Bloody Liberals

I don’t know how Americans have come to restrict their vocabulary so much, but the dichotomy Liberals (which in the US is taken to mean left, from centre-left to loony-left) and Conservatives (meaning right-wing) seriously distorts any meaningful understanding of political science. Such acception empties the term ‘liberal’ of its authentic meaning. Liberal does not mean lefty!!!
When such flawed terminology is applied to morality is epistemologically wrong and just bonkers. It leads to the endorsement of an old-fashioned political duality left/right (what about the true liberals?), which in ethics becomes Manichean. In short: it’s nonsense.
The culprit this time are a group of ‘moral psychologists’, including Professor Jonathan Haidt, who has caused me great irritation by entering the world of political theory, philosophy and theology with the instruments of biology. It's a bit like analysing a poem with a ruler.
I’m not against moral psychology per se. It seems obvious to me that human beings, as part of the natural world, would have biological traits that would support the development of ideas and morality. You can’t play music without an instrument (I include the voice as instrument). I have no problem even accepting that some people might have a certain predisposition to behaving in a ‘moral’ way, such as giving to charity, having compassion of others etc. This is why, at least in Judaism, charity is charity when it involves a ‘sacrifice’, when it ‘pains’ you in some way. But this stuff is seriously flawed.

The ‘fun’ part are the tests. Haidt has researched the phenomenon of disgust, but his interpretation of the term is a bit off the wall and its application in the tests simply puzzling. I mean, one might not find eating paper disgusting, but if the question asks you to choose between a piece of fruit and paper, isn’t the one who chooses paper just an eejit?
It turns out my ‘disgust’ scale is higher than average. For Haidt this should mean that I have a strong sense of purity/sanctity, which is linked to mortality, the body, blood etc. I take it to mean that I have good manners!
They are clearly (badly) designed for Americans and many questions just don’t make sense. For example:

- Say something bad about your nation (which you don't believe to be true) while calling in, anonymously, to a talk-radio show in a foreign nation.

Err, just read my blog! I do mean what I say though when I write about Italy and the UK. I do not, however, ascribe the problems I encounter with both countries to inherent characteristics of the (ever changing) populations. I'd like to think my whinges are analyses of the socio-political situation at the present moment.

- Curse the founders or early heroes of your country (in private, nobody hears you).

If it’s in private and if they are dead, what’s the point of cursing them? Seriously, in Europe this doesn't make any sense. Besides, what is a 'curse'? A complaint? An insult? A shout for help? An attempt to break free from authority and affirm one's personhood?

- Renounce your citizenship and take one of another country.

I am a EU citizen, which means there’s no point in changing it to another European national citizenship. I wouldn’t give up my EU citizenship because it gives me more rights than probably any other. Besides, giving it up would require moving or applying for permanent leave and so on. I'm, of course, culturally European but citizenship is a legal category.


The problem with Haidt’s theory. These tests seem to aim to identify a 'instinctive' morality, however morality is contextual. There are always
conditions one is in and consequences for one's action. That's why biology can't measure it.
Haidt has developed the psychological understanding of morality from matters of harm, rights and justice to include other categories such as loyalty and authority, thus going beyond the individual. He claims that there are five psychological foundations for the world’s many moralities: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.
He also claims “Cultures vary on the degree to which they build virtues on these five foundations. As a first approximation, political liberals value virtues based on the first two foundations, while political conservatives value virtues based on all five. A consequence of this thesis is that justice and related virtues (based on the fairness foundation) make up half of the moral world for liberals, while justice-related concerns make up only one fifth of the moral world for conservatives.”

Haidt misses the point. He wants people to get on so if liberals and conservatives could understand each other a bit more, the world would be a better place. The point of Liberalism (European acception) is that you do not impose your morals on others. I might be part of a religious/political/cultural community, but I have the right to criticise it, act according to what I think is right, not just what the group or authority decides. So Haidt’s harm and fairness should be replaced with freedom of choice.

1. Language: Haidt makes assumptions about the meaning of the words he employs. This is evident in the tests, where one needs to apply their intended meaning and restrict one’s answers. For example, he mentions chastity in relation to purity/sanctity, what does it mean? To me, chastity can refer to many things, not just sexuality. When referred to sexuality, I interpret it as sex in a respectful and meaningful relationship, since I believe that there is something sacred about (respectful) relationships, love and sexuality (this interpretation of chastity is also part of the Vatican thinking). I would not interpret it, however, as ‘no sex before marriage’. However, I fear that Haidt attaches that narrow meaning to the world. Not to mention ‘purity’ which in Judaism is a rather difficult concept best explained as immanence. It follows that it gets interpreted and re-interpreted according to the context. Haidt’s rigidity of interpretation makes the whole exercise pointless.

2. Liberalism vs. Communitarianism: Haidt could have referred to the dichotomy of liberalism/communitarianism (which might require some political science). Of course, in this context, liberals are NOT Haidt’s lefties. In fact, arguably, many concerns of social justice come from the communitarian tradition rather than the liberal one. Haidt mentions policies of positive discrimination which are clearly not policies descending from liberal philosophy (although they might be adopted by liberal parties). As a liberal, I have some problems with communitarianism, however I believe that my liberalism comes from my morality and that our rights and freedoms are dependent on us living in a society. If I were on a desert island, I wouldn’t have any rights or duties, although I could play lots of records without bothering colleagues ;) (sorry, a Radio 4 moment).

3. Liberalism: real liberalism, unlike Haidt’s broad coalition of lefties, rests upon the idea of individual autonomy above community. It does not however mean that the individual is not in the community. Therefore, individual claims need to be adjusted to the ‘claims’ of the community. The idea of authority also presents difficulties. In traditional societies, the male ‘elders’ might have been the authority dictating the rules of behaviour, but we no longer live in a traditional society. The democratic ideal has sunk deeply into our conscience and ‘traditional authority’ has waned. However, if by ‘authority’ we mean legitimate ‘power’ such as the legal system, we are bound by it.

4. Utilitarianism: Haidt’s lack of political analysis seems to justify a utilitarian position with a streak of relativism. He argues that for those of conservative views, their attachment to order and perceived lack of change serves a human need. Morality goes beyond usefulness. You cannot justify harm or injustice on the basis of usefulness. Human beings are not pawns of society. This is fundamental to religion and to liberalism and this is why I think liberalism has moral foundations.

5. Modernity: personal autonomy is a modern philosophical category (and reality!). This means that I might consider the Talmud or the Bible authoritative, however I would interpret its teaching in the light of the ethical principles I derive from my tradition. This means that I don’t read the Bible literally, which is a relatively recent (200yrs) trend anyway!

6. Morality is contextual: in order to understand a situation in its ethical perspective, one needs to consider the conditions in which of the moral agent acts, the likely consequences, what brings the moral agent to act in a certain way. E.g. we can say that adultery is wrong, but if the adulterer has suffered domestic violence for years and fears leaving the spouse, is most definitely not the same. As I argued before, a moral dilemma is NOT about right and wrong, but wrong and wrong (with a bit of right on both sides probably).

The politics of the West Wing

I feel like being trivial today so here we go: the West Wing. Let me start by saying that I really enjoy the show. It’s well written, has rhythm and is generally well acted. Now, let me demolish it.

The boys' club: There is an underlying patronising attitude to the female characters, which I can't stand. It would have been nice if the writers had put more effort into making these characters more authoritative and credible rather than go for the good looks, shrill voice, 'I'm just a girl' character. That’s entertainment, I suppose.
However, I believe one can still be funny and goofy while making intelligent statements, such as like spilling your tea while pontificating about Rawls, a regular occurrence for some :).
The only ones who do not succumb to this fate are C.J., the First Lady and, to a lesser extent, Donna. Had it been a bit more female-oriented they could have developed the character of Donna, have a little more clash and attraction between Donna and Josh (Mary-Louise Parker as Amy Gardner can’t pull it off). C.J. should have become Chief of Staff at the end of the fourth series with Leo elected to something. With Donna working for the First Lady, the role of the First Lady could have been expanded too. They sort got stuck with a formula and didn't attempt to develop it. Shame.

It’s the economy, stupid: not in the West Wing obviously! The President is supposed to be a Nobel Prize winner in economics (whatever!), but economics and finance are hardly ever spoken of. When they are, the approach is so superficial to the point of irrelevance. I might be biased. I tend to think that there’s an economic aspect to nearly all things, especially in politics, but isn’t there? :)

The smartest kid in the class: there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of genius as dissociated from hard work and perseverance. Luckily, Martin Sheen has gravitas, charisma and tries to be a good guy so he can pull it off.

The retro feeling: the politics of the West Wing seems firmly set in the 1980s. I don’t know much about American politics, but the screen-writers seem to be living in their own bubble and enclose their characters in the West Wing bubble. No wonder the following of the show ended up being restricted to a particular section of society. No wonder only a few bother to vote if politics is so distant.
Everything seems to be happening inside the White House with Congress only getting a mention in passing, never mind the rest of the country. Unbeknown to the authors, theories of government/governance have changed profoundly and gone beyond the State vs. Free Market dichotomy. I don’t expect Aaron Sorkin to know about Public Value Management Theory, but a better grip, even on traditional politics, wouldn’t go amiss. I would have certainly liked more on Congress, the Cabinet and state politics across the US, which is steadily gaining prominence.
The other two big issues, which we are witnessing in the American primaries now, race and gender, are treated with lack of understanding and superficiality. I can’t believe that Amy Gardner, the head of the women’s lobby (whatever!) is asked to comment on the dichotomy ‘stay-at-home mum’ vs. ‘career-girl’ and after thinking about it (yep), she comes out with ‘I don’t care who stays at home as long as it’s their choice’ type of reply. Err … how about some research? How about the fact that the US are one of very few countries were statutory parental pay is not provided? Who can actually choose? What determines choice? How about the fact that women managers have started giving up their careers? Why not taking a look elsewhere where men are starting to value fatherhood and flexible working? Is there a class divide? Is there still a culture of division between work (public sphere) and home (private sphere)? By the way, the ‘fatherhood’ mantra from the feminists was full blown in the 1990s in the States. It needs better articulation in terms of policies and rights, but it has been there a long time.
The West Wing chickens out from the big questions and the difficult issues such as immigration, unemployment, finance and economic and social inequalities. They like international crises too much and don’t manage even to grasp the issues there. What happened to the old saying ‘write something you know about’?

I still enjoyed it though (notwithstanding intense moments of irritation). What I found interesting is the attempt to convey the idea of the American dream, in the tradition of Frank Capra. At first, it feels ... well ... American! It makes you cringe and wince, but then it seeps into you and lets you see a bit more.
It’s the sincere belief in America as an idea, as a country to be built, not inherited. It’s the mentality of a settler society, which is perhaps rather alien to us. Nevertheless, we face similar dilemmas. We would like our country and ourselves to be hospitable, to do the right thing, to uphold the law and defend minorities but we are faced with a very heterogeneous society where 'values' need interpretations that go deeper.
Governments look for answers in definitions of Britishness or Europeanness (remember the Constitution preamble?), and so do religious figures (see previous posts 1 and 2), but I feel they miss the point. They look at the past not for guidance but to pin down who we are and should be. I feel very European (which includes British) in my ways, habits, political philosophy etc. but I am a human being and my values, I believe, are human values. Freedom and equality do not stop at the border and we do not have the copyrights. As a wise man once said:

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

- Sir Ernest Benn

Is Muslim the new 'Communist'? Who is the new McCarthy?

I’ve come across an e-mail with rumours that Obama is a Muslim. The details can be found at Urban Legends and more on CNN, Washigton Post etc.
It is clearly a paranoid attack trying to induce fear in the electorate. The most uncomfortable aspect of it is the fact that it implies that American Muslims are not American. It is rather reminiscing of the McCarthy era, although I doubt this is what awaits us. It would be important, however, to see whether there is a new McCarthy out there, be it a group or just stupid individuals. Most importantly, what is causing the paranoia? The media, politicians?
This race for the White House shows that America, like most countries perhaps, has deep-seated issues with race, gender, pluralism and religion. It is claimed that American Muslims are more integrated than British Muslims. Yet, American society’s discomforts about race can potentially radicalise groups on either ‘side’ (albeit not necessarily bringing violence), when all this could be avoided.
The abortion debate in the States seems to me an example of a society that does not really accept pluralism and where fundamentalist groups (such as those who target doctors), gain a voice precisely because they are a niche and are therefore unrepresentative.
I believe pluralism is about liberalism. It is not about creating a million interest or identity groups, but about respecting one’s multiple identities and interests without labelling one. A Catholic is no less a Catholic for not wearing a cross or a Jew no less a Jew for not eating kosher (stop saying that they are ‘not practising’!). Above all, pluralism allows individuals to interpret their tradition and identity and to choose how to express it while respecting others. This is liberal democracy at its best and it does require diversity.

Clinton vs Obama in the 21st century

Yes, Clinton is arrogant, she's not a good communicator and is seen as divisive, but she has brains and substance. More importantly I don't think Obama can win. Europeans are holding the breath and crossing their fingers hoping for something good to come out of the Primaries and the election later this year. After all, the rest of the world is affected by the choice of President Americans make. True we (Europe) should be more independent and assertive, in the meantime ... can we have a Democrat in the White House?
Clinton is not likable but she was the one who put forward a comprehensive plan to expand healthcare. She seems to me as someone who still stands for the right things, in fact someone who stands for something. The problem I have with Obama is that he's insipid, all things to all men. He's smooth and likable and that's what irritates me. Is Hilary she seen as divisive just because she's not woolly? Is the American electorate fed up with the old regime? What's so good about being 'new' and with little life experience? I have noticed quite a few MPs on our shores (across the political spectrum) who are rather young and seem to have lived in a rather cocooned environment. They might be 'new', likable and even good looking, but I can't think anyone less suitable at making decisions and at facing the challenges of the 21st century.
My problem, though, is that way too much power is concentrated at the centre. Cities and states in the US should have more of a say, congress men and women should be elected differently and the American media should have more guts.
I'm amazed that 25 states are in favour of Kyoto (+various cities) and yet the administration doesn't care a jot. The democracy of the 21st century cannot be afraid of diversity, it needs to embrace it. The only way forward is by devolving power down and listening to people and local representatives. Local democracy is ahead of government in finding solutions and tackling global problems. In the post-national 21st the local blends with the global in ways that national governments cannot see. It is time institutions undergo reforms to adapt to the new century.

The Politics of God - yet more nonsense

Mark Villa’s essay ‘The Politics of God’ (N.Y. Times mag) couldn’t be any more coherent and yet wider of the mark. He claims that there was a ‘Great Separation’ in political thought with Thomas Hobbes, which led to a separation between religion and politics. Professor Villa conveniently separates morality from religion, so that he can blame, at least in part, ‘political theology’ for obscurantism of whatever sort, even Nazism. At first, I wasn’t quite sure where the problem was, so coherent was his argument. Alas, extreme coherence is what generally gives nonsense away: Professor Villa is rather confused about history. Just a few points:

1. Villa projects the present onto the past by inventing ‘political theology’. Beginning with the Emperor Constantine’s embrace of Christianity, political power adopted religion as identity and ideology, not the other way round. In Villa’s theory, theology (although he does not state which and at what particular time and place) is given enormous credit. Theologies are like philosophies, they tend to be for the few who read texts, like systematising the world and their ideas about it. Above all, theologians and philosophers, being human, are influenced by the historical and socio-economic conditions present at a certain point of time and place. Villa confuses theology with ideology.
2. Ideologies are theories with systematic and totalitarian tendencies as they generally claim to explain the world around us, and sometimes beyond, in prescriptive and all-encompassing terms. Ideologies can claim to guide social and political movements, but, even then, only when attached to power. The Reformation had much more to do with politics and economics than Villa would like to admit. More importantly, it would have gone nowhere had it not had political backing.
3. The real revolution was not ushered by Hobbes, but by the industrial revolution. In contrast to Hobbes’ absolute sovereign, the industrial age, dependent on science and technology, opened the door to the autonomous individual, once again arbiter of his/her own destiny, knowledge and beliefs.
4. On a minor point, Villa fantasises about a secular America, where disagreements over abortion, prayer and bioethics are settled within the bounds of the Constitution. Yet, fundamentalist religious ideology, in the United States, is very much encroaching on political rhetoric trampling upon individual autonomy and rights. Sadly, this is starting to happen in Europe as well. It would be wiser to give more credit to liberal religion, rather than running scared of religion per se. Liberal religion, influenced by liberal philosophy and liberal politics, provides theological ground to liberal interpretations of the texts. Fundamentalist religion, by contrast, provides literalist interpretations moulded by reactionary politics and philosophy.
5. Finally, why on earth does he go on and on about God as a ‘He’?

Senseless Death

I still managed to be shocked at the virus of the school massacres with which the US seems to be infected. Shocked, horrified, and yet, not surprised. Representatives of the gun lobby blame 'evil people'. For them, it has nothing to do with how easy it is to acquire guns in the US.
Of course it's people who kill, but if you know that there are people in our midst willing to kill, why do you allow them to get guns so easily?
The imbecility of the 'logic' of the gun lobby is stupefying. I struggle to believe that they themselves believe this nonsense. Somebody from one of the numerous gun associations, interviewed on Newsnight, kept saying that the students at Virginia Tech should have been armed so to protect themselves!!! Guns do not protect, they kill. In Virginia you can buy a gun a month, yes, one for each month of the year. Presumably they go out of fashion.
It seems to me that for these kids who kill other kids, guns are toys. For once in their lives, they can be an action movie star shooting at people. To affirm their individuality they end up conforming to the senseless images they are fed by the media. There is an underlying conception of freedom that is totally separate from responsibility. Tocqueville was right, the preoccupation to conform has led to radical individualism. Big business carries on undisturbed, the media are transformed in business and government is silent.
We live at a time where individual autonomy is sovereign, where relationships are amorphous and often of secondary importance. It is an autonomy borne out of conformism that rejects the community. Commentators often identify the killer in these all too often school massacres, as an outsider. Instead of recognising the need for communities to foster co-operation, they blame the individual. But that individual reacted to a society, one that was perhaps too atomistic and where freedom is detached from the ethics of responsibility.
While the families of the students killed grieve, the gun lobby profits and the US government abdicates responsibility.

Virginia Shooting

Hard Times

When she was freed, Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian journalist kidnapped in Iraq, was told to be careful because the US wanted her dead. She took no notice at that time until US soldiers shot at her. Nicola Calipari, the international operations chief of Italy's military intelligence service, was shot in the head as he tried to shield her. According to the Washington Post, the US had been notified that the car taking Ms. Sgrena to the airport was coming to the checkpoint. The driver said that they were travelling at 20-30mph, so why were they shot at? It also seems that the US soldiers waited 15 mins before calling for help. Why? According to Ms. Sgrena, the US don't like the payment of ransom and that was their way to stop it.
Instinctively I would be cautious and refrain from blaming soldiers for a premeditated attack. On the other hand, many other episodes come to mind: the tragedy of the Cermis of the 3rd February 1998, when the pilot of a fighter of the US Marine Corps performed reckless acrobatics and cut the carrying cable of the Cermis cableway, causing the fall of one of the two gondolas and the death of 20 persons. Although the American Court Martial acquitted the pilot and the navigator, the enquiry made by the Italian Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry clearly showed the responsibility of the crew members and their superiors.
Not to mention Ustica when, in 1980, the Alitalia passengers plane was shot down by ... err, we still don't really know. It seems that American or French naval aircraft launched an air-to-air missile at a Libyan fighter aircraft detected in the area. Since then, the 'allies' have done everything possible to cover up.
One should never underestimate incompetence, recklessness and ruthlessness, yet often there's also malice.
Hard times for Italy.

The United Altered States

Albert Scardino points out that the US Presidential election was extremely close and that the maps shown on the TV networks didn't really show that. I found, however, more intriguing the fact that many districts' boundaries were simply redrawn so as to fix the result. The Democrats had done this during their time, the Republicans simply did it more. Some districts' boundaries were like a long strip with residents caught up in the middle. This came from a very interesting programme but, as always, the most interesting things are at strange times on Radio 4 and there's no way of finding a link!
Best link, though, is this! Really nice :)

Fear & Prejudice

It seems to me that Bush won the election on a campaign of fear and prejudice. The war in Iraq clearly obtained only a destabilised country where terrorists can get easily hold of weapons, the death of something like 100,000 Iraqis and a country torn apart by war. Nevertheless, this was portrayed as being tough on terrorism which was made priority number one by President Bush following the attacks on the World Trade Centre. Had they been serious about terrorism they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place (but I've already made comments on this many times).
Bush & his team used people's fears to attack Kerry. Bush derived his following from 9/11. The attacks were a profound shock that will take time to heal. Bush, notwithstanding his total incompetence, profited tremendously from the fear the attacks generated. He gave Americans a twisted and simplistic picture of the world where an evil enemy was ready to attack them at any time. Mind you, Blair tried to do the same, it just looked ridiculous. Didn't we laugh when tanks were surrounding Heathrow waiting for a terrorist who turned up at Gatwick? (understandable mistake, they always lose your luggage at Heathrow).
I assume Americans want the President to finish the job, to make them feel safe again. This will never happen because Bush doesn't want them to feel safe. As long as people feel in need of protection, the administration will have almost unrestrained power over them.
Another issue might have played a part: gay marriage.
At the same time of the elections some states (including Ohio!) decided on whether to ban gay marriages by amending the constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This Republican campaign came in the wake of 4,000 gay marriages being celebrated in San Francisco this year in a month period. California's Supreme Court in August annulled the marriages boosting the campaign. (see article).
Did this do the trick? It certainly did for Ohio that even backed an amendment against civil unions for gay couples.
So 'religion' played a huge role in these elections. Or better, a certain type of religion, the religion of prejudice, suspicion and intolerance.

Florida's Lost Votes?

You must try this!
Bushflash
Also read the article