Israel, Europe, and the corrosive effects of nationalism.

Posted by on

This week’s post is a response to an article in The Spectator published just a few days ago, in which Seth Frantzman argues that the European right increasingly resembles its Israeli counterparts. He writes,

“For Israelis, Europe’s political landscape is looking increasingly familiar. Whereas Israel was once seen as something of a political backwater, nowadays it’s European politicians who seem to be gazing across to Israel for inspiration. Those on the right are leading the way: from Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders to Austria’s Norbert Hofer, this group of populist politicians are tending to see in Israel’s brand of nationalism a model for their own. In January, Le Pen spoke of a ‘patriotic spring‘ of nationalism in Europe; she went on to say that ‘we are experiencing the return of nation-states’. And who better to provide inspiration for that than Israel?.” (https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/will-european-politics-look-like-israels-future/ for the full article) 

Frantzman’s analysis of the European right applies with equal relevance to America’s conservatives. Both the European and American right no longer believe in constitutionally limited government, free markets, a high moral upstanding of its leaders, or an aversion to utopian fantasies. Instead, they increasingly share the Israeli right’s preoccupation with security, nationhood, borders, and creating an ideal world regardless of the circumstances, or the size of government. For the European and American right, this involves a plethora of unobtainable ideals. Some want to bring back industries inevitably lost to globalisation, technology and the need to combat climate change. Some believe in preserving ethnic homogeneity, even at the expense of the talent businesses and universities need to compete in a global economy. Like the Israeli right, many have developed an unhealthy obsession with Islam, and believe the West is at war with Islamic civilisation, not just Muslim terrorists- this position is about as absurd as declaring war on Catholicism based on the actions of the provisional IRA; Muslim terrorists are motivated more by political ideology than religious doctrine. They all believe in vastly increased conventional defence spending, even when there’s no evidence that it will make us more secure. They all also portray themselves as representatives of ‘the people’, branding their political opponents as unpatriotic or traitors. In Europe and Israel, the right employs the use of welfare chauvinism, promising to defend the welfare state against both excessively cosmopolitan ‘neoliberals’ and foreigners who they think are undeserving of the state’s generosity. This applies less so in America, where reducing the welfare state is more of a priority because it is seen to enrich racial minorities and immigrants at the expense of ‘real’ (white) Americans. But on the whole, Trump, the European right and the Israeli right don’t have a theory of the proper role of government, only of who it ought to benefit.

Like Frantzman, I’m concerned by this trend. I appreciate the Israeli right faces a series of challenges and circumstances Europe and America’s conservatives are happily unacquainted with. The country is surrounded by largely hostile powers. Israeli society has been hardened by the experience of war, frequent terrorist attacks and a seemingly unresolvable territorial dispute. The country is more religious than most of Europe and America, which can lead to grassroots dogmatism on a variety of social issues. Iran’s funding of Hamas and Hezbollah, and its desire to acquire nuclear weapons remains a concern, though it isn’t the national emergency Netanyahu alleges it to be, nor would ripping up the Iran nuclear deal make peace more likely.

Having said all of that, the ideology and behaviour of the Israeli right is inexcusable. It openly opposes a deal with the Palestinians, disregarding conservative realism in favour of the ludicrous vision of a ‘Greater Israel.’ It espouses an exclusionary form of nationalism that results in discrimination against non-Jews. It is blasé in its attitudes towards the livelihoods of the Palestinians, portraying any form of concern as unpatriotic and a plot to destroy Israel. It is also disingenuous in its employment of the wider Middle East security situation to justify occupation of the West Bank in perpetuity. Now I’m not for a moment suggesting that were the Israeli right to disappear, there would automatically be peace. Nor am I letting the Palestinians off the hook for their crimes. The point is, the actions of Israeli Left, the Palestinians, Iran or anyone else, cannot possibly justify an extreme nationalist ideology based on Torah literalism, the wilful denial of Palestinian self-determination, and conspiratorial paranoia over what constitutes a security threat.

Every democracy needs competing political parties. On one side, there needs to be a party concerned with the welfare of the working class, and those most disadvantaged under a capitalist system. But there also needs to be a party sceptical of government. The reality is, governments are highly flawed and clumsy organisations that can make social security horribly inefficient and wasteful. Historically speaking, the most oppressive institution has been government: having a legal monopoly on violence, governments have carried out terrible atrocities, from the Holocaust to the Gulag. As a result, there needs to be a centre-right scepticism of (though not obstructionism to) government programmes. Ideally, these parties would also hold basic liberal values in common, such as a belief in secular government, freedom of expression and a dedication to the rule of law- both domestic and international.

As Europe and America’s political makeup increasingly resembles Israel’s, we are getting further away from this ideal party system. The right is no longer doing its proper job of holding government to account, preferring to obsess over national identify and a belligerent militarism, justified by portraying foreign countries and people as far more hostile and dangerous than they really are. This new right is perfectly happy to expand the size of government to achieve its goals. In Europe and America’s case, it involves more military spending, the construction and over-enforcement of borders, government regulation of the social issues (tellings Muslim women how to dress or gay people who to marry) and protectionism against the EU’s four freedoms, particularly people. In Israel’s case, it also involves more military spending, as well as a government-subsidised housing programme in the West Bank and dependence on American foreign aid. Regardless of the immorality, not making a deal with the Palestinians will end up costing more money in the long term; the Palestinians’ reluctance for a just deal doesn’t justify a bloated and callous Israeli government.

To end on a more positive note, nationalism, be it European, American, or Israeli, need not necessarily be harmful. In Israel, there is an immense amount of civic pride in the nation- its history, culture, and achievements- be they political, scientific, technological or economic. It’s true that there isn’t enough focus on the country’s past crimes, though the same could be said about almost anywhere else. But humans are an incredibly social species, for whom identity is important. Too often, the liberal left has sneered at patriotism, believing it to be parochial, ‘bourgeois’, or inferior to a European or other supranational identity. This attitude is unsustainable, and will inevitably lead to a backlash. To survive as a credible political force, the left will have to embrace a degree of civic nationalism, while rejecting the xenophobia of the populist right. But if the left can inject some Israeli-style optimism, pride and confidence into the largely beleaguered nations of Europe and North America, the future will be a good one.

For next week’s post, I will be taking some requests, so please comment if you want me to cover any topic (it doesn’t have to be political.)

Some background on the Trump family

Posted by on

Below is a letter written in 1905 by President Trump’s grandfather, Friedrich Trump, in which he pleads with Bavarian Prince Luitpold not to deport him. According to the Associated Press, Trump’s grandfather immigrated to the U.S. as a teenager from Bavaria before he completed his required military service. After he acquired his fortune in the U.S., he tried to resettle in what is now southwest Germany but was expelled and returned to America. Friedrich Trump’s plea to the government of Bavaria was unsuccessful.

Some news outlets have suggested that Friedrich’s arguments appear similar to contemporary ones raised by those who fear deportation under President Trump’s orders or oppose his immigration policies. Below is the letter in its entirety, as translated by Harper’s Magazine:

“Most Serene, Most Powerful Prince Regent! Most Gracious Regent and Lord!

I was born in Kallstadt on March 14, 1869. My parents were honest, plain, pious vineyard workers. They strictly held me to everything good — to diligence and piety, to regular attendance in school and church, to absolute obedience toward the high authority.

“After my confirmation, in 1882, I apprenticed to become a barber. I emigrated in 1885, in my sixteenth year. In America I carried on my business with diligence, discretion, and prudence. God’s blessing was with me, and I became rich. I obtained American citizenship in 1892. In 1902 I met my current wife. Sadly, she could not tolerate the climate in New York, and I went with my dear family back to Kallstadt.

The town was glad to have received a capable and productive citizen. My old mother was happy to see her son, her dear daughter-in-law, and her granddaughter around her; she knows now that I will take care of her in her old age.

But we were confronted all at once, as if by a lightning strike from fair skies, with the news that the High Royal State Ministry had decided that we must leave our residence in the Kingdom of Bavaria. We were paralyzed with fright; our happy family life was tarnished. My wife has been overcome by anxiety, and my lovely child has become sick.

Why should we be deported? This is very, very hard for a family. What will our fellow citizens think if honest subjects are faced with such a decree — not to mention the great material losses it would incur. I would like to become a Bavarian citizen again.

In this urgent situation I have no other recourse than to turn to our adored, noble, wise, and just sovereign lord, our exalted ruler His Royal Highness, highest of all, who has already dried so many tears, who has ruled so beneficially and justly and wisely and softly and is warmly and deeply loved, with the most humble request that the highest of all will himself in mercy deign to allow the applicant to stay in the most gracious Kingdom of Bavaria. Your most humble and obedient,

Friedrich Trump

According to researchers, Friedrich made a fortune in the drinking and gambling dens of the Wild West.  If gossip is to be believed he made even more money from dubious activities best not described on a respectable blog. This, or the fact that he skipped the country before he had completed military service, may be why the Bavarians wanted to deport him.

The die is cast. There is now no going back.

Posted by on

Rend your clothes, put on sackcloth and pour ashes on your head. Prime Minister May has actually done it. I had hoped that sober minds might, at the last minute, prevail and steer the government away from a long-term disaster that probably means the break-up of the UK as well as weakening Europe. But alas, she has done it, “it” being to formally tell the EU that Britain is leaving.

Now we are faced with the British government’s so-called “Great Reform Bill”, which, as I understand it, writes all applicable EU law into the British statute books in preparation for dismantling it at leisure at a later time (the mind boggles!). I would suggest that another name for it is the “Return England to Obscurity” bill.

Before Julius Caesar, Britain could be viewed through the mist and rain from across the Channel, but no one knew much about it, except it had some tin mines and was populated by Angles. It was otherwise deeply unimportant. Brexit takes us back to England in the days of the Roman Republic, or, alternatively, to the 14th Century, when the whole English GNP was approximately the same as the province of Anjou, and the people running it were totally clueless barons.

Within my own lifetime Britain had an empire (admittedly on life support) stretching around the world. Even before I can think of dying stupid, out-of-touch politicians will have reduced the country to within the borders of England (losing Northern Ireland to the Republic might prove the sole bonus), while lonely businessmen wander the world begging for a chance to sell things – anything – now that our best and closest market will offer no advantages.

Meanwhile, internally, those who voted to Leave will find that they have been shamefully misled. The Poles and other trained Continental workers will still be there (the corporations will see to that), but the rights and safeguards for the people will have been dismantled. The only people to have won will be the corrupt foreign money launderers and dubious multi-millionaires, bribed by the British government to relocate to London in return for derisory tax rates. Outside the South East we can look forward to no investment, fewer jobs, lousy public services, declining health and more poverty. This will happen over the ten years. The current reasonable economy is a temporary mirage.

This is how “great” Brexit will turn out to be, along with its accompanying legislation. As in the US, the population is being subjected to one of the most outstanding con jobs in history.

Epicureans can extract little ataraxia from all this, but we have to try.

Do you consider yourself to be a rational person?

Posted by on

The vast majority of people are religious, which generally entails belief in a supernatural entity or three. And yet amid the oceans of religiosity are archipelagos of non-belief. Accurate numbers are hard to come by, but even conservative estimates suggest that half a billion people around the world (and counting) are non-religious.

But scientists who study the cognitive foundations of religious belief, think that atheism is only skin-deep, and that we are basically susceptible to superstition and quasi-religion. This is because we “have some core intuitions that make supernatural belief easy for our brains,” says psychologist Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

One core intuition is the ability to think about and intuit other people’s thoughts, which is very useful, but which also tricks us into believing in disembodied minds with mental states of their own. The idea that mind and body are distinct entities also seems to come instinctively to us. Throw in the tendency to seek cause and effect everywhere, and see purpose where there is none – and you can see why the human brain is susceptible, not only to religion but to ghosts, spiritual healing, reincarnation, telepathy, astrology, lucky numbers and Ouija boards. These are almost as common as official religious beliefs; three-quarters of Americans admit to holding at least one of ten common supernatural beliefs. With all this supernatural ability filling our heads, atheism and scientific materialism are hard work. Overriding inbuilt thought patterns requires deliberate and constant effort.

Many experiments have shown that supernatural thoughts are easy to invoke even in people who consider themselves sceptics. Asked if a man who dies instantly in a car crash is aware of his own death, large numbers instinctively answer “yes”. Similarly, people who experience setbacks in their lives routinely invoke fate, and uncanny experiences are widely attributed to paranormal phenomena. The supernatural exerts a pull on us that is hard to resist. If you’re still under the illusion that you are a rational creature, that really is wishful thinking.  (Adapted from an article in New Scientist).

I can’t speak for anyone else. Maybe the author is right. What I can say for myself is that I had a deeply religious period when I was 16 and 17. Then, one day, I realised that I had been very unhappy (at school) during that period. Once on the school’s first rugby team, a school prefect and accepted at the university I wanted, the whole religious sentiment dribbled away. I had used it, unknowingly as a prop. Nothing wrong with that. Useful, actually.

As a follower of Epicurus I try to be polite and don’t think it nice to undermine good, kind, generous beliefs of good, kind, generous christians, jews, moslems etc. Epicureanism is a tolerant belief; it just doesn’t think much of the supernatural.

Management-speak

Posted by on

These days everyone “talks a bit like a management consultant”: it’s symptomatic of the growing “professionalisation” of ordinary life. Thanks to blurring work-life boundaries and the rise of the “self-help” industry, we increasingly view our lives as “projects in which excellence needs to be achieved” – and can be, with “the right toolsets”. Hence the prevalence of management jargon in “unlikely quarters” such as the nursery: the sphere of “parenting” (itself a “verbification” of the sort so loved by business) has produced “baby-led weaning”, “co-sleeping” and “attachment-parenting”.

Is management jargon necessarily a bad thing? Some words, such as “stakeholder”, are genuinely useful if the only alternative is a lengthy phrase. Moreover, jargon has uses beyond simple functionality. In a work context, it can “convey the impression of legitimacy, boost confidence and gain the attention of others”, argues André Spicer in his new book, Business Bullshit. Perhaps we hope the same is true of our increasingly professionalised social lives. (Rhymer Rigby, The Times).

Personally, I think it arises (“like” as all the students say every ten seconds at the university nearby us) out of lazy-mindedness.  The naive think fancy phrases and gobbledegook make them sound smart and with-it.  Actually, it comes across as displaying a poor vocabulary, maybe a tenuous grasp of grammar, and a desire to obscure the issue with long words.  Somebody who just spouts business jargon opens himself to the charge of being tedious and boring.  He (she as well) needs to understand that with a little bit of effort he can capture the attention of an audience with an original turn of phrase, a harmless joke, a smile, a little charm and a different, arresting approach.

Robot care commodifies old age

Posted by on

Across the developed world, the combination of slow economic growth and an ageing population is creating a market for cheap, hi-tech solutions to elderly care. There’s the RoboCoach: an android that is being used in Singapore to give exercise classes to senior citizens, using motion sensors to detect whether they are doing it right. Then there’s IBM’s Secure Living programme, being trialed in Italy, which puts sensors in the homes of elderly participants so their activities can be monitored from a remote control room. In China, the Roby Mini provides “companionship” to the elderly: it can recognise faces, tell jokes and order groceries. Of course, none of this really constitutes “care”, since the robots feel nothing for the people they serve. Neither do the corporations that make them: their chief interest is in harvesting data from living clients. Any human activities that might lead to higher costs – say, reading a book, rather than doing health-boosting exercise with the RoboCoach – will be strongly discouraged. Welcome to the “dystopian future” of ageing.  (Evgeny Morozov, The Observer).

As a follower of Epicurus I look out for people and companies who are exploiting, dissing, talking down to and ignoring the humanity of people old and young.  Care homes are a very good example of the corporatization and the putting of profit before humane treatment.  All too often they are dreary, featureless places where the only distraction is day-long TV, tuned to channels that cater to the lowest common denominator.  The food is dreadful, the care is cursory, and the “personnel” can be rude and even cruel (we are supposed to call them “carers”). I have the suspicion that caring for helpless old people is not the first choice of job for many poorly paid people: the result can be favoritism, bullying, and indifference. Before going into such a place my wife and I will, I hope, shake hands on a suicide pact, if the interfering nosey-parkers in Congress haven’t rendered voluntary euthanasia illegal.

Has the socialist left come to accept liberal globalisation?

Posted by on

I wouldn’t normally post more than once a week. But a friend of mine has shared an article I think couldn’t be more relevant. The Financial Times’ Janan Ganesh argues that the rise of anti-globalisation right wing populists like Trump and the pro-Brexit campaigners, have inadvertently made social democrats defend the neoliberal global order they used to criticise. He writes:

“If an investment bank threatened to move staff out of Britain in normal political times, the left would drive them to the airport, bundle them on to the plane and arrange a transfer at the other end. The enemies of rootless capital now cite such threats as prima facie evidence against Brexit. Even Goldman Sachs, the cartoon villain of high finance, can count on Labour MPs, and not just Blairite ones, to rue its relocation of workers to Frankfurt and Paris.

This sudden concern for the City of London is only strange until you remember what else the left has come to cherish of late, spurred by the realisation that populists do not. An unexhaustive list includes the European single market, free trade, Nato, America’s role as guarantor of world peace and, ever since President Donald Trump questioned their work, intelligence agencies…. they now realise these are not just a rightwing stitch-up. Instead, they have  reasonable hunch that whatever is opposed by Mr Trump and the wilder edges of the Eurosceptic movement deserves protection.” (https://www.ft.com/content/13a06188-0fc9-11e7-a88c-50ba212dce4d for the full article, they don’t want me to copy everything from their website.)

Now I personally don’t share Mr Ganesh’s enthusiasm for America as the world’s only superpower. I think its time Europe stepped up to the plate, and worked alongside America as its equal. There needs to be more co-operation between the European nations on security issues. The challenges the continent faces- Russian aggression, Islamist terrorism, mass migration and the rise of China- can only be solved if Europe works as a cohesive whole.

But on the whole, I agree with him. By challenging traditional conservative orthodoxies, Trump and the European populist right have made the Left question their own. Most importantly, the Left now realises the limits of state power. When Trump says, “we’re going to take care of everybody” regarding healthcare, he sounds like a socialist. But because he’s Trump, the Left quite rightly distrusts him. Bold promises that intend to apply to everyone are notoriously hard to fulfil, particularly in America where the nature of the political system almost always necessitates compromises.

Where I depart somewhat from Mr Ganesh, is that I don’t think the left should become unabashed defenders of international capital, however much the populist right seems to oppose it. Partly because this would be a strategy that would eventually lead to electoral oblivion. If the Left are just as avid in their defence of the global free market as the conservative right, what is the point in voting for the Left? Clinton did significantly worse than Obama amongst working class voters for this exact reason: he was seen as the friend of the little guy, she was not. And although I share Mr Ganesh’s enthusiasm for globalisation as a whole, economic globalisation included, you would have to be incredibly oblivious and out-of-touch not to notice it has left some people behind. I think Bernie Sanders’ beloved Denmark probably has it right. On the one hand, it embraces the EU, NATO, free trade, co-operation with America, and other aspects of the liberal world order the socialist left despises. But it balances its liberalism with a strong social welfare system, and a high degree of localism. The right-wing populists’ aversion to globalisation may be socially regressive and economically illiterate. But to dismiss the concerns of its voters out of hand would be a grave mistake. Working class communities ought to be empowered, and need to feel that they can control their own destinies.

Mature Adults Could Be Gone Within 50 Years,’ Experts Say

Posted by on

Nation Down To Last Hundred Grown-Ups

According to alarming new figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau, the nation’s population of mature adults has been pushed to the brink of extinction, with only 104 grown-ups remaining in the country today.

The endangered demographic, which is projected to die out completely by 2060, is reportedly distinguished from other groups by numerous unique traits, including foresight, rationality, understanding of how to obtain and pay for a mortgage, personal responsibility, and the ability to enter a store without immediately purchasing whatever items they see and desire.

“Our grown-ups are disappearing at a much faster rate than we previously believed,” said Census Bureau chief Robert M. Groves, who believes the decline in responsible adults may now be irreversible. “Unfortunately, we’ve only recently noticed this terrible trend, perhaps because of this group’s unusual capacity to endure hardships with quiet dignity instead of whining loudly to draw attention to themselves.”

“If nothing is done, these individuals, with their special ability to consider the long-term consequences of their own behavior and act accordingly, will be wiped-out completely,” Groves added.

According to recent data, the grown-up population has plummeted dramatically since 1950, when a Census count found that more than 24 million Americans could both admit when they were wrong and respect a viewpoint other than their own. Today, only one in three million citizens can provide thoughtful advice to a fellow human being instead of immediately shifting the topic to their own personal issues or what they had for lunch.

Experts confirmed the mass extinction of grown-ups has coincided with the rapid expansion of other demographic groups, including people who seek medication for every problem they encounter, 33-year-olds who participate in organized kickball leagues, personal injury litigants, and parents who try to become friends with their own children.

“Grown-ups are as fascinating as they are rare,” said anthropologist Arthur Ambler, who has lived among level-headed adult populations and documented their lifestyle. “It may seem odd to the rest of us, but for mature adults, occasionally putting the greater good ahead of their own interests or remaining calm when something doesn’t go their way is commonplace.”

“Imagine confronting a problem directly instead of pointing a finger, cowering in fear, or pretending it just isn’t happening,” Ambler added. “This is how these people actually live, if you can believe that.”

Many social scientists, including Ambler, have called for a complete record to be made of the declining population’s customs, worrying that knowledge of how to dress for a job interview or when to rotate one’s tires could soon be lost to civilization forever. Future generations, they soberly note, will likely go their whole lives never knowing a grown-up person.

When contacted for comment, Colorado resident Ray Vogel, a grown-up, told reporters he was resigned to his group’s fate.

“We recognize that our time has come and gone, and we’re prepared to let nature run its course,” said the 54-year-old, who has a well-funded 401(k) and has never taken out a high-interest loan to purchase a Jet Ski. “I’m just grateful my two children didn’t turn out patient and considerate like me. They’d never be able to get anywhere in today’s world.”

According to Vogel, the nation’s remaining grown-ups have drafted a letter to be read by the rest of us when they are gone that implores us to make “good decisions” in their absence and explains how to reignite the pilot light on the hot-water heater should it go out. The note is also said to include some money with firm instructions that it should be used only in case of a real emergency”. (NEWS, MAy 19, 2011, VOL 47 ISSUE 20, Survival)

The author might well have been thinking of the era of Trump, Brexit et al, only back in 2011 all this was unthinkable at the time.

Northern Ireland: where moderation is a rarity.

Posted by on

It’s often said that American politics is increasingly polarised. Republicans and Democrats vote on party lines more frequently, with dissenters being scorned as ideologically impure. Many academics believe this polarisation has been an elite phenomenon, with most ordinary Americans maintaining relatively centrist views. But even if America’s stark political divisions are purely the failure’s of its leaders, the same cannot be said for Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland is currently in the midst of a political crisis. It started when the largest party, the DUP, ran a Renewable Heat Incentive scheme. The idea was to encourage people to use renewable energy, but the absence of proper controls meant people were making money simply by heating their homes, at great expense to the taxpayer. As a result, Sinn Fein withdrew from the government, triggering an election in which they inevitably gained a higher proportion of the vote. Following the election, talks between the two major parties have broken down, with either side refusing to compromise. Sinn Fein want the DUP’s leader, Arlene Foster, to resign, because of her role in what is now commonly known as the ‘cash for ash’ scandal. They also want cuts to funding for Irish language classes to be reversed, gay marriage, and a poll on Irish reunification- the latter is largely to avoid Brexit, in which most Northern Irish voted against. The DUP have refused all of those demands, believing concessions to be a sign of weakness and the demands to be unreasonable. Eventually there will be either direct rule from Westminster, or another election- which would be the third within a year.

The country has a long history of sectarianism and political polarisation, which has been far more brutal than even politics in the US. Although he eventually came to the negotiating table, the recently diseased Martin McGuinness was a murderer and a terrorist, and never renounced his violent ways. But the old debates over whether the Nationalists or Loyalists were responsible for more deaths, or whether Irish unification is a good idea, are both beside the point when it comes to today’s conundrum. As a historian, I find it tempting to judge the the agencies of the present based on their actions in the past. For instance, its very easy to be critical of Germans because of the Holocaust, or accuse Russians of not feeling guilty enough about the gulag. But eventually, however unacademic, we ought to move on from the past, and assess people based on their current behaviour.

So in this instance, regardless of who has the worse history, the DUP are presently far more obstinate and unreasonable in their political views and expectations than Sinn Fein. Arlene Foster ought to do the decent thing and resign, even if an investigation shows no evidence of any intentional wrongdoing. Although it would look embarrassing for the DUP in the short term, the longer she stays as leader, the worse the party’s electoral fortunes will be. Moreover, Sinn Fein’s social policies are perfectly reasonable, even if they (along with the DUP) expect far too much money from Westminster via the Barnett Formula. Gay marriage is supported by a majority of Northern Irish and even a majority of MLA’s- only the Good Friday feature known as a ‘petition of concern’ prevented marriage equality from becoming law (like it already is the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the UK.) Funding for the Irish language is also reasonable, even if it is currently only spoken by a small minority. As for Brexit, the DUP seems to have no qualms about taking Northern Ireland out of the EU against its will, even though this will probably result in a hard border between it and the Irish Republic- customs checks and immigration controls would be impossible without one. The Good Friday Agreement was enacted on the basis of the UK’s continued EU membership; such a dramatic change warrants a referendum.

None of this ought to be read as an endorsement of Sinn Fein. They are still too closely tied to crimes committed during the Troubles by the Provisional IRA, even as those like the late McGuinness are slowly dying out. Their brand of left-wing nationalism has a subtle feeling of xenophobia, as shown by slogans like ‘get the British out.’ They inaccurately refer to British rule over Northern Ireland as an occupation, sometimes even going as far as to compare themselves to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. Such a comparison is totally facetious: the two situations are completely different, and most Northern Irish still want to remain British. To describe Britain as an occupying power is to deny the people of the right of self-determination. As for economics, Irish reunification may be beneficial in the long term. Northern Ireland is currently poorer than both the Republic and the rest of the UK, so unionism is hardly a guarantor of prosperity. But in the short term, the North would have to go through an austerity programme, because of the loss of Barnett Formula funding. Having personally witnessed the late McGuinness give a speech on the perils of Tory austerity, even from the perspective of a region that receives more than its fair share of funding, the prospect of fiscal conservatism is hardly a rallying call for reunification, particularly with a Republic that has a centre-right majority.

On a sombre conclusion, Northern Ireland may be one of these places where true moderation is impossible. You either believe Northern Ireland should be British or Irish (unless you’re one of the few deluded individuals that thinks the country could survive as an independent state.) Whatever position you take, roughly half the country will vehemently disagree with you. I am personally ambivalent on the Irish question from a purely philosophical perspective, though the prospect of union with a country racing towards the hardest possible Brexit, led by people who believe that no deal with the EU is an economically viable option, is hardly an appetising one. At present, Britain looks like it will have a Tory majority in perpetuity. The opposition Labour Party languishes in the opinion polls, and is totally unwilling and/or unable to hold the government to account on anything.  Conversely, the Irish Republic is currently one of the developed world’s fastest growing economies. Unemployment is still a problem, but it is in decline. It already has a GDP per capita that exceeds the UK, and the gap will only grow. Northern Ireland has a chance to end its dependence on Westminster subsidies, and embrace the entrepreneurial culture the Republic has so successfully fostered. If the DUP really believed in democracy, which it insists is what Brexit is all about, then it would allow Northern Ireland a say on its future. And if the country voted for reunification, I would hold nothing against them.

 

Even Isis can’t stop spread of secularism

Posted by on

The rise of Isis and fanatical Islam might lead you to think that far from fading, religion is making a comeback. But the reverse is true: it’s humanists who are on the march. “The fastest-growing belief system in the world is non-belief.” In Saudi Arabia, 5% of those polled in 2012 described themselves as atheist and 19% as non-believers – a higher proportion than in Italy. In Lebanon, the figure was 37%. True, Arab governments are now cracking down on atheism – Saudi Arabia has made it a terrorist offence – but this is “evidence not of confidence but of alarm”, just as the fanaticism of gun-toting jihadis is evidence of their fury at the spread of secularism. But the efforts of the militants to shore up belief will be in vain: the pull of materialism, rationalism and scepticism is too strong. Whether you’re Christian, Jewish or Muslim, there’s “just something about living in a society with restaurants and mobile phones, universities and social media, that makes it hard to go on thinking” that morality derives from some divine law. Jihadism is a grave threat today, but be assured, “secularism and milder forms of religion will win in the long run”. (Matt Ridley,The Times)

Epicureans do not believe in priests and Popes, Pearly Gates, or a angry gods. They believe in the bringing out the very best instincts of human beings: generosity, care, good humour, cooperation, to name a few, all without priests. But I myself am not sure Mr. Ridley is correct. Suddenly, we find ourselves in uncharted seas, surrounded with angry, vulgar and often violent people. This sudden reversal from the relative calm and quiet, the social and economic progress, of the last half century is quite likely to drive rational people back into irrationality and false hopes of a better after-life. This will only make matters worse – religions tend to have that effect.

America’s infrastructure crisis

Posted by on

From the crumbling bridges of California to the overflowing sewage drains of Houston and the rusting railroad tracks in the Northeast Corridor, decaying infrastructure is all around us, and the consequences are so familiar that we barely notice them—like urban traffic congestion, slow-moving trains, and flights that are often disrupted, thanks to an outdated air-traffic-control system. The costs are significant, once you reckon wasted time, lost productivity, poor public-health outcomes, and increased carbon emissions.

The economist Larry Summers has pointed out that, once you adjust for depreciation, the U.S. makes no annual net investment in public infrastructure at all. Yet polls show that infrastructure spending is popular with a majority of voters across the income spectrum. Historically, it enjoyed bipartisan support from politicians, too. If it’s so popular, why doesn’t it happen?

One clear reason is politics. While both parties remain rhetorically committed to infrastructure spending, in practice Republicans have been less willing to support it, especially when it goes toward things like public transit. This is partly because of the nature of the Republican base: public transit is hardly a priority for suburban and rural voters in the South and in much of the West. But ideology has played a key role as well. “The rise of modern conservatism, with its sense that government is the problem and its aversion to government spending, has created a Republican Party that’s much more skeptical of big infrastructure projects than it was.  Then the process of getting infrastructure projects approved has become riddled with what political scientists call “veto points.” There are more environmental regulations and more requirements for community input. There are often multiple governing bodies for new projects, each of which has to give its approval. Many of these veto points were put in place for good reason. But they make it harder to undertake big projects.  Mind you, this applies to most other countries as well, which doesn’t stop them getting things done.

Worse than the lack of new investment is our failure to maintain existing infrastructure. You have to spend more on maintenance as infrastructure ages, but we’ve been spending slightly less than we once did. The results are easy to see. In 2013, the Federal Transit Administration estimated that there’s an eighty-six-billion-dollar backlog in deferred maintenance on the nation’s rail and bus lines. The American Society of Civil Engineers, which gives America’s over-all infrastructure a grade of D-plus, has said that we would need to spend $3.6 trillion by 2020 to bring it up to snuff.

Maintenance is handled mainly by state and local communities, which, because many of them can’t run fiscal deficits, operate under budgetary pressures. Term limits mean that a politician who cuts maintenance spending may not be around when things go wrong. What politician doesn’t like opening something new and having a nice press op at the ribbon-cutting? But no one ever writes articles saying, “Region’s highways are still about as good as they were last year.”

The U.S. needs  a long-term strategy, fund it adequately, and hold the government accountable for making that strategy work. Infrastructure is the ultimate public good. Trump is right to make it a priority, but I reckon any attempt to put an infrastructure plan into action will go the way of the healthcare bill that failed yesterday.

Cicero on Epicureanism

Posted by on

Cicero’s “On Ends”, his narrative on key aspects of Epicurean philosophy:

– Pleasurable living is the goal of life. Epicurus held that this is established by observation that all young animals pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and that these matters are so clear to us that no logical argument is needed to prove them.

– The error of praising pain and condemning pleasure arises because people do not pursue pleasure intelligently.

– The wise man chooses all his actions so as to produce the greatest and most lasting pleasure.

– This principle of action justifies and explains why we sometimes choose even the most dangerous of physical dangers.

– By pleasure we mean both physical and mental pleasure.

– The Stoics were wrong to condemn pleasure on the grounds that it is only active and physical, because they ignored the fact that pleasure also comes from mental contemplation.

– Compare the nature and life of the happiest man of pleasure with the most miserable man, and you will see that pleasurable living is the object of life.

– The error of believing that the goal of life is to live virtuously.

– Only the wise man can live the happiest life possible, and it is for that reason only that wisdom is valued.

– Only the courageous, patient, diligent, watchful, and industrious man can live the happiest life possible, and it is for that reason only that these virtues are valued.

– Only the just man can live the happiest life possible, and it is for that reason only that justice is valued.

– In short, all virtues are praise-able and desirable only because they secure pleasurable living.

– The pleasures of the mind may be more intense than the pleasures of the body, but the body and mind are inseparable and thus all pleasures are connected with the body.

– It is a pleasure to remove pain, but the removal of a pleasure does not necessarily lead to pain, because our minds have a ready store of past pleasures to reflect on.

– The Stoics are foolish in their characterization of virtue as the only good, and their divorce of virtue from pleasure.

– Fortune has but little power over the wise man.

– The philosophers of Logic and Dialectic, who ignore pleasure and the study of nature are of no help in living happily.

– Friendship is essential for living happily.

– The philosophy of Epicurus is more clear and plain than the sun itself in establishing that pleasurable living is the goal of life, and how to achieve it.

……………………………………………………

You can see why some people objected to Epicureanismas as being self-indulgent, if you read the above superficially. What Cicero left out is what gives a human being pleasure. It is giving of oneself to friends and loved ones; consciously trying to get on with everyone, however difficult and obnoxious; being polite, courteous and thoughful; avoiding stressful relationships; enjoying nature and the simple things of life; eschewing politics, avoiding the rudeness and vulgarity of modern life, and setting an example of tolerance and civility; thinking for yourself; and simply getting along with your fellow human beings

A sad day

Posted by on

I had prepared a blog posting for today, but feel unable to post it after the atrosity committed in London yesterday. I would be inappropriate, and even uncaring.

Such a savage attack had to be expected at some point.  But I would prefer to be silent on this occasion  in memory of the innocent foreign visitors and Londoners so brutally murdered and injured .