The slow death of public broadcasting

More than half the jobs in newspaper publishing disappeared between 2001 and 2016, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. It’s much the same story across the developed world, of course. Yet in other countries the loss of local print outlets has been partially mitigated by public broadcasting, which has helped fill the void of civic journalism left by the market.

“From Europe to Australia, the average country spent $86 per capita on public broadcasting in 2014.” America, by contrast, spent just $3. The Republicans have long taken a dim view of state funding of the media. “I like PBS. I love Big Bird,” presidential candidate Mitt Romney told an anchor of the public broadcaster PBS in a 2012 debate. “But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things that we have to borrow money from China to pay for.” This fits the Republican idea that there is no such thing as the “public good”. Everything should be private and have a price, and that way the richest get the loudest voices.

President Trump wants to eliminate the public broadcasting budget almost entirely. But there is one ray of hope in this bleak landscape. New Jersey’s legislature recently passed a bipartisan bill that will dedicate $5m to reviving and strengthening civic-minded local journalism throughout the state. It’s not much money, and so far no other states have followed New Jersey’s lead. But it’s something. (Michael J. Coren, Quartz. 22 Sept 2018)

Public BroadcSting Service) does a good job presenting the world news in a non- confrontational way, in contrast to, say, Fox News and CNN, which are partisan and only make token nods to inclusivity. The Democrats don’t have a monolithic set of policies and beliefs and have no broadcaster that represents the party view, except general opposition to the Republicans. Fox, however, seems to be the initiator and brains behind the Republican party – Trump spends many man-hours re-broadcasting their views, enhanced by exaggerations and plain misinformation. This is a crying shame. It’s legitimate to have local broadcast voices, working on behalf of both the moderate Left and Right, but Fox News is closer to propaganda and is neither moderate nor reliable. The First Amendment shouldn’t protect straight lies and misrepresentation that are devoutly believed by its ardent supporters. If you employ liars you get lies. Americans deserve better. Epicuruos disliked party politics for a good reason – it seems to bring out the worst in some human beings.

Dirty money in Britain

This month, Britain’s first unexplained wealth order (UWO) survived a challenge at the High Court. The suspect it targets – Zamira Hajiyeva – is the wife of an Azerbaijani banker whose annual salary is a mere £54,000, and who was jailed for defrauding a state-owned bank out of the equivalent of tens of millions of pounds. Mrs Hajiyeva owns a house in Knightsbridge worth £11.5m, a golf club in Ascot worth £10m and a Gulfstream jet; she also spent £16m at Harrods in the decade up to 2016. On one visit alone, she blew more than £150,000 on jewellery. Hajiyeva must now explain how she amassed her wealth.

Britain poses as a leader in the fight against illicit finance and corruption, but under the Government’s “golden visa” scheme, oligarchs and dubious foreign officials who shift large sums into the country are given “honoured status as inward investors”. About 3,000 super-rich individuals were welcomed on golden visas between 2008 and 2015, bringing in some £3bn in questionable cash, Hundreds of billions of pounds” in dirty money from kleptocrats and foreign criminals is laundered through British banks each year. Most cross-border corruption cases in recent years have had a connection to Britain or its exotic island dependencies.

If the Hajiyeva case is successful, her assets will be seized. The government also plans to launch a number of other investigations. However, this misses the point. The British “Always blame the EU” Government claims that that the EU has been preventing more vigorous policing. But Spain is trying 18 Russians for money laundering and France has just prosecuted an oligarch for crimes linked to tax evasion. The British may be pursuing an obscure banker from Azerbaijan, but the overriding concern remains to retain business ties with Moscow. Hence a key reform – to subject limited partnerships (the corporate form favoured by Russian crooks) to the money-laundering checks imposed on other private-sector companies – has been abandoned by the Government. The Kremlin’s “kleptocratic cash” is flooding in and ministers are pretending not to notice.

Buying elections, and all the rest

A small group of 11 hedge-fund billionaires, entrepreneurs, media bosses – and a casino mogul – have put $1 billion into PACs, or one fifth of the $4.5 billion collected for political purposes, since the Supreme Court ruled on the Citizens United case in 2010. Candidates and parties rely increasingly on these donors, who themselves are political players. The Adelsons, husband and wife, have given $287 million to conservative super-PACs, and were no doubt gratified that Trump realised for them their greatest wish – the move of the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Two donors, George Soros and Tom Steyer are positioning themselves for runs at the Presidency.

Technically speaking, super-paks are prohibited from coordinating with campaigns and party committees, but what they are increasingly doing is running advertising campaigns, conducting research, polling and encouraging voter turnout on behalf of favoured candidates, thus helping the latter hugely and allowing candidatesto concentrate on the message instead of the other aspects of campaigning. The excuse for this exercise in oligarchic power is that super-paks “help political donors exercise their right to free speech”.

Steven Law, president of the Senate Leadership Fund, which supports Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is quoted as saying he “could not speculate on what motivates individual donors”.
Let me try, then. Quid pro quos can include:

– Buying support for a run for office, not necessarily for President. See Trump’s Cabinet!
– Special treatment, e.g contracts, from the US Government for their own businesses
– Tax breaks for the “deserving” rich.
– An open door to numerous Congressmen, who would be delighted to write something useful into law that will encourage continued giving.
– Hob-nobbing with the President and other movers and shakers.

One could go on…………….

Citizens United, which espoused the corrosive and corrupting idea that “money is speech”. was arguably the beginning of the downward path for American politics, opening the door to the creation of an oligarchy, a small group of super-rich who effectively run the country and get what they want, manipulating the effete and incompeteant Congressmen, whose only priority is keeping (their) jobs, their good incomes, fancy houses, excellent healthcare and great pensions. This dismal situation was brought on by ….the Supreme Court of the United States, now solidly and safely right-wing and a reliable ally of the oligarchy. Some think the Justices will hold the oligarchs accountable. I don’t.

One finds it hard to summon up Epicurean peace of mind as we see the hollowing out of democracy. Either the creators of the oligarchy don’t realise what damage they have wrought, or are too selfish and power-mad to care. But, short of unacceptable violence, what can be done to stop this small gang and its hangers-on from permanently running the country for their own enrichment?

An occasional poem

The Greek island of Kefalonia: We came, we saw, we sunbathed.

Odysseus, who came from Ithaca, sited next door,
Found Kefalonia rather a bore.
No dragons, no beasties, no Charybdis or Scyllas,
Just a load of young Brits drinking beer in their villas.
From the earliest moment when he was a boy
He wanted adventures, like leveling Troy.
But although of excitements he had quite a lot,
He seemed to ignore this particular spot.

The people are friendly, the climate sublime,
The countryside scented with sage and with thyme.
The olives are ancient, the beaches are sandy,
The food is so-so, but the markets are handy.
But except for Corelli and his mandolin,
There is little to stimulate adrenaline.
It’s an excellent place to just lie in the sun,
But nothing occurs there, when all’s said and done.

No, history’s passed by this particular isle – –
A backwater now, as it’s been for a while.
Top Romans arrived, found the island quite pleasant,
But generally gave it away as a present.
The Venetians came by and proved a mild menace,
But the wine wasn’t good, so they went back to Venice.
The odd conqueror conquered, but quickly departed;
The British came too, but were rather half-hearted.

No sign of a palace of mythical kings,
No civilizations or mystical springs.
No rivers to hell and no acropoli
To attract foreign visitors happening by.
The hire cars are hired, but most sit in the sun,
For where would they go if they went for a run
No wonder the Italians and British all choose
The beach and the poolside, banter and booze.
—— – – – – ———
Relevance to Epicureanism? Life is getting far too serious. We must make fun, especially of ourselves. In this case I am the advocate of “the poolside, banter and booze”.

Has the Republican Party gone crazy?

According to some political scientists, America has undergone what is known as asymmetric polarisation, which is when both of the two main political parties become more extreme, but one becomes far more extreme than the other. In America’s case, both the Republicans and the Democrats have abandoned the centre, but the Republicans are far further from the centre than the Democrats. This video from Vox explains the concept well.

Asymmetric polarisation has several components. The first and most obvious one is ideological: Republican values have moved much further to the right than Democrats’ values have to the left. Particularly since Trump came to prominence, Republicans espouse a philosophy that explicitly rejects the liberal international world order. Globalism, free trade and institutions like the UN are denounced for trying to undermine the American nation. This contrasts heavily with the prior bipartisan consensus in favour of American-led liberal institutions facilitating democracy and capitalism across the world. Republicans are increasingly sceptical of alliances with democratic countries like Canada or Germany, and place greater trust in autocratic regimes like Russia or the Gulf states. The Republican tilt towards authoritarian nationalism is one which has no equivalent on the Democratic ranks.

Republicans are also increasingly wary of the institutions that make America function. Everything from the universities, the intelligence agencies, the courts, and of course the Fake News Media, are seen as enemies of the popular will. Amongst the more intransigent Trump supporters include conspiratorial notions of a ‘Deep State’ which is trying to frustrate Trump at every opportunity. This goes beyond usual ideas of an establishment- it finds any restraint on Trump’s exercise of power as illegitimate. Again, there is no equivalent on the Democratic side.

Republicans have lost respect for the norms that need to be respected if the political process is to function smoothly. Under Mitch McConnell’s leadership as Senate Majority Leader, the filibuster has been used at a record rate. The refusal to even consider Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, was a blatant abuse of the Senate’s power. Whether its the extreme gerrymandering of Congressional and state districts, the purging of voters from electoral roles, or shutting down the government over the funding of Obamacare, the Republican Party no longer plays by the rules. Instead, it openly plays dirty. Once again, no equivalent can be found with the Democrats.

Asymmetric polarisation has had severe consequences in public policy. When Republicans used to consider immigration reform, they now force migrant children from their parents. When they used to accept the science of climate change, they now believe it is a hoax. Republicans used to believe in government intervention in healthcare, as seen in Romneycare in Massachusetts, or Bush’s Medicare expansion. They would work with Democrats to achieve tax cuts, welfare reform or free trade agreements. Such bipartisanship is unimaginable today, except for perhaps a few Republican governors in the Democratic Northeast.

None of this is to say the Democrats are just as centrist as ever. On some social issues like gay marriage or drugs, the Democrats have moved considerably to the left, though that is partly due to a nationwide shift in attitudes.  The Democrats’ progressive wing has become more prominent, though it is yet to take over the party the way the Tea Party replaced the Republican establishment in 2010. Immigration is perhaps the issue where polarisation has been the most symmetrical. While Republicans have become more hostile to immigration, Democrats have become far more welcoming. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders framed deportation as an unnecessary abuse of human rights, rather than a means to enforce democratically-agreed laws. More broadly, Democrats embrace multiculturalism at least as enthusiastically as Republicans reject it.

But the most potent argument in favour of the asymmetric polarisation thesis is one which contextualises the Republicans’ shift to the hard-right in the norms of the Western world. The Republican Party at present is no longer comparable to other centre-right parties in liberal democracies, such as Germany’s CDU, Spain’s Peoples’ Party or Ireland’s Fine Gael. Rather, it has more in common with explicitly illiberal populist parties like Poland’s Law and Justice party, Hungary’s Fidesz, or even France’s Front National. Unlike the former and like the latter, it rejects free trade, is sceptical of supranational institutions and liberal globalisation. Its electoral appeal rests on pandering to xenophobic and isolationist sentiment. It disregards the norms of democracy, denounces universities and the media for their pluralistic values, seeks to entrench an inherent advantage in the political process. Most significantly, it places the whim of a strongman above ideological coherence or even a broad set of ideals. The Republican Party has gone crazy. America’s media ought to ditch the pretence of both sides being equally at fault, and report the truth.