is what remains of the Ottoman Empire, these countries, as in Africa, had their borders drawn by European colonial powers after the First World War, with little regard for the people who had lived there for centuries.

But it is Europe that is the focus of this essay. Most secessionists rebel against out-of-touch elitists. Does Madrid stand aloof from Catalonians? Does Brussels respect the Flemish?  Is London concerned about the welfare of the Scots? Does Paris have the interest of the Corsicans? Most worrisome, has been a rising, entitled administrative state in Brussels that threatens the sovereignty of countries that have existed, in some cases, for over a thousand years. What, for example, does the EU Parliament know about Welch coal miners, Manchester cab drivers and London bankers? Why should laws that govern these businesses and the regulations by which they must abide be created in Brussels? Is not this taxation without representation?

Europe deserves our respect. It was the birthplace of the Enlightenment, which gave to the world civilization, democracy and free-market capitalism. It was in Europe where Christianity took hold. It was Europe, with a big assist from the United States, that stood up to Fascism and Nazism. But, it was also Europe that first appeased and then fell victim to the persuasion of Mussolini and Hitler. It was Europe, through colonization, that exploited much of what we now call the developing world. Europe’s industrialization depended on cheap raw materials from overseas. Luxuries, like tea, coffee, sugar and tobacco – grown in fields worked by slaves – came from those colonies. Armies were deployed to put down insurrections. With colonization came sanctimony and arrogance, traits that infect Europe’s leaders today. There is hypocrisy in the assumed moral and intellectual superiority expressed by Brussel’s bureaucrats toward any who challenge them. With globalists, the administrative state replaces local governments.

Governing is not easy. It is akin to herding cats. But, without it, anarchy reigns; with too much, autocracy rules. Good government permits freedom of speech, assembly and movement. It offers a basic education and the right to own property. It provides the rule of law. It allows individuals with disparate political leanings to live in harmony. The nation state is worth preserving, as Lincoln did in 1861. But not all nations are born equal. In the post-War period, many were subjected to Communist rule. Germany was divided. Those who were consigned to the East in 1945 fared poorly, as do Koreans today who live north of the 38^th Parallel. On the other hand, most of the fifteen or so countries that were given independence upon the collapse of the Soviet Union have fared well. Does anyone believe that the average Ukrainian would be better off governed from Moscow? Every separatist bid should be considered on its own merits. There is no “one-size-fits-all” in the realm of geopolitics.

Most Europeans want what all people want – freedom, peace and prosperity. The question: how can it best be achieved? Is a Europe united in government, defense, laws and currency required? Or is respect for one another’s sovereignty – governments, borders, laws, culture, human rights – a better answer? A forum for the free exchange of ideas should be available; trade should be fair and open. Nations’ tax systems and laws should not impede the flow of capital, nor should borders stem the tide of honorable, hard-working people.

The trap that bears Thucydides name is not limited to great powers. The world and its inhabitants are in constant flux. Nations rise and fall. Since 1990, there have been, according to one source, thirty-four new countries formed – in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Pacific. Since my birth, in January 1941, 157 of the 195 sovereign states have been born or had new forms of governments. Every new state poses risk for those that were there before.  But the “trap” also applies to smug administrators who, due to their claimed superior intelligence and morality, feel entitled to rule, like those in multi-national organizations, or in Brussels. What is the cause for revolts against authority. Bureaucrats should look in the mirror.