Lost sense of proportion has always characterized the parts of the media landscape which we call the tabloid press. A football star having broken his leg is more important than a major political crisis. In todays declining political climate this kind of focus also characterizes some of the political and governmental thinking and actions. A cleaning lady having stolen from an old gentleman can quickly lead to new laws.
This kind of shifted attention is also clear in connection with the murder of the dissident Saudi journalist Khashoggi. Clearly this brutal murder carried out by the Saudis is not a minor detail which should mainly be of interest for the tabloid press. It should indeed be sanctioned. But why is it catching so much more interest than the situation in Yemen? According to the UN and other aid organizations this country under constant bombardment from the Saudi led coalition is threatened by starvation and death on a massive scale unseen for decades.
It is bad enough that politicians of our time are destabilizing the world, as they remove rules, treaties and organizations regulating behavior in armament, international relations and trade AND replace this not with well-considered practices, but with actions determined by personal moods from ignorant politicians.
The decline of our modernity into unpredictable conflicts looks almost preprogrammed. But we do not need another disaster which in the number of dead caused by politicians, could be in the same order of magnitude as the genocide in Rwanda or worse. Do we want to end in future history books as those who added one more massive human-caused loss of life?
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Rules or suffering
Often modernities have seen a succession of violations of established unwritten and written rules for conduct. This both on the internal political level and in the relations between countries. In the beginning of a modernity this process can serve the fight for freedom from traditional oppression, especially when we are talking of internal politics. But in the latest third of modernities these rule-breaking processes clearly lead into barbary. And when we are talking about relations between countries, the rule-breaking processes during most of a modernity means ruthless treatment of peoples and countries, not least in wars. The end of rule-governed behavior between countries lead to destabilizations, more conflicts and the easier start of wars.
An end of modernities in the civilizations before us and probably also including us looks like a rule. It also looks like a rule that this ending involves conflicts and wars. But it is not a law that every modernity and all phases in modernities should be characterized by chaos, wars and suffering caused by rule-breaking decisions. In history we see many very different versions. The Orient was utterly chaotic in most of its modernity 750-1071. The second Chinese modernity in the Sung Dynasty and its neighbors 960-1279 was ordered and relatively peaceful. At least up till the onslaught of the Mongolians.
Specific political decisions play a crucial role in deciding the path of a modernity. Therefore it is very worrying to follow the present US president and administration, the triumvirate Trump - Bolton - Pompeo. They systematically retreat from deals and treaties. They break down rules and int'l alliances, organizations and institutions regulating the relations between countries. Of course they are aided in this by declined politicians all over the world and proteges like MBS. The triumvirate and their likes risk going down in history as those who turned the rest of the modernity of the Western civilization into a series of conflicts and wars (cyber and field).
In the light of the annihilative power of weapons of mass destruction an end to treaties regulating nuclear weapons like the INF Treaty is potentially catastrophic. And this so much more if the end of rule-based behavior in general destabilizes the world.
Monday, October 1, 2018
Betrayals of our history
The recent speech by the French President Macron before the UN General Assembly 2018 deserves to be heard and read again and to be remembered as a passionate warning to the World against the final decline which can destroy the democratic, cooperative and rule-based world order. Centuries from now it may be read by historians who will wonder why and how a historically minded civilization with a strong ability to work with the future in mind could stumble into chaos, demagogy and ultimately authoritarian rule.
Here I repeat the end of the speech.
__________________________________________
I know, my dear friends, that many people may be tired of multilateralism. I know that in a world where information clashes, where we have entered a world of showbiz, in a sense, freed of inhibitions, and where saying the worst things means being in fashion, making the news; I know that denouncing consequences whose causes one has cherished can be a crowd-pleaser; I know that championing cooperation and multilateralism may no longer be in fashion.
Then let’s not be in fashion any more, because we owe it to those who have enabled us to be seated here, because never forget that the genocides that led to your being here today were fuelled by the language we are growing accustomed to, because they were fuelled by the demagoguery we applaud, because we are currently seeing this international law and all forms of cooperation crumbling, as if it were business as usual – out of fear, out of complicity, because it looks good!
No, I can’t agree to that, because I come from a country which promoted the declarations that brought us here, because I come from a country which stands up, which has made a lot of mistakes and done a lot of bad things but has, throughout its history and international history, had something universal about it! It’s today, it’s now!
So don’t grow accustomed, let’s not accept all these forms of unilateralism! I can’t get used to these pages being torn every day, these betrayals of our history!
So I say to you very clearly: the century which has begun is watching us, and our children are waiting for us! Let’s resolve the crises! Let’s work together to combat all these inequalities, but let’s do so in a human way and with the stringency of our principles, our history, passionately driven by our universalism!
In any case, this will be my commitment to you, and I am counting on you for it.
Here I repeat the end of the speech.
__________________________________________
I know, my dear friends, that many people may be tired of multilateralism. I know that in a world where information clashes, where we have entered a world of showbiz, in a sense, freed of inhibitions, and where saying the worst things means being in fashion, making the news; I know that denouncing consequences whose causes one has cherished can be a crowd-pleaser; I know that championing cooperation and multilateralism may no longer be in fashion.
Then let’s not be in fashion any more, because we owe it to those who have enabled us to be seated here, because never forget that the genocides that led to your being here today were fuelled by the language we are growing accustomed to, because they were fuelled by the demagoguery we applaud, because we are currently seeing this international law and all forms of cooperation crumbling, as if it were business as usual – out of fear, out of complicity, because it looks good!
No, I can’t agree to that, because I come from a country which promoted the declarations that brought us here, because I come from a country which stands up, which has made a lot of mistakes and done a lot of bad things but has, throughout its history and international history, had something universal about it! It’s today, it’s now!
So don’t grow accustomed, let’s not accept all these forms of unilateralism! I can’t get used to these pages being torn every day, these betrayals of our history!
So I say to you very clearly: the century which has begun is watching us, and our children are waiting for us! Let’s resolve the crises! Let’s work together to combat all these inequalities, but let’s do so in a human way and with the stringency of our principles, our history, passionately driven by our universalism!
In any case, this will be my commitment to you, and I am counting on you for it.
Boring but Competent
Members of the German Constitutional Court
Nominee for the US Supreme Court
In North Europe Brett Kavanaugh's suitability as judge in a Supreme Court would be questioned also without him being suspected by some of attempted rape. This because of his partisanship and his belief in conspiracy theories. But no doubt a Liberal candidate could have shown an equal lack of neutrality.
Also, the reason for showing this picture of Brett Kavanaugh is not to show a "bad" or angry character. The purpose is to illustrate how derailed political processes have become in the United States. As earlier I use Germany as a counterexample. Here the Constitutional or Supreme Court is strictly neutral and its members are chosen in an undramatic procedure. Serious and conscientious work characterize its proceedings. Compared to the American way this may be boring, but exactly this is the ideal condition. Parts of the explanation for the difference between America and Germany is the greater specificity of the German constitution leaving less room for differing interpretations and also the confounding in the American constitution of the highest executive power and Supreme Court. But clearly the main reason is the downward spiraling of US politics.
This said, Brett Kavanaugh has some interesting and prophetic ideas concerning the power of the president. In the future we will indeed see a stronger and more sacrosanct presidency. This will be enforced by presidents and their followers either simply to gain personal power or in order to better control chaos. But in 2018 and with an unpredictable president the idea is premature...
Nominee for the US Supreme Court
In North Europe Brett Kavanaugh's suitability as judge in a Supreme Court would be questioned also without him being suspected by some of attempted rape. This because of his partisanship and his belief in conspiracy theories. But no doubt a Liberal candidate could have shown an equal lack of neutrality.
Also, the reason for showing this picture of Brett Kavanaugh is not to show a "bad" or angry character. The purpose is to illustrate how derailed political processes have become in the United States. As earlier I use Germany as a counterexample. Here the Constitutional or Supreme Court is strictly neutral and its members are chosen in an undramatic procedure. Serious and conscientious work characterize its proceedings. Compared to the American way this may be boring, but exactly this is the ideal condition. Parts of the explanation for the difference between America and Germany is the greater specificity of the German constitution leaving less room for differing interpretations and also the confounding in the American constitution of the highest executive power and Supreme Court. But clearly the main reason is the downward spiraling of US politics.
This said, Brett Kavanaugh has some interesting and prophetic ideas concerning the power of the president. In the future we will indeed see a stronger and more sacrosanct presidency. This will be enforced by presidents and their followers either simply to gain personal power or in order to better control chaos. But in 2018 and with an unpredictable president the idea is premature...
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Worst case scenario for America
Meghan McCain at the memorial service for her father John McCain:
"We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness"
Prophetic indeed.
One should always be careful in using historical parallels to predict the future. As said earlier, despite the parallel development of civilizations on the large scale, this is not a law, and above all, the details can vary considerably, both because of the distinct character of each civilization and because unique decisions and specific developments can have a large impact. This said, the parallels between America today and the Roman Republic in the last 100 years before Augustus (130 - 30 BC) begin to look frightening. Before I turn to these, I will mention three important dissimilarities:
- It is unlikely that we will see violence on the same scale as in Rome.
- We will not as in Rome see political leaders with private armies.
- Thus the conflicts will not be fought militarily understood as fights between regular armies.
The similarities that do exist, can be seen in several fields. Here three important aspects.
1) Violence
Rome degenerated into outright civil wars lasting most of the 100 years up to 30 BC. As said, this is unlikely in the case of the United States. But violence on a smaller scale is likely. Generally spoken, actions violating the spirit of the Constitution and extreme and polarized decisions will lead to bitter counteractions, and when power shifts, to opposite extreme decisions. The resulting bitterness can lead to violence.
When I talk about violence, it is not in the sense of ridiculous conspiracy theories. Obviously the Democrats will not start a new civil war or use violence if they win the next midterm elections. The only political leader tending in this direction is Trump, who in certain cases may be tempted to use a mob to intimidate opponents.
But what we begin to see now are self-started mobs demonstrating and disturbing political procedures. This was seen under the beginning procedure to appoint a further conservative Supreme Court judge, an act which in itself is a provocation against the liberals and against the Constitution.
But it can be feared that later, maybe after a decade or two, other political leaders than Trump may begin to command violent mobs. How far this will go is difficult to say. But one can fear ugly scenes in a country which gets torn by anger, and where the population is armed....
2) Mutually opposing institutions
The Roman constitution was a complicated mixture of different positions of power like Senate, Peoples Assembly, Consuls and Peoples Tribune, some having been added at new situations in history demanding a share of power to new societal forces. Together such institutions secured an intricate system of checks and balances like the American Constitution. Both systems of balance and mutual control were admirable and both constitutions functioned reasonably well for a couple of centuries. But at a certain time the tensions in society and the polarization between people from the two major political parties Peoples Party / Democrats and Senate Party / Republicans became too big. The tension and polarity could not any longer be channeled through and within the means of the Constitution. This happened in Rome around 130 BC and in America around 2000.
At this point different institutions of the state risk to be monopolized by one party while others try to remain neutral controls, and again others are used by the other party. They make opposing decisions and try to obstruct each other. This increases societal and political tensions further. This process began in Rome from around 130 BC and is now increasingly clear in the United States. The White House and the Republican right have their extreme agenda, the neutral FBI try to carry on its duties, Congress may soon be run by Democrats, Supreme Court will be taken over by conservatives etc. Such developments can be expected to continue and worsen and create much bitterness on the street and between the parties. Politicians will use drastic means to get and keep control of institutions and positions and to seize them from other politicians.
3) Divisions between the states
The Republic of Rome with its possessions was in practical terms often functioning very un-centralized, not least because the leaders of provinces were behaving as if the provinces were their private property. In case of conflicts between these men, the provinces were de facto run independently, and their troops fought each other.
American states are not the property of their governors. But politically seen the states are quite autonomous. This can be seen as another part of the system of checks and balances. In the case of disagreements with decisions from Washington this has tended to lead to the states partly following their own ways disregarding central orders. This will be increasingly likely if shifting leaders in Washington issue extreme and mutually contradicting decisions. We are already seeing examples of such increased opposition and denial of obeying Washington now under Donald Trump.
Separatism as such is unlikely (no Ecotopia), but states will de facto follow quite independent policies when they disagree with or feel disturbed by decisions from a chaotic center. Federal police may be used to force states to obey.
In sum, instead of checking and balancing each other, the different institutions and states will try to overrule and obstruct each other. In the worst case scenario we could see an America with different centers of power, each doing different things. Different institutions and different states carrying out different policies and a Washington with chaotic power-struggles and radically different policies substituting each other.
Increasingly, leaders using the voters or mobs as instruments will dominate over and reduce the parties to mere groups of followers. The Republicans are already showing signs of this. Periods of de facto dictatorship may be seen.
In a such future the conflicts, the chaos and the incoherence may tempt the military to contemplate seizing power, not so much because of the power in itself, but to create order and to let the country regain outward strength. As opposed to some politicians parts of the military and the intelligence agencies know that the United States do not operate in a self-sustained vacuum.
These developments offer sad prospects for the people of the United States, who will suffer under instability, violence and misgovernment. It could also be dangerous for the world because foreign policies will be unpredictable and because internal conflicts can be sought channeled outwards or overcome through external actions against common enemies. Still, as said earlier, the US position in the world will suffer. Hence the only beneficiaries from a thus declining America could be its enemies. As said in other posts, a major difference between America and Rome is that the Romans had no serious competitors and therefore could be torn apart by internal conflicts without loss of position in their world. Some US politicians behave as if the same was the case for America.
The sketched developments may continue several decades and eventually end with a permanent and hereditary dictatorship under leaders euphemistically called something like for example Supreme President.
"We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness"
Prophetic indeed.
One should always be careful in using historical parallels to predict the future. As said earlier, despite the parallel development of civilizations on the large scale, this is not a law, and above all, the details can vary considerably, both because of the distinct character of each civilization and because unique decisions and specific developments can have a large impact. This said, the parallels between America today and the Roman Republic in the last 100 years before Augustus (130 - 30 BC) begin to look frightening. Before I turn to these, I will mention three important dissimilarities:
- It is unlikely that we will see violence on the same scale as in Rome.
- We will not as in Rome see political leaders with private armies.
- Thus the conflicts will not be fought militarily understood as fights between regular armies.
The similarities that do exist, can be seen in several fields. Here three important aspects.
1) Violence
Rome degenerated into outright civil wars lasting most of the 100 years up to 30 BC. As said, this is unlikely in the case of the United States. But violence on a smaller scale is likely. Generally spoken, actions violating the spirit of the Constitution and extreme and polarized decisions will lead to bitter counteractions, and when power shifts, to opposite extreme decisions. The resulting bitterness can lead to violence.
When I talk about violence, it is not in the sense of ridiculous conspiracy theories. Obviously the Democrats will not start a new civil war or use violence if they win the next midterm elections. The only political leader tending in this direction is Trump, who in certain cases may be tempted to use a mob to intimidate opponents.
But what we begin to see now are self-started mobs demonstrating and disturbing political procedures. This was seen under the beginning procedure to appoint a further conservative Supreme Court judge, an act which in itself is a provocation against the liberals and against the Constitution.
But it can be feared that later, maybe after a decade or two, other political leaders than Trump may begin to command violent mobs. How far this will go is difficult to say. But one can fear ugly scenes in a country which gets torn by anger, and where the population is armed....
2) Mutually opposing institutions
The Roman constitution was a complicated mixture of different positions of power like Senate, Peoples Assembly, Consuls and Peoples Tribune, some having been added at new situations in history demanding a share of power to new societal forces. Together such institutions secured an intricate system of checks and balances like the American Constitution. Both systems of balance and mutual control were admirable and both constitutions functioned reasonably well for a couple of centuries. But at a certain time the tensions in society and the polarization between people from the two major political parties Peoples Party / Democrats and Senate Party / Republicans became too big. The tension and polarity could not any longer be channeled through and within the means of the Constitution. This happened in Rome around 130 BC and in America around 2000.
At this point different institutions of the state risk to be monopolized by one party while others try to remain neutral controls, and again others are used by the other party. They make opposing decisions and try to obstruct each other. This increases societal and political tensions further. This process began in Rome from around 130 BC and is now increasingly clear in the United States. The White House and the Republican right have their extreme agenda, the neutral FBI try to carry on its duties, Congress may soon be run by Democrats, Supreme Court will be taken over by conservatives etc. Such developments can be expected to continue and worsen and create much bitterness on the street and between the parties. Politicians will use drastic means to get and keep control of institutions and positions and to seize them from other politicians.
3) Divisions between the states
The Republic of Rome with its possessions was in practical terms often functioning very un-centralized, not least because the leaders of provinces were behaving as if the provinces were their private property. In case of conflicts between these men, the provinces were de facto run independently, and their troops fought each other.
American states are not the property of their governors. But politically seen the states are quite autonomous. This can be seen as another part of the system of checks and balances. In the case of disagreements with decisions from Washington this has tended to lead to the states partly following their own ways disregarding central orders. This will be increasingly likely if shifting leaders in Washington issue extreme and mutually contradicting decisions. We are already seeing examples of such increased opposition and denial of obeying Washington now under Donald Trump.
Separatism as such is unlikely (no Ecotopia), but states will de facto follow quite independent policies when they disagree with or feel disturbed by decisions from a chaotic center. Federal police may be used to force states to obey.
In sum, instead of checking and balancing each other, the different institutions and states will try to overrule and obstruct each other. In the worst case scenario we could see an America with different centers of power, each doing different things. Different institutions and different states carrying out different policies and a Washington with chaotic power-struggles and radically different policies substituting each other.
Increasingly, leaders using the voters or mobs as instruments will dominate over and reduce the parties to mere groups of followers. The Republicans are already showing signs of this. Periods of de facto dictatorship may be seen.
In a such future the conflicts, the chaos and the incoherence may tempt the military to contemplate seizing power, not so much because of the power in itself, but to create order and to let the country regain outward strength. As opposed to some politicians parts of the military and the intelligence agencies know that the United States do not operate in a self-sustained vacuum.
These developments offer sad prospects for the people of the United States, who will suffer under instability, violence and misgovernment. It could also be dangerous for the world because foreign policies will be unpredictable and because internal conflicts can be sought channeled outwards or overcome through external actions against common enemies. Still, as said earlier, the US position in the world will suffer. Hence the only beneficiaries from a thus declining America could be its enemies. As said in other posts, a major difference between America and Rome is that the Romans had no serious competitors and therefore could be torn apart by internal conflicts without loss of position in their world. Some US politicians behave as if the same was the case for America.
The sketched developments may continue several decades and eventually end with a permanent and hereditary dictatorship under leaders euphemistically called something like for example Supreme President.
Saturday, August 18, 2018
In continuation
In continuation: To see it from the point of view of the superpower USA.
If Donald Trump wins a second presidency dominated by hardline Republicans, things could begin to look bleak for the United States. Polarization and tensions will continue to rise to dangerous levels. The Democratic Party may not have the patience to continue to act as relatively maturely as it does. An eight year long period of hardline and chaotic administration would be harmful for both internal and external politics of the United States.
To achieve power in int'l affairs, both political tactics and longterm strategy is needed. It is not enough only to increase military expenditure ever more. This would suffice in a world like the Mediterranean 2100 years ago where no major opponents existed, and no weapons were too horrific to be used. But obviously neither is the case today. One just needs to compare US and Russian influence in the world. The Russians through strategy and tactics have achieved a remarkable influence despite a military budget which is microscopic compared to the American.
One important purpose for politics in a big power which is in competition with other powers, is to make ones own country fit for competition and potential conflicts. This both with respect to political efficiency and with respect to ones influence in the world. Societal tensions, political polarization and obstructionism combined with a foreign policy which is discontinuous in time and space, will not bring about this fitness.
A limitation to one presidency under Donald Trump aided by his followers could reduce these problems for the immediate future. But the tensions in American society and politics are very strong and deeply rooted and will continue to disturb efficient government also under other presidents. A fundamental change may demand an unlikely reorganization of the American party-landscape.
Of course Russia has been trying to influence US elections. Not to do so would be stupid for a power with limited economic and military resources. But to claim that Russia is causing the US political decline and tensions is obviously absurd. Also the United States have interfered in the politics of several countries for decades. The present US ambassador in Germany openly declared it to be one of his tasks to support rightwing populists in Europe. Thus mutual political interference is normal. But if it can be proven that a US president has colluded with foreign interference in America, then this collusion is of course another matter.
One last point: Denying former intelligence chiefs access to important information will not help building a base of experience important for strategic thought...
If Donald Trump wins a second presidency dominated by hardline Republicans, things could begin to look bleak for the United States. Polarization and tensions will continue to rise to dangerous levels. The Democratic Party may not have the patience to continue to act as relatively maturely as it does. An eight year long period of hardline and chaotic administration would be harmful for both internal and external politics of the United States.
To achieve power in int'l affairs, both political tactics and longterm strategy is needed. It is not enough only to increase military expenditure ever more. This would suffice in a world like the Mediterranean 2100 years ago where no major opponents existed, and no weapons were too horrific to be used. But obviously neither is the case today. One just needs to compare US and Russian influence in the world. The Russians through strategy and tactics have achieved a remarkable influence despite a military budget which is microscopic compared to the American.
One important purpose for politics in a big power which is in competition with other powers, is to make ones own country fit for competition and potential conflicts. This both with respect to political efficiency and with respect to ones influence in the world. Societal tensions, political polarization and obstructionism combined with a foreign policy which is discontinuous in time and space, will not bring about this fitness.
A limitation to one presidency under Donald Trump aided by his followers could reduce these problems for the immediate future. But the tensions in American society and politics are very strong and deeply rooted and will continue to disturb efficient government also under other presidents. A fundamental change may demand an unlikely reorganization of the American party-landscape.
Of course Russia has been trying to influence US elections. Not to do so would be stupid for a power with limited economic and military resources. But to claim that Russia is causing the US political decline and tensions is obviously absurd. Also the United States have interfered in the politics of several countries for decades. The present US ambassador in Germany openly declared it to be one of his tasks to support rightwing populists in Europe. Thus mutual political interference is normal. But if it can be proven that a US president has colluded with foreign interference in America, then this collusion is of course another matter.
One last point: Denying former intelligence chiefs access to important information will not help building a base of experience important for strategic thought...
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Please help, we are trapped in a dystopian nightmare
This is one of the political statements displayed during the concerts by former Pink Floyd member Roger Waters as part of his world tour "Us + Them".
The quote very precisely underlines the severity of the changes happened and happening to politics this decade. Many are not aware of the implications. Populism, mob rule or rather mobs ruled by demagogues and authoritarian rulers are destroying democracy. Diplomacy as a skillful art disappears and will be replaced by dictates, economic sanctions and the use of force from the big powers. Most people and even politicians seem not to be aware of the full scope of what is going on. After hearing or reading news about a new grotesque tweet from Donald Trump people go on to view the last cat-video on Youtube or read the latest social updates from the friends on Facebook. The postmodern loss of political interest in the public makes people accept Dystopia as the natural background.
What or who is responsible for the political decay? As must be clear from my earlier posts, I see the pattern of a political decline in the end of modernities as a typical phenomenon in civilizations. But it is no law . It does not happen by itself as the result of a such law. For each civilization it happens because of other developments, which are also not the result of laws. Hence in principle the decline can be influenced. But for a a total ending of the development in our case it is probably too late. It would have demanded early and concerted actions decades ago. By now the process has moved too far to be completely stopped and reversed.
But the decline is not a monolithic development affecting all with the same speed. When it concerns the degree of decline, there are differences between countries, between leaders and between political parties. This gives a possibility to influence the speed, the degree and the form of the development in a country as a whole and in the world. The balance of influence over society between such sources can be altered. More influence and power given to more declined leaders and parties can accelerate and aggravate the general decline as we see in a frightening degree with Mr. Trump and parts of his party. But more power given to less declined leaders and parties can postpone and dampen it. And here I take it as an obvious truth that the political decline is negative because it causes economic and political instability, tensions, conflicts and suffering. Therefore a postponement and weakening of the development is desirable.
Compared to Obama the contrast could not be bigger. Obama was probably one of the best presidents in the newer history of the United States. The policies were intelligent, well-considered, as consistent as is possible in a multi-facetted world, and they aimed at reducing social inequality and thus reducing dangerous tensions in American society. Trumps policies are on a level nobody would have thought possible except for pessimistic futurologists like me. And even for us, the shift is too big and comes too soon and too sudden. But this fact may entail hope.
I have earlier predicted that the Democrats could end like the Republicans and become irresponsible populists as well. But by now we are still far from this. The contrast between the parties is very large in the level of the decline. Parts of the Republican party have for some years been characterized by opportunist hunger for power no matter the cost for good governance of their country. Their obstruction of Democrat rule is notorious and is now even being extended into the future through the establishment of a large conservative majority in Supreme Court. In this way l'esprit des lois is blatantly disrespected. And the president is driving the decline to new depths.
But fortunately these forces are only one part of American society and politics. The Democratic Party is miles behind in decline, and many Republicans are very responsible people. Thus there are strong forces which can counterbalance the bad developments.
There is even the possibility that Trump as head of the Republicans is a such caricature -like and exaggerated version of the decline that it leads to general resentment and embarrassment. The possibility that his administration makes serious errors in its uncoordinated erratic policies, errors which result in so many problems that it makes people and politicians rethink. All this could lead to a counter-development in the form of a wish for a return to the more stable and well-governed days, a bit like a vaccine against too extreme decline. This could give support for both Democrats and moderate Republicans. Even though the comparison is not perfect, it could be a bit like the Roman republic which after the dictatorial and violent excesses under the "Democrat" Marius and the "Republican" Sulla returned to more orderly forms.
Roger Waters wants us to resist the decline. We should, but how? One way is to make people see the absurdities of the present developments. If the voters do not realize that they live in a dystopian nightmare, they will not vote to change it. The consequences must be made clear. Who is longing for conflicts, violence and authoritarian rule? But the message should not repeat the errors of the populists by polarizing society and degrading the voters of the opponents. Polarizations and tensions in society are fueling the decline. Also, it is important to remember that even though the Republicans are presently mostly affected by the decline, the problem is not political attitudes as such. It is not about left vs right. It is about extreme political views and actions creating polarization and tensions and about the modus agendi.
The quote very precisely underlines the severity of the changes happened and happening to politics this decade. Many are not aware of the implications. Populism, mob rule or rather mobs ruled by demagogues and authoritarian rulers are destroying democracy. Diplomacy as a skillful art disappears and will be replaced by dictates, economic sanctions and the use of force from the big powers. Most people and even politicians seem not to be aware of the full scope of what is going on. After hearing or reading news about a new grotesque tweet from Donald Trump people go on to view the last cat-video on Youtube or read the latest social updates from the friends on Facebook. The postmodern loss of political interest in the public makes people accept Dystopia as the natural background.
What or who is responsible for the political decay? As must be clear from my earlier posts, I see the pattern of a political decline in the end of modernities as a typical phenomenon in civilizations. But it is no law . It does not happen by itself as the result of a such law. For each civilization it happens because of other developments, which are also not the result of laws. Hence in principle the decline can be influenced. But for a a total ending of the development in our case it is probably too late. It would have demanded early and concerted actions decades ago. By now the process has moved too far to be completely stopped and reversed.
But the decline is not a monolithic development affecting all with the same speed. When it concerns the degree of decline, there are differences between countries, between leaders and between political parties. This gives a possibility to influence the speed, the degree and the form of the development in a country as a whole and in the world. The balance of influence over society between such sources can be altered. More influence and power given to more declined leaders and parties can accelerate and aggravate the general decline as we see in a frightening degree with Mr. Trump and parts of his party. But more power given to less declined leaders and parties can postpone and dampen it. And here I take it as an obvious truth that the political decline is negative because it causes economic and political instability, tensions, conflicts and suffering. Therefore a postponement and weakening of the development is desirable.
Compared to Obama the contrast could not be bigger. Obama was probably one of the best presidents in the newer history of the United States. The policies were intelligent, well-considered, as consistent as is possible in a multi-facetted world, and they aimed at reducing social inequality and thus reducing dangerous tensions in American society. Trumps policies are on a level nobody would have thought possible except for pessimistic futurologists like me. And even for us, the shift is too big and comes too soon and too sudden. But this fact may entail hope.
I have earlier predicted that the Democrats could end like the Republicans and become irresponsible populists as well. But by now we are still far from this. The contrast between the parties is very large in the level of the decline. Parts of the Republican party have for some years been characterized by opportunist hunger for power no matter the cost for good governance of their country. Their obstruction of Democrat rule is notorious and is now even being extended into the future through the establishment of a large conservative majority in Supreme Court. In this way l'esprit des lois is blatantly disrespected. And the president is driving the decline to new depths.
But fortunately these forces are only one part of American society and politics. The Democratic Party is miles behind in decline, and many Republicans are very responsible people. Thus there are strong forces which can counterbalance the bad developments.
There is even the possibility that Trump as head of the Republicans is a such caricature -like and exaggerated version of the decline that it leads to general resentment and embarrassment. The possibility that his administration makes serious errors in its uncoordinated erratic policies, errors which result in so many problems that it makes people and politicians rethink. All this could lead to a counter-development in the form of a wish for a return to the more stable and well-governed days, a bit like a vaccine against too extreme decline. This could give support for both Democrats and moderate Republicans. Even though the comparison is not perfect, it could be a bit like the Roman republic which after the dictatorial and violent excesses under the "Democrat" Marius and the "Republican" Sulla returned to more orderly forms.
Roger Waters wants us to resist the decline. We should, but how? One way is to make people see the absurdities of the present developments. If the voters do not realize that they live in a dystopian nightmare, they will not vote to change it. The consequences must be made clear. Who is longing for conflicts, violence and authoritarian rule? But the message should not repeat the errors of the populists by polarizing society and degrading the voters of the opponents. Polarizations and tensions in society are fueling the decline. Also, it is important to remember that even though the Republicans are presently mostly affected by the decline, the problem is not political attitudes as such. It is not about left vs right. It is about extreme political views and actions creating polarization and tensions and about the modus agendi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)