Suicide in America

Posted by on

According to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the overall suicide rate has increased by 25% in the US and by more than half in some states. It means that around 16 out of every 100,000 Americans will take their own life. Nearly 45,000 Americans of all ages, genders, races and and ethnic groups took their own life in 2016 alone. There were 25 states that had increases of more than 30%. Nearly all of those states are in the western and Midwestern regions of the US.

Relationship issues, financial troubles and rural origin (isolation, lack of healthcare) tend to be top factors contributing to suicide across the country. Mental health systems are struggling, there is a stigma associated with mental health, and training for mental health professionals is poor.

Then there are the guns. A vast majority of deaths from firearms are suicides. In fact, two-thirds of gun-related deaths in America are suicides. While there is a relationship between serious mental illness and suicidal behaviour, the suicide rate cannot solely be put down it. Economic conditions or livelihood opportunities in decline are also factors, along with substance abuse, poor physical health, job and legal problems.

Encouraging people to go to therapy and using mental health professionals to help “change dysfunctional thinking” seems a sensible goal, and – heaven knows how you do it – helping people to feel connected and belonging to a caring community is another important objective. (based on a BBC item, 9 June 2018)

Strange. Back in the 1960s America was known for its community spirit, which came across to me forcibly, traveling around the country on two extended occasions, hitch-hiking and meeting people of all ages and conditions. The feeling of togetherness was very strong and a startling change from the reserved nature of middle class life in England. What on Earth happened to turn an all-jolly-together country into a mass of isolated individuals living in a more crude and more harsh environment (I exaggerate a bit)? The decline of religion, maybe? The loss of jobs, where you work with others? Increased crime? In the old days homelessness was rare. Now it is everywhere in the cities. American military power encompasses most of the world, while society falls apart at home.

The urge to bring the whole system crashing down (e.g elect a President that will do just that) is a symptom of rural desperation and the suicide phenomenon? But what to do about it?

Suggestions?

The more excessive salaries are publicized, the higher they go

Posted by on

Many of us dread the monthly credit card statement and plan, maybe, for a leaner month. But for CEOs such as Persimmon’s Jeff Fairburn, who was recently awarded a bonus of almost £110m, “it will still feel like Christmas”. The same goes for lavishly rewarded university vice-chancellors and the handful of GPs identified as earning more than £400,000 a year. You might have thought greater transparency over high pay awards would foster moderation, but quite the contrary: for the big beasts of the corporate “jungle”, knowing what other people get simply fuels demand for ever-higher pay. It’s about status, not about need.

Yet excessive pay awards are dangerously corrosive: they destroy staff morale and fray the ties that bind societies together. As inflation eats into wages, the issue will become a political “flashpoint”. If businesses won’t take action, the Government should legislate to make shareholder votes on pay binding. “The rest of us should start buying shares and voting.” (Camilla Cavendish, The Sunday Times)

I remember, at business school, being told that “talent was multi-national”, and that to compete European businesses had to at least match American remuneration. Thus the rot spreads. British businessmen gleefully point to the salaries of similar companies in America and, presumably, threaten to move elsewhere if they don’t get the same or similar pay, without reference to cost of living or the widening gap with the workers. This bogus stuff was being touted by business schools in the 1980s! Reform them or close them down, the business schools I mean. They can be useful introduction to finance for a small minority, but otherwise they are of little use to society. In my opinion.

Evidence and religion

Posted by on

“If God answers prayers, we should see miraculous effects of prayer. With millions of prayers having been said every day for thousands of years, we would expect some to have been answered by now in a verifiable way. They have not.

“If God has revealed truths to humanity, then these truths should be testable. Over the millennia many people have reported religious or mystical experiences in which they have communicated with one god or another. By now, we should have seen some confirming evidence for this, such as a verifiable fact that could not have been in the person’s head unless it was revealed to them. We have not.

“If God is the creator of the universe, then we should find evidence for that in astronomy and physics. We do not. The origin of our universe required no miracles. Furthermore, modern cosmology suggests an eternal “multiverse” in which many other universes come and go.
If humans are a special creation of God, then the universe should be congenial to human life. It is not.

“Theists claim that the parameters of the universe are fine-tuned for human life. They are not. The universe is not fine-tuned for us. We are fine-tuned to the universe. After evaluating all the evidence, we can conclude that the universe and life look exactly as they would be expected to look if there were no God.

“Finally, I would like to comment on the folly of faith. When faith rules over facts, magical thinking becomes deeply ingrained and warps all areas of life. It produces a frame of mind in which concepts are formulated with deep passion, but without the slightest attention paid to the evidence. Nowhere is this more evident than in the US, where Christians who want to convert the nation into a theocracy have tried to dominate the Republican party. Blind faith is no way to run a world”. (part of an article on religion by Victor J. Stenger)

To me this sounds eminently sensible, except for the condideration that mankind needs to believe in something, aside from money and survival. This being the case it behooves us to treat this matter with kindness, understanding and consideration. Religion fills a role for some people, even as their number drops. The problem comes when they get involved in party politics.

Aristotle and self-interest

Posted by on

Aristotle believed that happiness was central purpose of human life and a goal in itself. That is, happiness depends on the cultivation of individual virtues, including physical as well as mental well-being. He argued that virtue is achieved by maintaining the Mean, which is the balance between two excesses.

Aristotle is a main advocate of egoism. He believed that for humans to be happy and to flourish, human beings ought to cultivate their self-interest. For Aristotle, every man is an end in himself and not a means to an end for others. Going against the belief of altruism (that morality consists in living for others or society), Aristotle believes that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself (going back to man being an end in himself, not a means). Man must work for his rational self.

I think Arostotle was proposing a more self-centered approach to life than Epicurus. The latter put much more emphasis upon toleration and friendship. To him society had to hang together, or its constituent parts would hang separately. The influence here was the roiling wars that touched the lives of so many Greeks of his era. Be moderate, he said, seek happiness, yes, but self-interest had to be tempered with coperation, compromise and an understanding of other people’s motivations and interests. We need a message like this to go out, particularly to the divided American people or, yes, we’ll all hang together.

Only in America!

Posted by on

The Washington Post, on Thursday 26 April, carried an article about the increasing number of unmarried people (at least, I assume they are all unmarried). who desperately miss human physical contact and who are paying about $80 a time to be cuddled, non-sexually of course, by professional cuddlers.

Cuddling shops have apparently opened in Portland and Los Angeles. The article states that commercial cuddling is “an antidote to a culture where casual physical contact seems elusive”, the more so since the Me-too movement would seem to make men think twice or three times before they seek physical contact with a woman.

The percentage of American adults living without a spouse or partner has risen from 39% to 42% in the past 10 years, according the Pew Research Center, an increase that could have been enhanced by the last election and the anxiety we all feel about the direction of the country. For many people a professional cuddle is the first human connection of their lives. For others it teaches them how to deal respectfully with the opposite sex, without being accused of anything. The US is supposed to be one of the most touch-averse countries in the world. The demand is big. Cuddlist, the most prominent website that deals with cuddling (I am not making this up) lists 10,000 requests from punters. Good luck to them!

All of which gives new meaning to the phrase “service industry”. But it’s very sad indeed and, at its extreme, must partly explain gun violence by lonely young men who feel unloved and unappreciated, whose parents never had a clue about child rearing. and who don’t know how to woo a young woman (mmmh. good idea for a new career – Wooing the Gentle Way Inc)

Should California declare independence?

Posted by on

California is a wonderful state. It enjoys the world’s best tech companies, bountiful and increasingly eco-friendly energy resources, a entertainment industry unparalleled in global clout, a vast array of productive and innovative businesses, and almost perfect weather.

But in recent years, and particularly since Trump became president, Californians feel increasingly dissatisfied with Washington. On every major policy area, from climate change to healthcare and immigration, the federal government makes decisions which are hopelessly unpopular with Californians. In 2016, there was a swing towards the Republicans nationwide, but a swing towards the Democrats in California. Trump primarily appeals to working-class whites without a college degree, who feel hurt by globalisation and deindustrialisation, and are sceptical of the benefits of America’s shifting demographics. California has far fewer nostalgic nationalists. With its highly globalised economy and socially liberal values, the Golden State couldn’t be more at odds with the Republican Party as it currently stands.

Given that for the foreseeable future, Republicans are likely to control the federal government roughly half of the time, the notion of California leaving the US seems increasingly enticing. Were it to be independent, California would be the fifth-largest economy in the world- larger than the UK despite having 20 million fewer people. Independence would allow it to lower tariffs and taxes, not held back by having to subsidise much of the rest of the US. The opportunity for a clean slate on the tax code and regulatory structure could make the state far more competitive. Equally, California could take decisive action on issues where the federal government has dithered for far too long. Without the bizarre climate change denial of the GOP, California could be even more of a world-leader in environmental policy than it already is. A Sacramento-based EPA would take proper action to reduce the state’s poor air quality. On healthcare, California could deliver a proper system of universal healthcare, not the messy compromise that is the Affordable Care Act. Perhaps most significantly, the state would no longer feel embroiled in a culture war with the conservative parts of the US. California could pass comprehensive gun control laws and immigration reform, knowing those policies enjoy the support of a healthy majority.

Appealing as all of that may seem, I would not vote for independence were I a Californian. Partly because such a move would be economically damaging. There would be no guarantee of Californian NATO membership; trade restrictions with the rest of North America would be immensely harmful. Even if after a long series of negotiations with a potentially hostile Washington, California were allowed tariff-free trade with NATO, the economy would still suffer. As Britain is finding out, tariffs are only a small part of trade. Regulatory standards and customs arrangements are even more significant. If California leaves the American single market, its companies would face vastly increased costs when doing business with the US. Were California to remain aligned to the US, it would have to obey regulations it had no say over. For California to have an independent trade and immigration policy, there would be a border between the state and the rest of the US, which would disrupt the movement of goods and people, particularly given the degree of border militarisation needed to stop drugs and guns being smuggled from Mexico.

More importantly, an independent California would have a stiflingly liberal political consensus. Democrats would win virtually every election, even if the California Republican Party moderated considerably. Even more so than today, liberal Californians would feel superior to the rest of the US, knowing their ideals can be implemented without a serious challenge. Californian Democrats conveniently ignore the shortcomings of their state, something which independence would make more common. Housing costs are extremely high, something which independence wouldn’t solve. Poverty is unusually high, especially after housing costs are taken into account. For all its progressivism, California is amongst the most unequal of the US states. Wealthy tech workers and media figures live alongside deprived immigrants from Latin America. The education system leaves much to be desired, even if it is challenged by a high number of non-English speakers. Gas prices are higher than in the rest of the US, yet the infrastructure isn’t any better. California’s Democrats need to be robustly challenged, and it isn’t clear independence would achieve that.

The point is that California has a lot going for it. But it isn’t so exceptional that it deserves independence. Liberals may resent the conservatism of the rest of the US. But America’s federal system already gives states a lot of autonomy, and conservative ideas have a lot of value, even if Trump’s crude nationalism isn’t fit to hold Californian progressivism to account. Rather, California should lead by example. If its policies result in better outcomes, then other states will follow. Equally, if other states, particularly those governed by Republicans are better off, then California should learn from them. Instead of leaving the US and wishing its often toxic politicians away, California should embrace America and engage with it. By leading from within, California can make everyone happier.

A poem about climate change

Posted by on

Climate change – An apology

What will they say of us when we are gone,
When it dawns on them all that their grandparents knew
(As they wrestle with flooding, starvation and storms)
Of the turmoil their world would be struggling through?
What will they think of us selfishly set
Upon motors and holidays, easily bought,
And the choking pollution discharged in the air
We contribute to blithely with scarcely a thought?

Will they wonder at pineapples flown from Hawaii
While the frost and the snow are still thick on the ground?
Fresh flowers from Colombia, well out of season,
At a cost to the planet, unseen but profound?
Will they say, “Our grandparents, whom we still remember,
Knew that the pole-ice was melting away.
They heard the debates about currents and oceans,
But greeted each fact with a passive dismay.

They knew in their hearts that some real sacrifice
Was required, some remedial money and labour.
They said the right things, but still hoped against hope
That appropriate restraint would commence with their neighbour.
They worried a lot about hurricanes, storms,
And the lot of the seals and the few polar bears.
But they sighed with relief when the skeptics said “Whoa,
It won’t happen, (at least, not for fifty-odd years).”

“Don’t worry,” they said, “keep the growth rolling on.
Keep spending and wasting, don’t take the full brunt.
The grand-kids will have to shape up or ship out;
For if it’s an issue it’s tough to confront.
We agree there’s a problem. Solutions are hard.
The science is sound and now fully attested.
But big money talks, we’re needing the income,
And the interests? Well, you can guess, they are vested.”

Our grandchildren will say, “So the power plants belched on,
And at some point the balance just toppled and tipped,
Mother Nature triumphant is taking Her toll,
And our wings and our science are thwarted and clipped.
Now the sea levels rise and the lowlands are swamped.
There are millions of homeless of every race.
And nations once stable are riven with warfare
And death stalks the Earth at a gathering pace.”

“Fresh water’s a problem, high prices of food,
And flooding at unusual times of the year.
With business disrupted and jobs on the line,
People are nervous, distracted with fear.
Southern Europe’s becoming a desert with sand;
Its desperate people are trekking up north
Joined by North Africans, starving and sick,
Who’ll be turned back or halted at gunpoint henceforth”.

Yes, we curse the short-sighted, the venal, the blind,
Who carelessly caused us this terrible plight,
Who lived comfortable lives in a state of denial
And whose gifts to the world were, in retrospect, slight.
Some were bought and created those bogus statistics;
They twisted the science, unconscionably lied.
Some bullied the serious people who warned them
And none had the courage and faith to decide.

Man will react, if at all, in a crisis,
When the ambitious and greedy have backs to the wall.
Now speeches and meetings are all we can offer.
I apologize, kids, for us all to you all!

Robert Hanrott, January 2008

The lurking threat to British democracy

Posted by on

A short while ago this blog was discussing Brexit and the right wing of the Conservative Party. In the course of this I mentioned Jacob Ress-Mogg as a potential Prime Minister, and rather soon unless unforeseen events stop it.

Two decades ago Jacob’s father, William, wrote a book, or manifesto, called .”The Sovereign Individual: How to Survive and Thrive during the collapse of the Welfare State”. This tract was co-authored by James Dale Davidson who specialised in advising the rich how to profit from economic catastrophe.

One of the premises of the publication is that liberal democracies operate like criminal cartels, forcing citizens to surrender large portions of their wealth to pay for welfare, hospitals and schools, and that they will consequently fail. The tract suggests a “cognitive elite” should then seize power to create corporate city-states and redesign government to suit their own ends.

This is the political mantra apparently enthusiastically supported by Jacob Rees-Mogg. It explains why Brexit is the first big objective of the extreme Right. Once we are “free” of the EU and its ridiculous protections for the consumer and the undeserving poor, a proper government of the rich and deserving can make Britain a sanctuary for every corrupt creep in the world, and ordinary working Brits can either join the ranks of the blessed or get lost.

I have to point out that this objective is not shared by all conservatives by any means. Traditional conservatives, mostly old and comfortable, will lose out, too, presumably losing their State pension and other benefits offered to the elderly. Few people really want to dismantle the Welfare State, imperfect though it is. But there are those, as everywhere in the world, who would vote for a one-eyed gorilla if it stood for election under the banner of the party of their choice. For those of us who share with Epicurus the ideals of moderation and inclusivity the triumph of the Rees-Moggs of the world would be tantamount to a political coup. We are in that sort of historically recurring era of turmoil.
(part of an article,excerpted from Prospect Magazine, May 2018, by Sonia Burnell)

The US is running out of babies

Posted by on

The United States’ fertility levels have been below replacement level — the level at which a given generation can exactly replace itself, usually 2,100 births per 1,000 women — since 1971. Immigration has has kept population statistics on the level.

Recently the National Center for Health Statistics reported that U.S. fertility had fallen to a record low — for the second straight year. The fertility rate declined to 60.2 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age, down 3 percent from 2016. The number of births in the United States fell 2 percent to 3.85 million, the lowest in 30 years. In fact, the only group for whom birthrates have risen this year is women over 40. This slump began during the 2008 recession. Now the recession has ended but the baby numbers haven’t picked back up. Millennials are not just not buying houses and not setting up their 401(k)s, but many of them are postponing other parts of their lives, too, including childbirth.

Some people put this trend down to too much Netflix and preoccupation with cellphones and social media. Others to nervousness about financial stability, the modern lack of job security, parental benefits and profamily policies in most U.S. workplaces. Still others suspect that young people are actually enjoying themselves with expensive dinners out, pricey gym subscriptions, fancy holidays and nice clothes (and why not?) The main reason, however, may lie in the growing empowerment of women, who now have more choices than ever before and have been putting off childbirth to pursue careers.

Does this matter? One can argue that the Earth is already over-populated and that we are wrecking the environment of the one planet we have. Turmoil, mass migration and warfare are all on the cards with climate change and world population heading ever upwards. But those who disagree, and fear dropping population, point to Japan, which has the world’s lowest birthrate and has lost 1 million people over the past five years. It faces social decline, a lack of meaning, and an increase in loneliness.

If I had to choose I would prefer the Japanese-style population decline, in a peaceful and law-abiding mode, to the winner-take-all, capitalist preoccupation with a never-ending growth that requires a constantly increasing population and leads to boom-and-bust economics and obscene wealth and poverty.
(based on an article by Christine Emba, Washington Post)

Dignitas

Posted by on

The founder of the Swiss physician-assisted suicide organisation Dignitas went on trial last Friday, on charges of profiteering and exploiting patients’ suffering for his own benefit. In Switzerland, providing assisted suicide services is legal as long as it is not done for “self-serving” motives. The case against Ludwig Minelli concerns the assisted suicide of an 80-year-old German woman who had left Dignitas 100,000 Swiss francs in her will. The woman was not terminally ill, and three Swiss doctors declined to help her die, before Minelli – a qualified lawyer – found a fourth. He is also accused of overcharging two other German women: a mother and her daughter, they had paid about 11,000 Swiss francs each, which is approximately twice the going rate. (The Week)

Everywhere you look you find people cheating! For some reason I imagined the Swiss to have more probity than others, and the doctors who helped those sincerely wishing to die I imagined to be full of the milk of human kindness (not, regrettably, available in your local supermarket). Instead, it appears that even the activities of Dignitas are alledgedly soiled by human greed and the exploitation of the old and weak. The increased acceptance of elective death has increased revenue for the service and has thus drawn the attention of the dishonest and the profiteers.

Given proper legal safeguards from just the type of story above, I support the right of all people to die in a civilised and way if they wish to be free of pain and misery. Our lives are our lives. They are the one thing uniquely ours, whether one is rich or poor. No priest or other busybody has the moral right to intervene, least of all jet-setting pastors. Unfortunately, this incident empowers the “sanctity of life at all costs” message of opponents of elective death, which is a shame, because the idea is legal in so few places and ought to be more generally available.

The kindness paradox: why be generous?

Posted by on

Humans are one of the rare animals to be altruistic. An ancient form of giving holds secrets about why we help one another without any promise of reward. In the Maasai tradition known as osotua – literally, umbilical cord – anyone in need can request aid from their network of friends. Anyone who is asked is obliged to help, often by giving livestock, as long as it doesn’t jeopardise their own survival. No one expects a recipient to repay the gift, and no one keeps track of how often a person asks or gives.

Forms of this practice exist all over the world. For instance, Fijians and Tanzanian slum dwellers all pitch in to help neighbours in need, with no expectation of being paid back. Even the Ik of Uganda, whom one anthropologist once vilified as the least generous people in the world, do it.

This generosity is driven by the unpredictable crisis. It persists because it helps to manage risk, which pays off for everyone in the long run. Even the best-prepared family can fall prey to catastrophe, such as a sudden illness. Disasters cannot be prevented, so need-based giving may have emerged as a proto-insurance policy. If you don’t help others they may not survive, and thus may not be around to help you. They work best when risks are “asynchronous” – when hardship is likely to strike one family and spare their neighbours.

What prevents cheating? The Maasai are most concerned with livestock, which are hard to hide. Furthermore, osotua requests tend to be made in public, so everyone knows who has asked and given – or refused to give. In other cultures reputation is the key. Are you generous, are you just a taker? If you are known as the latter, forget it.

In the Western culture people donate to charities (to people they don’t know personally) because they know there is a need, whereas people living in smaller-scale societies tend to direct their generosity towards people they know.

It is possible that the social upheavals that accompany climate change and sea-level rise could overwhelm conventional insurance and social-assistance programmes. If that happens, it is comforting to know that we can count on our neighbours for help. The number of good causes is bewildering, but if you care about your fellow men you give what you can. This is in the spirit of Epicurus and human decency. My personal favourite is Doctors Without Borders. (based on an article, heavily edited, by Bob Holmes, New Scientist).

Baby milk

Posted by on

The milk formula business is worth more than $45 billion globally, and projected to increase by over 50% by 2020 owing to rapid expansion in Asia.

The report* by Changing Markets Foundation reviewed more than 400 infant milks for babies less than one year old made by Nestlé, Danone, Mead Johnson Nutrition, and Abbott. It concluded that product differentiation is not science-based, but instead informed by research into consumer preferences, and guided by a desire to increase manufacturers’ market share and profits. In other words: it’s pure greed.

Breast milk substitutes are legitimate products for hildren who are not breastfed for whatever reason, but there is no excuse for brands like Nestlé to use manipulative marketing to exploit the vulnerability of sleep-deprived and cash-strapped parents.

Product differentiation is deliberately designed to appeal to the tastes and lifestyle preferences of parents, or prevailing fears and fads. Manufacturers including Nestlé then package their products in ‘premium’ ranges and charge exorbitant prices for what should be an uncomplicated and affordable commodity.

Decades of tireless campaigning by citizens groups, churches, and progressive politicians have led to international standards controlling infant formula ingredients and marketing. Stricter government regulation and enforcement is still needed, but is unlikely, given the free rein given to companies under the current administration. Only public pressure on brands can stop them.

One can see the same thing happening, only worse, in the pharmaceutical industry and many others. In a hyper capitalist world one has to expect profiteering, which is why we have Government to restrain the worst cheats and try to establish a level playing field, fining the wrong-doers enough to make them squeel and toe the line. There are crowds of people who say they want liberty and freedom from Big Government, which is fine as long as all they do is talk. But watch the self same people protest if they are the target of fraudsters and conmen themselves. Hypocrites! Sensible people can grumble but support rules made for the benefit of the whole nation. Competition should be lively but fair.
* “Milking It: How milk formula companies are putting profits before science”

The US: 50 years on and it seems the best intentions have come to nought

Posted by on

In 1968 the Kerner Commission recommended “massive and sustained investment in jobs and education to reduce black poverty , inequality and racial injustice”.

Now, 50 years later, public schools have been re-segregated, the gap between the teaching quality for rich and poor is among the highest in the world. Schools in the Northeast are the most segregated, and Americans living in extreme poverty (less than half the poverty threshold) has increased since the 1970s. Overall poverty itself remains the same today as it was 50 years ago. The total number of poor people has increased from over 25 million to over 40 million, more than the population of California. The top 1% receive 52% of all new income. Rich people are getting a better education, are healthier, live longer and are politically more powerful. Among a score of statistics too long to enumerate, black people have fallen even further behind. Their incarceration rate has risen 266% (the white figure is 248%)). In 1968 there were about 200,000 people behind bars, now there are 1.4 million, even though the murder rate has declined 35%. (NYT, March1,2018).

Is this something followers of Epicurus can comfortably live with? I don’t think so! But if this is the case, what can we actually do about it? The government is in the pockets of the rich and special interests, political constituencies are gerrymandered and the Supreme Court, which betrayed the country by allowing the free reign of money in politics, is about to become more reactionary as those with hearts retire or die. America will not be “great again” anytime soon. Given this scenario, to eschew politics is to tacitly submit to vulgar extremism, loss of rights and freedoms, to poverty for the majority, and possibly dnsuing violence. Explain, please, why I am wrong!

Why virtually everyone gets Italian politics wrong

Posted by on

Italy held a general election on 4 March. After weeks of deliberation, a government was formed, between the hard-right Lega Party and the populist Five Star Movement. But governing has been fraught. The ideological divisions are the coalition make forming a coherent policy platform challenging. Many of the policies, such as harsh restrictions on immigration, increasing spending on pensions, or lowering taxes, are unrealistic. Most absurd is the coalition’s position towards the EU, which is very much a have your cake and eat it approach. They love the free trade and subsidies of the EU. But they resent having to pay for it all. They demand wealthier European nations subsidise them to a greater extent than they already do. Such parochialism is quite rightly condemned by other EU nations, even if they cannot explicitly say so for fear of incurring the wrath of the Italian people.

In Britain, there are two standard responses to the new Italian government, and both are wrong. The first is the liberal-left response, which proclaims that the rise of Italian populism is due to EU-imposed neoliberalism and austerity. This is wrong for two reasons. The first is that Italian government spending is high, pensions are generous, infrastructure is good, and the debt to GDP ratio is 130%. With a rapidly ageing population and a policy averse to immigration, Italy has no choice but to tighten its belt. Secondly, the Lega Party won the most votes in the North, the wealthier part of the country. Were austerity to blame for anti-immigration sentiment, Lega would have done better in the South.

The other response to Italian politics comes from the Eurosceptic Right, which portrays the election results as a grave threat to the EU’s existence. Italy shows the EU is dysfunctional and riddled by divisions, vindicating Brexit and dooming European integration. This view is also wrong. Italian politics has long played to a populist tune. Politicians of both the left and right have promised the impossible. They praise the benefits of EU membership- mainly access to the world’s biggest market and somewhat generous subsidies. But they insist Italy is exempt from the more liberal aspects of the EU, such as an aversion to state monopolies shutting out foreign competition, or a generous policy towards refugees. On the Euro, Italy’s establishment is even more contradictory. They praise the benefits of belonging to a strong, stable currency with low inflation, low interest rates and the ability to use it in other Euro countries. But they pretend the need to maintain fiscal discipline as a Euro member doesn’t exist. None of this is new. The EU is no more threatened now than it ever has been. Ultimately, the problem is not the EU, which simply seeks to create the level playing field the Eurosceptic Right claims to believe in. The problem is with Italy’s internal politics: it’s dysfunctionality, corruption, and unrealistic expectations. Berlusconi, the leader of the centre-right Forza Italia, is just as much a populist and an anti-immigration fear mongerer as Salvini or anyone in Lega.

The solution to Italy’s political woes is not to indulge in sensationalist talk about the end of the EU. There should be a robust response to the opportunistic critiques of both the left and right. The EU cannot solve Italy’s problems. Rather, what is needed is honesty. Italy’s politicians should be frank about both the benefits and drawbacks of Euro membership. If the Italian people wish to leave the Euro, then everyone should respect that. But the Euro isn’t the main culprit of Italian discontent. The corrupt and sleazy nature of Italian politics, demographic decline, and an unsustainable social insurance system are all far more significant. Only an Italian willing to tell their people the hard truths and make the hard choices can save their country.