California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

While China Builds Infrastructure in the Americas, the US is Disconcerted

by John Lawrence

How dare they, the Chinese that is, build infrastructure in South America! Why, that's our back yard, our sphere of influence. China is building an elaborate $3 billion port in Chancay, Peru. It wasn't that long ago that the US was complicit in a plot to overthrow the democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende who was a socialist. Be that as it may, many countries are turning to China preferring the building of infrastructure to the building of military bases of which the US has constructed about 750 in some 80 countries throughout the world. China is even bailing out Argentina financially. According to Reuters, Argentina's central bank said on [October 18, 2023] that China has cleared a currency swap line totaling a freely accessible $6.5 billion, part of a broader deal the South American country has been using to help it defend the embattled local peso. Many countries throughout the world are effectively saying to the US, "What have you done for us lately?" So the question is how can the US compete with a country who is building economic assets in other countries while all the US has to offer is the construction of military bases? Is it the world's policeman versus the world's builder, and which role will be more appealing?

"In the district of Chancay, Huaral province, approximately 80 kilometers from the Peruvian capital, Lima, a major private investment project is being developed that promises to change the logistics landscape in Latin America. It is the New Multipurpose Port Terminal of Chancay, a joint project by the Chinese company COSCO Shipping Ports Limited (CSPL), which owns a 60 percent share, and the Peruvian company Volcan Compañía Minera, with the remaining 40 percent.

"With an investment budget of over $3 billion, this ambitious project is in the development stage, over 40 percent complete. Construction began in 2011, and the terminal is expected to start operations in the last quarter of 2024."

Back to Argentina: "China has increased the amount and instead of $5 billion we are getting $6.5 billion," Argentine President Alberto Fernandez told Radio 10 from the Asian country, where he is for an official trip.

"Every time we went through difficult times, Xi Jinping's government gave us its support," Fernandez added. "This is an important step so that production (in Argentina) does not stop."

This is the second swap line with China activated during Fernandez's presidency. According to an official bank source, the total amount of the swap line stood at 47 billion yuans .

The move comes as Argentines head to the ballots on Sunday for a presidential election. Libertarian Javier Milei, who has vowed to dollarize the economy and shut down the central bank, is seen as the front-runner.

Well, Javier Milei won the election. It's unclear whether Milei's tough talk regarding China will mean that he will not let China bail them out! " According to Reuters, "Argentinian president-elect Javier Milei has criticised China and Brazil, which are among his country's most important trading partners. A few months ago, Milei even likened the Chinese government to an "assassin" and said the people of China were "not free". Milei's tough talk on China stands in sharp contrast with a vow of cooperation by the outgoing president, Alberto Fernandez, who visited Beijing last month and hailed China as a "true friend" of Argentina."

China is South America’s top trading partner and a major source of both foreign direct investment and lending in energy and infrastructure, including through its massive Belt and Road Initiative. Can the US compete? China has surpassed the United States as South America’s largest trading partner. Beijing has also expanded its diplomatic, cultural, and military presence throughout the region. Most recently, it leveraged its support amid the COVID-19 pandemic, supplying the region with medical equipment, loans, and hundreds of millions of vaccine doses. U.S. President Joe Biden, who sees China as a “strategic competitor” in the region, has pledged greater economic cooperation with Latin America, but some analysts argue the United States should be doing more.

But will the US do more? It can't even get modest amounts of aid for Israel and Ukraine passed by the Republican controlled House of Representatives. The Trumpist American Firsters don't want to spend money on other countries. However, they don't mind the trillion dollar military-industrial complex budgets. They are baked in the cake especially because all the financial and economic incentives align for the various interests. Lobbyists will make sure there is no reduction in that budget.

But China’s push comes as American wars overseas, unstable foreign policy election-to-election, and deep political polarization have intensified questions about US global leadership. Meanwhile, pressing issues like climate change, Russia’s war in Ukraine and Israel’s assault on Gaza have sharpened discussion over whether the West is taking the right approach to respond.

All this coincides with longstanding calls from countries across the developing world for an international system where they have more say.

Many of those countries have substantially enhanced their economic ties with Beijing during Xi’s rule, including under a decade of his up to $1 trillion global infrastructure building drive, which leaders gathered to celebrate last month in the Chinese capital.

Economics tends to transcend politics in international relations. Up to now the economic success of the west and in particular the United States has exerted a pull on countries around the world. However, it can't be ignored that currently China is outpacing the US with its investments in other countries particularly with its Belt and Road initiative. Its alternative vision for economic development is very appealing. Its live and let live policy regarding lecturing other nations on their internal political systems also is seen by many as a refreshing alternative to the US' insistence that other countries should structure their political systems similarly to the US'.

Off the Top of My Head

Will There Ever Be a Department of Peace?

by John Lawrence

Let's face it. The US Department of Defense is really a misnomer. It's true name is the Department of War. Why not call it what it really is. That's its mission. That's its raison d'etre. In fact the United States Department of War, also called the War Department (and occasionally War Office in the early years), was the United States Cabinet department originally responsible for the operation and maintenance of the United States Army, also bearing responsibility for naval affairs until the establishment of the Navy Department in 1798, and for most land-based air forces until the creation of the Department of the Air Force on September 18, 1947. The Secretary of War, a civilian with such responsibilities as finance and purchases and a minor role in directing military affairs, headed the War Department throughout its existence. The War Department existed from August 7, 1789 until September 18, 1947, when it split into the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. The Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force later joined the Department of the Navy under the United States Department of Defense in 1949.

But there is no countervailing Department of Peace! I'm proposing one. Furthermore, the trillion dollar annual budget for the Department of War should be divided in two with half going to the Department of Peace. So $500 billion for war; $500 billion for peace. Please note that I'm not advocating doing away with the war department. I'm just advocating balancing it with a Department of Peace. Halving the Defense Department budget will still leave it with a larger military budget than any other country in the world. So when will it be a good idea to actively pursue peace if not now? Can the human mind even visualize what a Department of Peace would encompass or be involved in? Part of its mission would be to do just that - imagine what peace would look like. How do you spend the allotted resources in such a way as to bring about peace in the world? Dare I say that eliminating poverty and disease in the world, assuring educational opportunities and building infrastructure would be a good place to start. The Peace Corps would be incorporated into a Department of Peace, and its budget made commensurate with the budgets of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Space Force. Instead of extracting resources from what used to be called the Third World, the Department of Peace should be in the business of providing resources to the Third World. Instead of being totally focused on US interests, how about focusing on the interests of others particularly those who have been exploited by more technically advanced nations.

Bear in mind I'm not proposing defunding the Defense Department, just halving its budget and spending the rest on peace. The Defense Department would always stand ready to fight and win any war if all efforts for peace fail. But efforts at peace should take place preemptively and proactively long before tensions fester. Part of creating peace just consists of showing respect for all parties. That costs nothing. As an example of what not to do consider Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. They let it fester until the horrible recent events resulting in much destruction, death and suffering on both sides. Israel, the US and other interested parties had years to come up with a solution that was fair to both sides. But, admittedly, there was some trying especially by President Clinton, who almost got Israel and the Palestinian Authority to agree to peace. Yasser Arafat just refused at the last minute to say yes. But wars have been fought by human beings for millennia. Homo Sapiens probably wiped out the Neanderthals and other humanoid species. Why should we believe anything else given the history of human warfare in most cases based on religion and/or ethnicity?

China, at least, is building infrastructure throughout the world, and in particular in Africa with its Belt and Road initiative. This is a peace building exercise which is not recognized or given credit by the US. The US is a Johnny-come-lately to the idea of building infrastructure in the Third World. It can hardly accomplish this at home. If it wasn't for Biden's excellent diplomatic skills, nothing in that regard would be happening in the US itself. The US can barely keep its government open. It's not a good prognosis for the leader of the free world especially in light of the fact that a multiply indicted authoritarian who tried to overthrow the government is favored to win the next election straight out of the German playbook circa 1932.

Off the Top of My Head

Four Things That Would Make America a Better Democracy That Will Never Be Implemented

by John Lawrence

They are 1) Elect the President based on popular vote. Eliminate the electoral college. 2) Eliminate gerrymandering. 3) Eliminate the filibuster. 4) Eliminate the Second Amendment. These four things could all be done; there is nothing structurally standing in the way. It's just that the only practical way that they could be accomplished is to scrap the whole Constitution and start over. Many other countries have done just that. Sometimes that's accomplished by having a revolution, but a revolution is not always necessary. Numerous countries change their constitution each year. Already this year we have observed new constitutions in Fiji and Zimbabwe and constitutional amendments in Brazil, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Mexico, Switzerland and Tonga. A typical constitution lasts only 19 years, which means that, on average, 5 constitutions are replaced and 30 are amended each year.

The US Constitution is 236 years old. Is it outdated? You bet. But the obstacles to amending it or replacing it are all but impassable, not to mention unthinkable. The result is that the US as a political system is getting to the point of being unworkable. Right now the government is planning to shut down as the Republican controlled House cannot come up with a budget. The two parties are completely at odds. Biden is seemingly the last person capable of constructing a compromise between the parties that has allowed the country to move forward at least on some levels. The US voting system known as first-past-the-post practically guarantees that there will be a two party system. Third parties, while almost never successful at electing their candidates, act as spoilers to the other two major parties. This distorts the democratic will of the people by electing the party least favored. Another voting system could rectify this defect, but the US will never implement another kind of voting system at the national level although some entities have done so at the local level.

The US Constitution is regarded by many as the political equivalent of the Bible. It is unthinkable that it should be revised or amended. Thomas Jefferson made an effort to revise the Bible. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine. Needless to say the Jefferson Bible did not make the New York Times best sellers list or the eighteenth century version of that. There are various groups working on a new Constitution for the US, but there is no consensus that a new one is necessary just as there is no consensus that a new and revised version of the Bible is necessary.

Off the Top of My Head

These Two Things Do Not Compute: Shutting Down the American Government and Lecturing the World About the Virtues of American Democracy

by John Lawrence

The US power structure dominates the world in terms of its military bases. The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. The US also controls the world's financial transactions. The dollar’s role as the primary reserve currency for the global economy allows the United States to borrow money more easily and impose painful financial sanctions. With the US' dominant position in world affairs, you would think that it would be impossible for a handful of representatives in Congress to shut down the entire US government. But that is exactly the situation the US and the world is in. The US is the leader in world affairs. Yet the leader can't even keep the lights on. Other countries are looking at this. Nixon called the US a pitiful, helpless giant. He said, "If, when the chips are down, the worlds most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world." So what is the US when its government shuts down? Exactly that: a pitiful, helpless giant. Its military personnel on the 750 military bases won't get paid. How's that for demoralizing the military? Service members will continue to report for duty, though they will not get paid during a shutdown. And many of the hundreds of thousands of civilians who work for the Department of Defense will likely be furloughed, says White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby. Air traffic controllers will not get paid either although they will be required to report for work as well. Does that portend more close calls at airports?

The world is watching. American diplomats are fond of lecturing other world leaders about the pitfalls and shortcomings of their governments. However, their governments probably would not be caught in the pickle of a complete government shutdown. Nor would the governments of the civilized world, with the exception of the US, contemplate putting a person with 91 criminal indictments into the position of their President. The US is much in the need of updating. It is giving democracy a bad name in the sense that the national dialogue is turning into a clown show. Trump's rallies are providing entertainment for his base which is an audience that is more addicted to being entertained than it is to supporting a leader who is devoted to improving their lives. This reminds me of Hitler's rallies which were designed as pageantry for its entertainment value. It sure enthralled the German people. People are loyal to a leader who entertains them, who moves them, not one who will use the legitimate levers of government to improve their lives or to make the country and/or the world a better place. Joe Biden is the opposite. He has made the country and the world a better place despite not being very entertaining. That's why he's not leading Trump in the poles. Trump's base (cult) are excited by Trump. Biden's base, if you could call it a base, are ho hum. Oh well, I guess he's done some good, but I'm not excited. For Trump's base excitement is the sine qua non.

Getting back to the military NPR reports the following:

Separately, the Department of Defense says post and base services would be closed or limited, while elective surgeries and procedures in its medical and dental facilities would have to be postponed. Commissaries would remain open overseas but close in the U.S.

And certain Pentagon activities, like operational planning and military recruitment, will be paused.

Defense officials warned earlier this week that a shutdown would strategically "play into the hands of U.S. competitors" because it would cost time as well as money. Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh called it "the worst thing that could happen."

"The U.S. military's going to continue to do its job and protect our national security interests, and of our allies and partners as well," she said, adding that a shutdown would make those efforts harder. "When you don't have your full operating capacity to be able to help with the mission, to be able to conduct an exercise or training, of course, that gets to our national security and readiness."

Kirby agrees that a prolonged shutdown could harm national security, especially when it comes to delayed management of DOD contracts for things like maintenance, logistics and procurement.

So five Republican representatives can act collectively as dictators to threaten national security as well as domestic tranquillity, and there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about it. This is democracy in action? This is the vaunted "rule of law"? What exactly is this except a fly in the ointment of democracy or in any system that purports to be a democracy and what does this say about the world's military and financial leader? Other countries are watching this spectacle.

Off the Top of My Head

Is the World Engaged in “A Battle Between Democracy and Autocracy”?

by John Lawrence

Joe Biden thinks so. Here's what he said: "But we emerged anew in the great battle for freedom: a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force." Politicians tend to look at the world in binary terms. It's all black and white. Their system is bad; ours is good. In reality there's a lot of gray; it's not simply black or white. If Biden were to be absolutely truthful, he would have to say that the US has a version of democracy and so does China. America's version would be decried by the founders who were totally against what they called "factionalism." Jefferson abhorred political parties. This is from history.com:

"Today, it may seem impossible to imagine the U.S. government without its two leading political parties, Democrats and Republicans. But in 1787, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to hash out the foundations of their new government, they entirely omitted political parties from the new nation’s founding document.

"This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government."

The US' version of democracy is based on a two party system with a voting system called first-past-the-post. Neither parties or voting systems are mentioned in the Constitution. The first-past-the-post voting system essentially precludes third parties. The effect of a third party candidate is that of a "spoiler." He or she takes votes away from the party he or she is most closely associated with which tends to elect the least popular candidate if the third popular candidate were not running. This has had disastrous effects on American popular elections as it did in 2000 when Ralph Nader running as a third party candidate took votes away from Al Gore with the result that George W Bush, who subsequently lied us into the Iraq war, was elected President. Gore would have gotten the US further along the road of climate change mitigation.

The European parliamentary multi-party system is arguably more democratic than the US two party system because more parties with varied interests can be represented. Their head of government, the Prime Minister, equivalent to the US President, is not popularly elected but is elected by members of parliament. The US tends to identify heads of government not popularly elected with undemocratic systems yet Presidents in the US were not popularly elected until the 17th Amendment was passed in 1912. China has a version of democracy in which the President is not popularly elected but is elected by the highest legislative body - the National People's Congress. Yet the US keeps insisting that China is an autocracy but the parliamentary systems of Europe are OK as was the US before 1912. China has multiple political parties but is dominated by one party - the Chinese Communist Party. The question is to what extent is the Chinese one party system less democratic than the American two party system in the sense of which system most closely represents the needs and wants of its people.

Democratic elections are held in China at the local or county level. These Congresses elect officials at the provincial level and they in turn elect the National People's Congress. The people vote democratically for officials only at the local level. Officials at higher levels are only indirectly democratically elected similar to the US system before 1912 or the parliamentary system. Voters have selected U.S. senators in the privacy of the voting booth since 1913. This system of “direct election” was not what the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind, however, when they met at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Article I, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as written by the framers, provided for election of senators by state legislatures, something Donald Trump sought to exploit. Election of officials by the democratic vote of a body that was democratically elected by the people is arguably democratic in some sense just as the election of head of government by a parliament is arguably democratic. Therefore, it can be argued that China has some version of democracy. Moreover, eight minor political parties in addition to the Chinese Communist Party exist.

One can quibble about how democratic a political system is. The point is that there is no absolute version of democracy so different systems have to be judged on their own merits. A one party system is not necessarily less democratic than a two party system which is not necessarily less democratic than a multi-party system, all things considered. How well the system functions to meet the needs of its own people, the historical evolution of the present system and how well established is the rule of law which exists in conjunction with the democratic election of leaders and representatives should also be considered. For instance, in China stability is a primary value whereas in the US freedom is a primary value. According to Keyu Jin in The New China Playbook, the Chinese people don't mind video surveillance in public because it minimizes street crime. On the other hand in the US video public surveillance is considered an infringement of freedom even though much street crime has been solved by both public and private video cameras .

Off the Top of My Head

Should the President Be Popularly Elected by Direct Vote of the People?

by John Lawrence

In the US the President is popularly elected by the people after having been filtered through the archaic electoral college. In a parliamentary democracy the head of government equivalent to the US President is indirectly elected by the parliament not by a direct vote of the people. In China the president is also elected by a majority vote of the National People's Congress, the highest legislative body very similarly to how the heads of government are elected in parliamentary democracies. In Russia the President is nominally elected by a popular vote of the people similarly to the US although the system has been manipulated in such a way as to keep Putin in power. So what are the drawbacks of a popularly elected President by a vote of the people? The main drawback IMHO is that in the US an incompetent but popular boob like Donald Trump can be elected to the most powerful office in the land and arguably in the whole world. The election for President of the US is a popularity contest, and there is no requirement of experience or competency. In parliamentary democracies as well as China, supposedly the indirect election of President or its equivalent, "head of state," is an election by a meritocratic body of lawmakers. Therefore, it is more likely that a competent President or head of government will be elected.

In recent history in the US, the least competent but most popular person has been elected President based more on their personality and charisma than on their competency or knowledge of the job. It is more likely that a guy who "you would like to have a beer with" is elected President than someone who is more experienced and/or intelligent. Adlai Stevenson was branded as an "egghead" which effectively ended his political career. The leading Democratic figure of the 1950s, Stevenson was known for his wit, intellectual speeches, and liberal political convictions. For many Americans in the mid-twentieth century, he symbolized conscience in politics. Stevenson lost the Presidential election twice to Dwight Eisenhower, the World War II war hero. In 2000 Al Gore lost the election to George W Bush who promptly lied the US into war with Iraq. Gore, who was a staunch advocate for climate change mitigation, presumably would have employed government resources in that direction rather than fighting a fruitless war. Gore actually won the popular vote but was defeated by a combination of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court.

Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House that were then taken down by Ronald Reagan. So much for science taking precedence over popular ignorance and prejudice. Reagan also ran up the national debt substantially as did George W Bush and Donald Trump. Then when Democrats are elected President, Republicans cry bloody murder over the national debt while doing their best to prevent Democrats from spending any government money to actually help people. Fortunately, Joe Biden has been very successful in getting legislation passed to mitigate climate change among other accomplishments. But, his popularity as a candidate in 2024 in on the line as a majority of the American people don't want him to run again. Trump, despite 91 criminal indictments, is running neck and neck with Biden, one of the most accomplished Presidents in American history. One wonders whether the sclerotic American electoral system can withstand the challenges brought by popular but unscrupulous candidates for the Presidency by those you'd "like to have a beer with." Finally, the electoral College has all the disadvantages of indirect elections and none of the advantages.

Off the Top of My Head

Does China Have Some Version of Democracy and Capitalism?

by John Lawrence

The Chinese Communist Party in reality is just the Chinese Party. It is communist in name only. Kishore Mahbuboni in the book, Has China Won, says "...is America making a fundamental error of perception when it views the CCP as a Chinese Communist Party? This would imply that the soul of the CCP is embedded in its communist roots. Yet, in the eyes of many objective Asian observers, the CCP actually functions as the Chinese Civilization Party. Its soul is not rooted in the foreign ideology of Marxism-Leninism but in the Chinese civilization." China has had a capitalist economic system ever since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping in 1978. China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty in about 40 years mainly due to the component of its system that represents private enterprise. It also has state owned enterprises but they have not been mainly responsible for China's rapid growth in GDP.

Xi Jinping has been President of the people's Republic of China since 2013. He is not popularly elected by the general public. Instead, he is elected by the National People's Congress (NPC), constitutionally China's highest state body, which also has the power to remove the president and other state officers from office. Elections and removals are decided by majority vote. This is not dissimilar to how the head of parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister is elected. The British head of government is not elected by a popular election of the people either. He is elected by members of Parliament similar to most other parliamentary democracies. The US also originally had a system in which the President and Senators were not elected by a popular election of the people. Passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, the 17th Amendment modified Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. Senators and the President. Prior to its passage, the President and Senators were chosen by state legislatures. The Chinese government has been based on a meritocratic bureaucracy for thousands of years. The popular vote elects the first representative body who elects the next higher body until the National People's Congress elects the President.

The cleavage between communism and capitalism is basically an historic artifact. Capitalism won. Almost all nations of the world have capitalistic economic systems including China. None of them have systems that are identical to the US. They all have some versions of capitalism and democracy. Prior to 1912 the US had a system similar to China's in that the President was not popularly elected but was elected by a vote of the states' senates. Today in order to maintain international tensions, US politicians keep up the dichotomy between the US and China by insisting that China's leaders are not elected democratically and that China has a communist economic system. The truth is that China has a version of democracy and a version of capitalism just as the US does. Vested interests in the US are responsible for maintaining the fiction that Chinese is communist and autocratic. In fact US democracy is vulnerable to being overthrown by a demagogue like Donald Trump which almost happened on January 6, 2020. The US is still vulnerable as a near majority of Americans prefer Trump to Joe Biden, a man who has passed landmark legislation like only a very few American Presidents have accomplished.

US democracy is also vulnerable in the sense that its first past the post voting system almost guarantees that third party candidates will be spoilers as happened in 2000 when Ralph Nader took votes away from Al Gore. Despite that Gore won the popular vote. If Nader had not been in the election, Gore would have overwhelmingly won the popular vote. However in the electoral college, which is an outdated feature of American democracy, it came down to who won the popular vote in Florida. The Supreme Court stopped the hand recount giving Bush the Presidency. There is still controversy over who would have won if that hadn't happened. In any case the Bush administration lied us into the disastrous Iraq war, something Gore probably would not have done. Also Bush was a fossil fuel guy while Gore was knowledgeable about global warming and would have pursued that agenda . History might have turned out differently, and more importantly the future history of planet Earth might turn out differently if Gore had won.

Chinese philosophy is based on Confucianism which emphasizes duty to family while the US is based on individualistic ethics emphasizing individual freedom. Keyu Jin writes in The New China Playbook, "According to the World Values Survey, which explores people's beliefs and values in more than 100 countries, 93% of Chinese participants value security over freedom, as compared to only 28 % of Americans. Such differences can be fully understood only by taking culture and history into account. In China, an interventionist state is rooted in paternalism, a hallmark of government in China since Confucian times, more than 2500 years ago;..." Although China's private enterprise capitalism has resulted in the fact that 800 million people have been pulled out of poverty in 40 years, GDP growth is not the sine qua non of Chinese capitalism. Under Xi China is turning a corner and reining in certain aspects of unbridled growth in order to mitigate certain unsalutary aspects of unfettered enterprise while emphasizing producing economic benefits for the 13% of the Chinese population still in poverty. So China is much more apt to put its finger on the economic scale while the US has more of a hands off policy on private enterprise. The downside of this is the unregulated growth of toxic social media and potentially artificial intelligence in the US. The US could mitigate the spoiler effect of third party candidates for President by adopting a different voting system. The current first past the post voting system practically guarantees that there will be a 2 party system with third parties acting as spoilers, something which could result in a second Trump Presidency despite 91 criminal indictments. Replacing first past the post with a voting system such as approval voting would eliminate the spoiler effects of third parties. It could be implemented simply by a vote of Congress since it would not violate any aspect of the Constitution. However, in the sclerotic American Congress it is unlikely that there will be any major changes in the US Constitution which is well past its "use by" date.

The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way.

 

Aug. 21, 2023, from the New York Times

 

Credit...Photo illustration by Boris Zhitkov/Getty Images

By Adam Grant

Dr. Grant, a contributing Opinion writer, is an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, the author of “Think Again” and the host of the TED podcast “Re:Thinking.”

---

On the eve of the first debate of the 2024 presidential race, trust in government is rivaling historic lows. Officials have been working hard to safeguard elections and assure citizens of their integrity. But if we want public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating elections altogether.

If you think that sounds anti-democratic, think again. The ancient Greeks invented democracy, and in Athens many government officials were selected through sortition — a random lottery from a pool of candidates. In the United States, we already use a version of a lottery to select jurors. What if we did the same with mayors, governors, legislators, justices and even presidents?

People expect leaders chosen at random to be less effective than those picked systematically. But in multiple experiments led by the psychologist Alexander Haslam, the opposite held true. Groups actually made smarter decisions when leaders were chosen at random than when they were elected by a group or chosen based on leadership skill.

Why were randomly chosen leaders more effective? They led more democratically. “Systematically selected leaders can undermine group goals,” Dr. Haslam and his colleagues suggest, because they have a tendency to “assert their personal superiority.” When you’re anointed by the group, it can quickly go to your head: I’m the chosen one.

When you know you’re picked at random, you don’t experience enough power to be corrupted by it. Instead, you feel a heightened sense of responsibility: I did nothing to earn this, so I need to make sure I represent the group well. And in one of the Haslam experiments, when a leader was picked at random, members were more likely to stand by the group’s decisions.

Over the past year I’ve floated the idea of sortition with a number of current members of Congress. Their immediate concern is ability: How do we make sure that citizens chosen randomly are capable of governing?

In ancient Athens, people had a choice about whether to participate in the lottery. They also had to pass an examination of their capacity to exercise public rights and duties. In America, imagine that anyone who wants to enter the pool has to pass a civics test — the same standard as immigrants applying for citizenship. We might wind up with leaders who understand the Constitution.

A lottery would also improve our odds of avoiding the worst candidates in the first place. When it comes to character, our elected officials aren’t exactly crushing it. To paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr., I’d rather be governed by the first 535 people in the phone book. That’s because the people most drawn to power are usually the least fit to wield it.

The most dangerous traits in a leader are what psychologists call the dark triad of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. What these traits share is a willingness to exploit others for personal gain. People with dark triad traits tend to be more politically ambitious — they’re attracted to authority for its own sake. But we often fall under their spell. Is that you, George Santos?

In a study of elections worldwide, candidates who were rated by experts as having high psychopathy scores actually did better at the ballot box. In the United States, presidents assessed as having psychopathic and narcissistic tendencies were more persuasive with the public than their peers. A common explanation is that they’re masters of fearless dominance and superficial charm, and we mistake their confidence for competence. Sadly, it starts early: Even kids who display narcissistic personality traits get more leadership nominations and claim to be better leaders. (They aren’t.)

If the dark triad wins an election, we all lose. When psychologists rated the first 42 American presidents, the narcissists were more likely to take reckless risks, make unethical decisions and get impeached. Add a dash of Machiavellianism and a pinch of psychopathy, and you get autocrats like Putin, Erdogan, Orban and Duterte.

Eliminate voting, and candidates with dark triad traits would be less likely than they are now to rise to the top. Of course, there’s also a risk that a lottery would deprive us of the chance to select a leader with distinctive skills. At this point, that’s a risk I’m willing to take. As lucky as America was to have Lincoln at the helm, it’s more important to limit our exposure to bad character than to roll the dice on the hopes of finding the best.

Besides, if Lincoln were alive now, it’s hard to imagine that he’d even put his top hat in the ring. In a world filled with divisiveness and derision, evidence shows that members of Congress are increasingly rewarded for incivility. And they know it.

A lottery would give a fair shot to people who aren’t tall enough or male enough to win. It would also open the door to people who aren’t connected or wealthy enough to run. Our broken campaign finance system lets the rich and powerful buy their way into races while preventing people without money or influence from getting on the ballot. They’re probably better candidates: Research suggests that on average, people who grow up in low-income families tend to be more effective leaders and less likely to cheat — they’re less prone to narcissism and entitlement.

Switching to sortition would save a lot of money too. The 2020 elections alone cost upward of $14 billion. And if there’s no campaign, there are no special interests offering to help pay for it.

Finally, no voting also means no boundaries to gerrymander and no Electoral College to dispute. Instead of questioning whether millions of ballots were counted accurately, we could watch the lottery live, just as we do with teams getting their lottery picks in the N.B.A. draft.

Other countries have begun to see the promise of sortition. Two decades ago, Canadian provinces and the Dutch government started using sortition to create citizens’ assemblies that generated ideas for improving democracy. In the past few years, the French, British and German governments have run lotteries to select citizens to work on climate change policies. Ireland tried a hybrid model, gathering 33 politicians and 66 randomly chosen citizens for its 2012 constitutional convention. In Bolivia, the nonprofit Democracy in Practice works with schools to replace student council elections with lotteries. Instead of elevating the usual suspects, it welcomes a wider range of students to lead and solve real problems in their schools and their communities.

As we prepare for America to turn 250 years old, it may be time to rethink and renew our approach to choosing officials. The lifeblood of a democracy is the active participation of the people. There is nothing more democratic than offering each and every citizen an equal opportunity to lead.

Off the Top of My Head

Contrasting the Chinese, EU and American Economic Systems

by John Lawrence

Since 2001, China has pursued a “going-out” investment policy. At first, the PRC (People's Republic of China) mainly encouraged SOEs (state owned enterprises) to invest overseas but in recent years, China's overseas investments have diversified with both state and private enterprises investing in nearly all industries and economic sectors. After Deng Xiaoping came to power in the late 1970s, China opened up its economic policy with the result that approximately 800 million people were lifted out of poverty in about 40 years. This turned China into a capitalistic nation ruled by the Chinese Communist party although the word "communist" is largely an anachronism at this point. China developed a unique economic system comprised of state owned enterprises and private enterprise. It has been the private aspects of China's system that have mainly driven the huge increases in GDP to the point where China is likely to take over the US as the world's largest economy in terms of GDP in a few years.

There are 4 components of GDP: consumption, investment, government spending and profit from exports. Some of the reasons for China's becoming an economic powerhouse are that consumption is only 38% of GDP whereas US consumption is nearly 70% of GDP. While Americans consume, China produces, exports and invests. I would characterize the US as having a Taylor Swift economy, an economy based on consumption of entertainment and other disposable items with no lasting value. It has been reported that Taylor Swift and the Barbie movie have been at least somewhat responsible for keeping the American economy afloat. When you add in social media and professional athletics, much of American consumption is immediately disposed of as soon as the event is over. In the EU consumption is about 52% of GDP so somewhat larger than China's but much less than the US.

Chinese investment is 43% of GDP while The US' is about 16%. EU investment is about 25% of GDP so midway between the US and China. At 21.4% EU government spending is larger than either the US (17.6%) or China (16%). Like the American government the Chinese government doesn't spend a lot of money on welfare. Chinese families are basically savers and provide a lot of the same services to their own intergenerational extended families which are provided by EU governments. The American ethos is largely individualistic and so many family members who can't provide for themselves fall through the cracks. This is one reason for the homeless crisis in the US.

The Chinese economy is bolstered by the fact that it is a net exporter (2.5% of GDP) while the US (-2.7%) and the EU (-2.7%) are net importers which subtracts from their GDPs. China also exports capital and manpower in the form of the Belt and Road Initiative. Announced in 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) aims to strengthen China’s connectivity with the world. It combines new and old projects, covers an expansive geographic scope, and includes efforts to strengthen hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure, and cultural ties. As of October 2019, the plan touches 138 countries with a combined Gross Domestic Product of $29 trillion and some 4.6 billion people. Supporting a diverse array of initiatives that enhance connectivity throughout Eurasia and beyond could serve to strengthen China’s economic and security interests while bolstering overseas development. 

The Chinese political system, nominally communist, has the same elements of democracy that the early US political system had which is that locally elected bodies select the next higher political body with 3 successive iterations so that the National Assembly is chosen by the provincial assemblies at the next lower level. The original American Constitution had a similar feature in that the Senate was not chosen directly by the people but by state legislatures. State legislatures continued to elect senators until adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 which provided for popular election of senators. The Chinese system tends to meritocraticy with the best and brightest ascending to the top levels whereas the more democratic American system has within it the possibility of electing complete idiots like Donald Trump whose ascendancy served to prove how vulnerable the two party system really is. By contrast the Chinese emphasize harmony and stability which are attributes of their main philosophical inheritance: Confucianism.

Off the Top of My Head

The Best Democracy May Not Be One Achieved by Elections

by John Lawrence

For a truly democratic system we would have to go back to ancient Greece and the system developed by Aristotle: sortition. Sortition is the selection of a legislative body randomly by lot. If the American House of Representatives truly represented the American people it would be chosen in this way. There is no more representative way of choosing a democratic legislative body. In the ancient Greek legislative body known as the Council of 500, each representative was chosen by lot. If the American House was chosen in this way, it would a) eliminate the need for money in American politics and b) eliminate the need for political parties in American politics. People have been brainwashed to believe that only a government in which there are elections for the representatives is a true democracy. It's not the only or even the best way. Representatives chosen by lot are more representative of the American people than representatives chosen by election. So at least for the purposes of selecting this body, with sortition the two party system would go by the wayside.

So what would this say about the relative merits of a democracy in which the representative body was chosen by lot and a one party system such as the Chinese government. In other words how would a no party system compare to a one party system , and is a no party system more democratic than a one party system. Yes, certainly it would be. But is a two party system such as the US currently has necessarily more democratic than a one party system. In the Chinese system the lowest deliberative body is voted on by the people. Then there are 3 levels of elections. The first is for the municipal people's Congress which elects the people's congresses of provinces which elects the highest level the National People's Congress. If the National People's Congress were to be selected by lot, then the Chinese system would be truly democratic just as the American system would be if the House of Representatives were selected by lot. Based on this analysis one could argue that the Chinese one party system is just as much a version of democracy as the American two party system and that if both systems used sortition instead of elections by vote, both systems would be arguably more democratic. Whether a system is a one party system, a two party system or a multiparty system such as they have in Europe, the various systems should only be compared on the actual results the system is capable of manifesting and how much their various bodies reflect the wishes of the people.

The American system is currently on the brink of systemic failure due to the fact that there is such a great divisive split between the two parties.The American system notably does not always elect the best and brightest candidates. The Chinese system arguably is more merit based than the US system. In the US a clown and no nothing like Trump can be elected and cause great havoc. In fact he almost instigated a complete overthrow of the American system of democracy. People with money or financial backing stand a better chance of being elected than people of merit or good will. The First Amendment allows candidates to lie about virtually anything, and, if they can convince enough voters that their alternative facts are the true facts, they can win elections. While the Chinese system does not represent the ultimate democratic form of government, neither does the American system. Both systems could be reformed to allow more truly representative government and more successful and capable government. In fact in the US if the House of Representatives were formed by sortition and the Senate were formed by voting or sortition based on a pool of candidates that had at least minimal background, experience and educational requirements, the American system would be quite a bit more democratic than it is right now. The ideal system might be one that approaches as closely as possible to a no party system.

Off the Top of My Head

How to Turn the US From a Two Party System into a Multi-Party System

by John Lawrence

Very simply by changing from a first past the post (fptp) system in which the candidate with the highest number of votes wins to approval voting. In the first past the post system a voter can only vote for one of the candidates who are running. In the approval voting system a voter can vote for more than one candidate. In both cases the candidate with the highest number of votes wins. Taking Presidential elections as an example, the fptp system generates the 2 party system. Third party candidates mess up the system because they take votes away from the party they are most closely associated with. Ross Perot took the 1992 election away from George H W Bush since some voters most closely associated with the Republican party voted for Perot while most Democrats voted for Clinton. The second choice of most Perot voters was probably George H W Bush. Perot took 19% of the vote. Clinton won with 43% of the vote, and Bush lost with 37% of the vote. If Perot had not been in the race, Bush probably would have won. If the fptp voting system had been replaced with approval voting, voters could have voted for Bush and Perot. In that case Perot still wouldn't have won, but he wouldn't have taken votes away from Bush. For example if all the voters voting for Perot had Bush as their second favorite and voted for both candidates, Bush would have had 19% more votes thus winning the election. Perot would still have 19% of the vote and Clinton would still have had 43% of the vote, but Bush would have won having garnered 37 + 19 = 56% of the vote!

Making this simple change in the US voting system at all levels would result in a flourishing of third, fourth and fifth parties. These parties would not take votes away from the winners of the election, but would give information about which alternatives were on voters' minds in addition to the platforms presented by the major parties. Eventually, one of the multitude of parties might even replace one of the two major parties. This change of voting systems would let a multitude of parties and ideas flourish instead of cleaving all voter concerns into two parties. It would result in a loss of power for the 2 major parties and do much to decrease the divisiveness in American politics. It would allow real participation by minorities in American politics. The fptp system encourages the division of American voters into two camps in a system where hate and divisiveness can flourish. Approval voting would eliminate the possibility of third party candidates being spoilers in elections and taking votes away from the candidate who would have won if the third party candidate had not been running.

The change from the fptp system to the approval system could be done very simply. Nothing else about the American system would need to be changed, not the ballots, not the counting of votes. The only change on the ballot would be from "vote for one" to "vote for more than one." This change would encourage a multiplicity of candidates and viewpoints and would enrich the American political system. Third parties would be welcomed instead of feared. It would also tend to diminish the role of money in politics as the two party system encourages wealthy donors to give to only one of the two parties. If a viable multi-party system were in place, they would need to spread their money among a multiplicity of parties. Parties with a small number of supporters would be in the position of adding to their membership and growing into major parties based on their ideas and not on their war chests. There are many other improvements that could be made to the American democratic system, but none could be implemented more simply and have such far reaching results. And it doesn't mention in the Constitution which voting system should be used.

Off the Top of My Head

Bidenomics: The US Finally Gets an Industrial Policy

by John Lawrence

The Republican policy that the government should be hands off regarding the economy is out the window. Trickle down is a failed policy. Bidenomics gets the government involved in crucial areas of the economy. The export of jobs to parts of the world where labor is cheapest is replaced with a policy of creating jobs within the US. Deregulation is replaced with regulations to protect the environment and combat climate change. The traditional Democratic alliance with unions is back in vogue. Bidenomics is all about building the economy from the middle out and the bottom up instead of from the top down. Bidenomics is about shaping the economy in a way that is propitious for the middle class and the environment. Infrastructure building is more important than accelerating the consumer economy. Putting our house in order is more important than giving away fattening goodies to consumers. People are being put to work doing jobs which actually make US society a better place instead of encouraging jobs in frivolous pursuits. This is not necessarily what the American consumer wants.The American consumer wants more money in their pockets so they can buy more gadgets and aspire to making millions as a pro athlete or an entertainer. They don't actually want to work at the good jobs Biden is creating building infrastructure or making semiconductors. CNN reported:

Trickle-down economics, which was at the heart of President Ronald Reagan’s policies and continues to be the guiding light of Republican lawmakers, typically revolves around tax cuts for the wealthy and large companies. Supporters say the benefits flow down to middle-class and working Americans, boosting economic growth more broadly. But many experts dispute the effectiveness of this practice at lifting all boats.

Biden argues that supply-side, trickle-down economics has cost jobs and hollowed out the middle class. He has long focused on that group of Americans, serving as chair of the Middle Class Task Force when he was vice president in the Obama administration.

“Folks, let me say it as clearly as I can: (The) trickle-down approach failed the middle class and failed America,” said Biden.

To fund Bidenomics, the president once again calls for ensuring the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

The problem is that now that the American people have had  a good taste of Democratic programs, they want more: Republican tax cuts. They want their cake and eat it too. They know that Republicans will have no problem with the national deficits and debts as long as they come in the form of tax cuts. So from the American consumer's point of view they have got about all they can expect to get out of Bidenomics. Now they want a tax break to boot.

The Biden administration has focused on infrastructure, clean energy and semiconductors, Lael Brainard, director of the National Economic Council, said. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and CHIPS Act each include direct funding and tax incentives for public and private manufacturing construction. Biden outlined how states will receive more than $42 billion in federal funding for high-speed internet service, which was part of the 2021 infrastructure law. It is aimed at bringing connectivity to more Americans and closing the digital divide. The administration is comparing it to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Rural Electrification Act, which brought electricity to homes throughout the country. And 35,000 new projects – including roads, bridges and ports – have received funding through the bipartisan infrastructure law, the White House said.

E.J. Dionne Jr. said in the Washington Post:

Bidenomics has also gone global. One indicator is the exceptional and ongoing debate Sullivan’s speech provoked in proposing a “new consensus” to replace “a set of ideas that championed tax cutting and deregulation, privatization over public action and trade liberalization as an end in itself.” The old formulas, Sullivan argued, not only failed to address new problems; they didn’t work on their own terms.

“In the name of oversimplified market efficiency,” he said, “entire supply chains of strategic goods, along with the industries and jobs that made them, moved overseas.” The idea that freer trade “would help America export goods, not jobs and capacity, was a promise made but not kept.” He stressed the need for “a modern American industrial strategy” and the benefits of “moving beyond traditional trade deals to innovative new international economic partnerships.”

Can the dumbed down and self seeking American people even understand much less appreciate the great things that Bidenomics has brought forth? Biden has changed the narrative on taxes by repeating ad nauseum that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. Big idea: raising taxes doesn't mean raising taxes on everyone and a tax break does nor mean lowering taxes on everyone. The meme about raising taxes which Republicans have endeavored to attribute to Democrats ("tax and spend") and tax breaks which Republicans have endeavored to attribute to themselves has been change by Biden. "Tax the rich" has become the Democrats' motto thanks to Bernie Sanders and AOC.The immense inequality that Reaganomics has resulted in is being addressed by Bidenomics. The American people say "Ho Hum". They are more interested in spectator sports which is exemplified by the fact that news programs on TV are routinely bounced in favor of sports events. In short the American people don't appreciate Biden because they don't take the time to understand Bidenomics.

Biden has done much good for America and Americans. He is the least appreciated great President in American history. It's a reflection on the American people themselves that all they're interested in is their own personal situation. If they are well off, they could care less about social programs that help the poor. If they have a good job, they could care less about the unemployed. American have been taught to be totally selfish and not to care about the wider world or about the improvement of society in general. Corporations by law are only supposed to consider the financial well being of their share holders and nothing else. These attitudes in and of themselves preclude the concerns of minorities, whether racial or economic, because the US is a majoritarian society. In politics the majority rules. Concern about the welfare of minorities and of the world in general and in particular the environment is not a consideration. Meanwhile, global warming is taking out individual families who are victims of tornadoes or other particular manifestations of global warming on a daily basis. It has yet to sink in that perhaps concerns for larger interests than just ourselves might be a paradigm change we might have to make.

For the American people, it's not abut how much Biden has done, it's about how much have you done for me lately, Mr Biden, and, more importantly, how much more are you going to do? If there are many more carrots, then maybe I'll vote for you. Otherwise, I'll take the tax break Republicans are offering. The American national character is selfishness personified. Ayn Rand would be proud.

Off the Top of My Head

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) Says Americans Need To Stop “Electing Idiots.”

by John Lawrence

Did the Founders design a Constitution that was idiot proof? Not according to Liz Cheney. Is this a flaw that is inherent to democracy? Not necessarily although it seems to be a flaw in the American system of democracy. There are other forms of democracy that may be more idiot proof. For instance, a democracy in which there are background requirements for political representatives such as education and experience. It is important to have a President who is educated and experienced in areas related to government. The Senate and House of Representatives also should have education and background requirements. Any corporation requires education and experience requirements for jobs. Why should the government be any different? The Hill reported:

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) suggested Monday that the problem with American politics is that “we’re electing idiots.”

“Look, I think that the country right now faces hugely challenging and fundamentally important issues,” Cheney said at an event with the cultural and community center, 92nd Street Y, New York. “What we’ve done in our politics is create a situation where we’re electing idiots.”

Cheney, who is a staunch opponent of former President Trump, offered the reflection in response to a question about whether she would run for president if polling showed that it would hurt Trump’s third White House run.

“I don’t look at it through the lens of, you know, is this what I should do or what I shouldn’t do,” the former congresswoman said. “I look at it through the lens of, how do we elect serious people? And I think electing serious people can’t be partisan.”

Cheney, who is a staunch opponent of former President Trump, offered the reflection in response to a question about whether she would run for president if polling showed that it would hurt Trump’s third White House run.

“I don’t look at it through the lens of, you know, is this what I should do or what I shouldn’t do,” the former congresswoman said. “I look at it through the lens of, how do we elect serious people? And I think electing serious people can’t be partisan.”

“I really believe, and I’ve never believed something as strongly as I know this, that the single most important thing for the country is that Donald Trump can’t be anywhere near the Oval Office again,” she said.

The question is how do you accomplish "not electing idiots" within the constraints of the American system? Or should the American system be redesigned to accomplish this goal? Perhaps the first item should be to educate the populace in such a way that the voting pubic contains as few idiots as possible. If the electorate is a bunch of idiots, then they will elect someone who looks like them - namely, an idiot. The second thing is that perhaps people running for office should be required to take a test, the results of which would show their knowledge of the position they aspire to whether it's the Presidency, the House or the Senate. Americans are subjected to testing all through their educational experience. Corporations that hire American workers are very interested in their test scores. They want to know whether or not the person they are hiring is an idiot. Why doesn't this apply to politicians as well? Otherwise, running for election comes down to a popularity contest and very often a blood sport. Is this the kind of person who should be running our government?

Off the Top of My Head

Is Voting a Necessary Component of Democracy?

by John Lawrence

Many people consider voting the sine qua non defining characteristic of democracy. However, the inventors of democracy, the ancient Greeks, did not. Their legislative body, the Council of 500, was chosen not be voting but by lot, in other words randomly. Arguably, random selection is more democratic since it guarantees a legislative body which actually represents and reflects all of the people. Voting, at least in the US, does not result in a legislature that reflects the actual composition of the electorate because the candidates need a lot of money even to get on the ballot. Random selection requires no money, just a complete list of all citizens. A legislature which reflects the actual composition of the electorate is more democratic than one that reflects only the composition of the moneyed class. Therefore, voting must be disassociated from democracy in the larger sense. So let's ask the question how is the Chinese legislature, the National People's Congress, chosen? It is chosen by the people by voting although the nominees are chosen by the Communist Party. It could be argued and debated how well the National People's Congress reflects the actual composition of the electorate. It could also be argued which system, the American system or the Chinese system is more democratic in the sense that the national legislative body represents and reflects the actual composition of their respective electorates. My guess is that the American two party system is only slightly more democratic than the Chinese one party system. Someone should do a study and comparison.

In addition to getting money out of politics, random selection, which is also known as sortition, would end the districting system and gerrymandering. The House would reflect the composition of the US electorate. Instead of an elaborate system of voting and majority rule, all you would need is a data base of all 330 million Americans and a program for random selection. Voting systems in and of themselves are controversial (which of the several available voting systems should be used), and majority rule is notorious for leaving out minorities.  The US system know as first past the post practically determines that the US will be a two party system. Third parties contribute the "spoiler effect," which we've seen all to often in Presidential politics, for example, when Ross Perot and Ralph Nader ran as third party candidates. They just take votes away from the party that they are closer to on the political spectrum helping the other party to win. The Chinese have a one party system and the US has a two party system which is probably only somewhat more democratic than the Chinese system if the measure of democraticness is that the legislature represents a reflection of all the people. The European parliamentary system is a multiparty system where minorities are better represented than in the US or Chinese systems, and hence, is more democratic than either of them. A further benefit of random selection us that extremists and extreme parties are unlikely to be over represented in the outcome. In fact political parties would have no reason to exist if the legislature was chosen by sortition.

Rousseau says in The Social Contract, " 'Election by lot,' says Montesquieu, 'is of the nature of democracy. ' I agree , but how is it so? 'The lot,' he continues, 'is a mode of election which mortifies no on; it leaves every citizen a reasonable hope of serving his country.' "Montesquieu , by the way was one of the chief architects of society that the Founders took as an example in their design of the US Constitution. Sortition was used in the Athenian democracy. With few exceptions, all magistrates were chosen by lot, beginning with the archons in 487–486 BC; likewise the Boule (council) of 500 and the juries of the law courts were chosen by lot. Sortition is used in the American system for jury selection.

My reform of the American system would be #1) The legislature should be chosen by sortition to serve 4 year terms. Pay would be high enough to induce the average person to want to serve. The only requirement would be US citizenship. #2) The Senate would be chosen by sortition among the people who met certain educational and experiential background requirements. The term would be 6 years. #3) The Supreme Court would be chosen from among the people with even more stringent background requirements especially in law and government. The term would be 8 years. #4) The President would be chosen by means of an electoral system with an advanced method of voting like approval voting. The electoral college would be abolished. The President would serve for 4 years with the possibility of serving two terms if the people elected him again. At any level of political participation people could opt out of the pool of which otherwise they might be randomly selected. We have already seen in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump how extremists can be elected by purveying false information and outright lies creating a cult following. The elimination of political parties altogether would transform politics from the Chinese one party system, the American two party system and the European multiparty system to in fact a more democratic no party system.

Off the Top of My Head

The Difference Between Chinese and US Philosophy

by John Lawrence

Western philosophy is predicated on the individual and the philosophy that the best society is one in which the individual is completely and totally free. Freedom of the individual is the bedrock of the US Constitution which spells out individual rights but not individual responsibilities. Freedom is spelled out in John Stuart Mill's book On Liberty, but it goes back even further than that all the way to the life of Jesus who, as demonstrated in the New King James version of Luke, when his mother was looking for him famously said to her,  “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” So for Jesus the freedom to pursue his career took precedence over familial responsibilities. Chinese philosophy places the emphasis on the fact that familial responsibilities should take precedence over individual freedom. That is the basic philosophical difference between US and Chinese philosophy. Confucius, who is the penultimate philosopher for Chinese society, had a different view regarding the relations of human beings to society. According to Roger T. Ames, Theorizing the Person in Confucian Ethics,"How or in what way (dao) do persons in their roles become consummately humane (ren)? This was the perennial Confucian question asked explicitly in all of the Four Books: in the Great Learning, in the Analects of Confucius, in the Mencius, and again in the Zhongyong. And from the time of Confucius onward, the answer was a moral, aesthetic, and ultimately religious one. Persons (necessarily plural) become humane by cultivating those thick, intrinsic relations that constitute our initial conditions that locate the trajectory of our life narrative - its whence and whither - within family, community, and cosmos."

The Chinese emphasis is on harmony and stability whether at the familial level or at the societal level. Western society emphasizes individual liberty in the hope that the societal level will take care of itself. The US Constitution emphasizes individual rights; there is no mention of individual responsibilities. There is the hope that individuals competing among themselves will end up with the result that society will flourish, but there is no direct connection as there is in Chinese philosophy. Article 53 of the Chinese Constitution states: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China must abide by the Constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property, observe discipline in the workplace, observe public order, and respect social morality." Article 54 states: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China shall have the obligation to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not behave in any way that endangers the motherland's security, honor or interests."

While the Chinese Constitution also grants political rights such as freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, and religion and also economic rights, the Constitution also emphasizes obligations and responsibilities. Article 51 states: "When exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens of the People's Republic of China shall not undermine the interests of the state, society or collectives, or infringe upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens."

There is an emphasis on order, social morality, not infringing on the interests of others or society in general. Americans find this emphasis on social cohesiveness and stability too restraining and inhibiting of their rights as guaranteed in the American Constitution. The US Constitution's emphasis on individual rights without a concomitant emphasis on responsibilities has produced major instabilities in American society. The fall back position for the US is complete dependence on the rule of law and the preservation of American institutions rather than a libertarian view of freedom. Basically, the US, in order to preserve US democracy has had to come up with an almost Chinese position regarding societal stability. The January 6 insurrection and subsequent indulgence in free speech by certain actors to and beyond the point of truth telling has resulted in a continuing threat to US democracy. Certain members of American society are pushing Constitutional guarantees of free speech and gun rights to the point of undermining US democracy in general. Perhaps the American Constitution needs to be rethunk or at least amended. The Republican party threatens the destruction of American society unless they get their way.

Off the Top of My Head

Republican Presidents Have Been Mainly Responsible for Increases in the National Debt

by John Lawrence

The Reagan, George W Bush and Trump tax cuts are responsible for most of the US national debt. During the Trump administration, the debt increased by roughly $7.8 trillion, and The George W. Bush administration  enacted sweeping tax cuts that will have cost more than $8 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2023. The nation’s fiscal pictured changed in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, reducing revenues by the equivalent of $19 trillion over a decade in today’s terms. Although Congress raised taxes in many of the subsequent years of the Reagan administration to claw back close to half the revenue loss, the equivalent of $10 trillion of the president’s 1981 tax cut remained. Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) that it’ll weigh down the economy for years.

A series of massive, permanent tax cuts have created large federal budget primary shortfalls and continue to exert upward pressure on the debt ratio. In other words, the current fiscal gap—the growing debt as a percentage of the economy—stems from legislation that cut taxes, disproportionately for the very rich. While it is true that the Great Recession and legislation to fight it, along with the costs of responding to the health and economic effects of COVID-19, pushed the level of debt higher, these costs were temporary and did not change the trajectory of the debt ratio. If Congress wants to decrease deficits, it should look first toward reversing tax cuts that largely benefited the wealthy, which were responsible for the United States’ current fiscal outlook.

Therefore, taxes on the rich should increase while spending on the poor and middle class should also increase. Americans want both: social programs and reduced taxes. However, the gross inequality that exists between rich and poor begs the question: why raise taxes on everyone? Shouldn't the rich have their taxes increased while the poor and lower middle class have their taxes reduced? Of course, that 's the ideal solution. However, Republicans represent the interests of the rich so they would never agree to this proposal. They will continue to argue for increasing taxes on the poor while cutting spending that mostly benefits the poor and lower middle class. That's the American situation, writ large, folks. That's all you need to know to understand American politics. It's a struggle between rich and poor. The rich think they deserve all their money even if it runs to billions of dollars while the poor are only trying to get a foothold in the American Dream. The rich think the poor deserve their lot in life because they didn't work hard enough to overcome their poverty. The rich also believe in a meritocracy where they themselves are the winners who made all the right moves and worked the hardest. What's wrong with this picture?

Read "The Tyranny of Merit" by Michael Sandel.

Off the Top of My Head

The Dystopian American Democracy

by John Lawrence

As set up by the Founding Fathers, the mechanics of the American electoral system inevitably lead to a two party system. This is as opposed to a parliamentary democracy as exists in most other democratic nations. Third parties never make it in American democracy precisely because they take votes away from the party whose views they most closely resemble. Example: the Presidential election of 2000. Since with the American voting system, a voter can vote for one and only one candidate, voters waste their votes voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning. Ralph Nader ran as the Green party candidate and won almost 3 million votes, votes which most assuredly would have been cast for Gore if Nader weren't running. As it was, Gore won more popular votes than George W Bush who eked out a victory because of the antiquated electoral college system. If Gore had also won the 3 million votes that Nader received, he may have had enough electoral votes to tip the balance. These voting mechanics have enshrined what is called plurality voting or the first past the post system into law. If the approval voting system had been in effect in 2000, Gore would have won. Approval voting is a system in which a voter can cast votes for all candidates he or she approves of. That means that all those who voted for Nader would also probably have voted for Gore giving Gore 3 million more votes.

Why the two party system, which is the inevitable result of plurality voting, is so toxic is that it leads to a government like we have today in which the two parties are diametrically opposed to each other. Instead of working in the best interests of the American people, the two parties end up fighting each other for power. This produces gridlock and a seesawing back and forth regarding policy depending on which party controls which branch of government. The dystopia that results from this winner take all system is that compromise becomes impossible. All the energy goes into winning and making the other party lose. It is all about the competition between the two parties and not about finding solutions to societal problems that benefit the American people. Another factor is that the plurality system of voting at best leads to majority rule. That means that at best each party represents a majority of the American people and not minorities at all. Certainly neither party needs to seek the votes of the poorest Americans who usually don't vote anyway, and, if they did, their interests need not be served by the winning party.

The American system has become a dystopia precisely because one party is only interested in winning, and, if the other party is in power, in making that party lose the next election. They do this by denying insofar as possible that party from making any constructive changes which might benefit the American people. As the American people get disenchanted with the ruling party because it can't bring about constructive change, they inevitably vote for the other party hoping that they can do what the ruling party wasn't able to based on their campaign promises. In a multi party system such as a parliamentary democracy, a party whose only purpose is to deny the ruling party the ability to bring about constructive change and thereby gain power for itself is less likely to be able to pull this off. A center party is more likely to win. The two party system is more likely to breed two extreme parties diametrically opposed to each other with each party vying for power.

Fortunately, because of his skill and dexterous maneuvering, Joe Biden has been able to bridge a lot of gaps in getting things done for the American people. However, it wasn't without the other party's determinattion to make him fail. Republican leader Mitch McConnell said this about President Obama: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." How they endeavored to do this was to make Obama fail at everything he promised in his campaign to do for the American people. If Obama wasn't able to accomplish his campaign goals, the American people would become disenchanted with him and put Republicans back in power. This is why Republicans never compromise with Democrats in the best interests of getting good things done for the American people. They only see these things as "wins" for the Democrats and hence "losses" for themselves. On the other hand, Democrats are somewhat more magnanimous in that they will vote with Republicans some times when they are in power. Example: Democrats voted 3 times to raise the debt ceiling when Trump was in power even though they objected to the $7 trillion that Trump added to the national debt by giving tax breaks to the rich. The only reason Biden was able to accomplish anything or any American President is able to accomplish anything is when their party controls all 3 branches of government. Even then the other party can filibuster making a mockery of the idea of democratic government.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Didn't Democrats Raise the Debt Ceiling When They Controlled Both Houses of Congress?

by John Lawrence

What is clear is that Democrats can only get new legislation passed when they control all three branches of government. This legislation usually increases spending on social programs. Likewise, Republicans can only get their legislation composed - usually of tax cuts - when they control all three branches of government. Both cases usually require the government to deficit spend, the former because of increased government spending, the latter because of decreased government revenues from taxes. So whichever party controls Congress and the Presidency and passes a budget requiring increassed deficit spending should also at the same time raise the debt limit. Make sense? So now we're in this dystopian dilemma that, after Democrats passed Biden's budget requiring a huge amount of government spending, Republicans, who now control the House, effectively want to repeal Biden's budget or else they won't agree to raise the debt ceiling. What a conundrum! These problems would never come up if the party that deficit spent also raised the debt ceiling to accommodate the deficit spending.

Congress has raised the debt ceiling twice under Biden, by about $3 trillion. Republicans voted three times to raise the debt ceiling under President Donald Trump, who added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. "Republicans in Congress raised the debt three times when Donald Trump was president and each time with Democrat support, but now they won’t raise it, even though they're responsible for more than $8 trillion in bills incurred in four years under the previous administration," Biden said. The 115th Congress (2017–2019) featured unified Republican control of the government with GOP majorities in the House and Senate, and Republican President Donald J. Trump in the White House. So Republicans had no problem with raising the debt ceiling during the Trump administration which added $7 trillion to the national debt. Please note that Democrats could have filibustered the debt ceiling increases during the Trump administration because Republicans did not have a filibuster proof Senate, but they didn't

Raising the debt limit is not about new spending; it is about paying for previous choices policymakers legislated. However, if the previous choice were made by a government controlled by the Democratic party in a two party system, there is every reason to get those choices reversed when the Republican party comes into power and vice versa although Democrats have never tried to bring the country to the brink of default, a game of chicken which Republicans have been all to eager to engage in. They were successful in doing this when Obama was President. Having seen that chaos and mess as vice Preesident, Biden is not willing to engage in negotiations this time around hoping that more sensible heads will prevail. It didn't used to be this way. Sometimes called the Gephardt Rule in honor of Representative Dick Gephardt who introduced its first version, the rule used to provide that when the House agrees to a budget resolution, the Clerk shall prepare a joint resolution suspending the debt limit for the fiscal year covered by the budget resolution. In other words the debt ceiling was automatically effectively raised to accommodate the budget. This all changed when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. When Newt Gingrich took over the House in 1995, he nullified the ingenious “Gephardt rule” that deemed the debt limit to be increased whenever a budget passed. This eventually led to the 1995 and 1996 government shutdowns, when Republicans refused to increase the limit because the president was a Democrat. In 2011, a showdown over the debt ceiling during Barack Obama’s presidency led to the Budget Control Act and ten subsequent years of austerity budgets.

So the simple answer to the question posed by the title of this piece is that, although Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress during the first two years of the Biden administration, they did not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Therefore, they could get a budget passed under the budget reconciliation rule which prevents a filibuster, but they could not raise the debt ceiling because that is subject to the filibuster. Oh what tangled webs these politicians weave! Nothing makes clearer the need to end the filibuster than another round of hostage-taking of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Add this to the mounting problems of American democracy. Congress has created an arcane jumble of chaotic rules which threatens government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Go figure.

Off the Top of My Head

Another Day, Another Mass Shooting. What Else Is New?

by John Lawrence

Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” The US' inaction with respect to gun control is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same results. We just got used to the same results, and rather than doing what needs to be done to get different results, we are content with doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results. Rather than changing anything, Americans are willing to get the same results rather than doing anything in the hopes of getting better results. I'll call this sclerotic insanity. What needs to be done for starters is very simple: get assault rifles off the streets. In the long run the US needs a new Constitution sans the Second Amendment. Other countries change or revise their constitutions when it is beneficial and/or advantageous to do so. Human lives and the quality thereof is more important than a piece of paper. But not according to gun toting Republicans. They will exploit every loophole in our vaunted "rule of law" in order to impose mass insanity on the American public. Witness the fact that one judge can withdraw an FDA approved drug from the market!

So far there have been 146 mass shootings in the US this year, more than one a day. In France there have been 8. In Germany there have been 5. In Italy there have been 2. In the Netherlands there have been 2. In the UK there has been one, injuring 6, killing none. One in Norway, One in China. One in Australia. Even in Russia there have been only 21, 7 times fewer than in the US. Only in the US is there sclerotic, resolute and unwavering insanity. And we brag to the rest of the world about what a great country we are and how they all should emulate us! Now the spectacle of mass shootings, the details of which are duly reported by the media, are an ever present form of entertainment as we are treated to mass shooting porn on a daily basis. Each instance becomes the inspiration for the next mass shooter as he (isn't it always a "he") sees how much publicity he will get after he goes out and "legally" purchases an AK-15 and opens fire. It's just a continuation of the video games he has been playing at home. It's a real life video game, and obviously we all will recover very nicely because just as soon as the next mass shooting materializes (we shouldn't have to wait more than a day), the previous one is totally forgotten. Sometimes even the spectacle of the last one is cut off prematurely as the next one takes precedence.

The International Bar Association reported:

"[New Zealand] has introduced swift and sweeping reforms of gun laws following the mass shooting in Christchurch in March [2019] – a move that highlights the continuing lack of action to tackle gun violence in the United States.

"‘One of New Zealand’s darkest days,’ was how the country’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern described the mass shooting in Christchurch on 15 March. Fifty-one people were killed and 50 others wounded when a lone gunman opened fire at two mosques in the city, in the country’s worst peacetime shooting. The gunman livestreamed his actions on Facebook.

"Less than a month later, New Zealand’s Parliament voted 119-1 to introduce a nationwide ban on semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. In addition to the sweeping reform of gun laws, a special commission is being set up to explore broader issues around accessibility of weapons and the role of social media.

"The rapid response to the Christchurch attack is in stark contrast to that of the United States. America has the highest rate of murder and manslaughter by firearms in the developed world and a high rate of mass shootings, yet even moderate reform of gun laws has been blocked for 25 years. Not even last year’s March for Our Lives (MFOL) demonstration in support of legislation to prevent gun violence – one of the largest protests in American history – could trigger political will for reform."

There are cracks in the armor of the US Constitution and rule of law that have appeared relatively recently due to the intransigency of one party in a two party system. Other countries have demonstrated that there really is a better way of doing some things. But the US stubbornly goes on its way stuck in the sludge of its own hubris.

Off the Top of My Head

Mass Murderers Get Much More Than Their 15 Minutes of Fame

by John Lawrence

The perpetrator of the recent mass murder in the Q night club wants to be addressed as "they" and "them" because he is "non-binary." How about if we address him as "you sonofabitch." Barely, have we gotten done with one mass murder in the news cycle than another one comes along to take precedence. The news these days consists mainly of covering one mass murder after another. Mass murderers are lining up. Next? Better make sure the news cycle is clear so that your atrocity takes over the headlines. Then we hear all about the perpetrator's messed up childhood, and, if there is a court trial, the news media dutifully covers it giving the murderer another 15 minutes of fame at least. Recently, families of the victims were upset when a mass murderer was given a sentence of free room and board for life with no possibility of ever having to make a living for himself rather than the death penalty. The news media and a coterie of lawyers, not to mention gun manufacturers and merchandisers are making a small fortune off of the mass murder business. Here's an idea; mass murderers caught in the act should immediately be taken out and shot thus avoiding the news cycle, numerous lawyers, pundits pontificating, authors hawking books and displays of grieving and mourning. It's all become a predictable big business. Yes, the GDP would decrease slightly, but who cares. We have become a mass culture of mass murder spectacles.

So the Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What is well-regulated, much less militia-like about individuals going out and buying an AK-47 and committing mass murder over some real or perceived grievance? By the way, the news media informs us that "the police have not yet discovered a motive." They never do. What possible motive could there be for mass murder that would justify it? The motive is the fact that the mass murderer is fucked up. Saying that he - and it always is a "he" - is mentally ill, is a means of evoking sympathy for someone who deserves none. But if individual mass murderers are fucked up, so is the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the Heller case that the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own (and use) guns. What about the "well regulated militia" bullshit? The Supreme Court basically backed the rights of mass murderers. Now according to recent reports: Six million Americans carried guns daily in 2019, twice as many as in 2015. And this: "The trend is expected to continue, after the supreme court ruling earlier this year overturning strict limits on public gun-carrying." Whose side is the Supreme Court on? 

Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and he is us." True. The enemy is not "out there." It is the very wonderful American people themselves and the very vaunted Supreme Court which is so concerned about preserving life in the womb and so unconcerned about preserving life once it's outside the womb. After spending a trillion dollars a year on our military and military-industrial complex, it seems we as a nation are powerless to stop Americans from self immolating. So Americans have to come to expect one mass killing after another in assembly line like fashion. Next? They are already getting in line. Fame and fortune and a free meal ticket for life awaits. Meanwhile, the rest of us are reminded of John Milton's poem: "we also serve who only stand and wait." The rest of us go to our boring jobs, take care of our traumatized families and hope for a better life for us and our children if the world doesn't burn up due to global warming. Please, President Biden, do something about assault rifles.

Off the Top of My Head

The Mid Terms: Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire

by John Lawrence

Voters are going to vote Republican because they don't like the economy. Really? What have the Republicans proposed to do about that? Cut social security and Medicare. Yeah, that'll fix the economy all right. Give more tax breaks to billionaires? That'll fix the economy for sure. Take away Biden's forgiveness of student loan debt? That'll really fix it. "Kitchen table" voters don't like inflation? What are Republicans proposing to do about that? The only tool in the arsenal for inflation cutting is the Fed's raising interest rates and the Fed is independent of both parties. Besides the only tool the Fed has is probably not the right tool for fixing this inflation. But it will eventually destroy what seems to be a pretty good economy despite inflation. The biggest way to fight inflation is to end the war in Ukraine which will bring gas prices down. Additionally, all the weaponry that is being "given" to Ukraine is really being bought from US weapons manufacturers and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin. This is pouring more money into the American economy at a time when money needs to be extracted from the American economy to fight inflation. The Fed's raising of interest rates is an attempt to increase unemployment which is the traditional way that the Fed fights inflation. The so-called Philips curve says that inflation is directly caused by too much employment, and, if you increase unemployment, it will bring inflation down. There is a direct correlation between unemployment and inflation. So the Fed, although no politician will say it, is trying desperately to increase unemployment. This hurts poor people the most, and, whether it will decrease inflation under the present circumstances, is debatable.

However, the war in Ukraine amounts to a protracted stalemate. As long as the west supplies Ukraine with weapons and North Korea, Iran and China supply Russia with weapons, the war will continue. No one on either side wants to talk peace. Each side wants to win at all costs. So the war will drag the world economy down into inflation and recession. Russia holds the winning cards in terms of its ability to literally destroy Ukraine from the air regardless of what is happening on the battlefield. This is not World War II where success on the battlefield was the key to winning the war. It's more like World War I where trench warfare and stalemate predominated. Territorial Russia remains virtually untouched since the rules are that the war will be entirely fought on Ukraine's territory, and the west to its credit doesn't want an expansion of the war. In the final analysis this gives Russia the advantage. Ukraine is fighting a defensive war, and Russia is fighting an offensive war. It's likely that neither party will run out of resources. That means the longer the war goes on, the more of Ukraine will be destroyed. There needs to be a peace commission and a peace process in which both sides can air their grievances and aspirations. What makes the most sense? I'm sure there is a possible way out, but neither side seems to want to compromise in the interests of ameliorating the lives of the Ukrainian people and getting back to normalcy. For each side their national pride is more important than the lives of their citizens.

Joe Biden could propose a solution to the war which would also go a long way to ameliorating inflation. Unfortunately, Biden is only interested in demonizing Putin. This is not a productive way to create peace. Biden is only fueling the war, and Putin won't back down due to pride. The more Putin is demonized, the more his hackles are raised. The west should be trying to lower Putin's hackles, not raise them. Ukrainian lives hang in the balance. Russian soldiers' lives are also in the balance although Russian civilians so far have escaped most of the suffering. Ukraine taking back real estate will not in the final analysis win the war because Russia can lob missiles into Ukraine ad infinitum. Only a peace process, compromise, consideration for civilian lives and reintegration of Russia into the world community will make it possible for people in that region of the world to again lead normal lives. Winning the war for either side is not a realistic option.

Off the Top of My Head

Problem of American Democracy: Will It Devolve to Tribalism?

by John Lawrence

The US was settled by western Europeans - white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. All the Founding Fathers and writers of the Constitution consisted of these folks. When the Europeans came here there were 100 million Native Americans. A few years later, due to war and disease, there were only 10 million. 90% of Native Americans were wiped out. African Americans were brought here as slaves and completely subjugated, first due to slavery and secondly due to Jim Crow laws up to 1965. So western Europeans predominated in the US right up to late in the 20th century. From the 1880s to the 1920s many of the immigrants were Eastern and Southern Europeans fleeing poverty. They were preceded by the Irish in the 1850s due to the potato famine. This was the era when the motto, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore" really held true. Then in 1920 or thereabouts the door to immigration was slammed shut. The western Europeans who ran America were afraid that these new immigrants would outnumber them and take over. Tribalism had reared its ugly head. About the same time eugenics was elevated to the point that the Supreme Court allowed the states to sterilize people that they considered undesirable. In Virginia Carrie Beck was sterilized.

Now that African Americans have escaped the bounds of Jim Crow and other Persons of Color have come to predominate in many positions of power, the remnants of the western Europeans who controlled the US up until the last 30 years or so are feeling like they're losing their grip on power. Democracy, as it was set up by the WASP Founding Fathers, only worked when the citizenry were also predominantly WASPs.Although its ideals were lofty, it was never meant to include African Americans, Native Americans, Latin Americans or other Persons of Color from around the world. The point could be made that democracy only works when it is enacted completely within one tribe, and, when other tribes are incorporated into the community, it doesn't work so well. What is happening today is that the WASP tribe is losing its grip on power, and so is attempting to put democracy aside and just revert to a society in which WASPs hold the reins on power. That is what the Republican party and especially the election deniers are all about.

Election deniers and conspiracy theorists are simply using a dog whistle because they just can't come out and say that what thy are really about is reverting to a tribal state in which they maintain the power that WASPs have always been accustomed to. Donald Trump is just the symbol of this.Election denying is just a euphemism for white western European power. The harsh reality is that the remnant WASPS would rather have an autocracy that they control rather than a true democracy consisting of African Americans and other Persons of Color. They don't want the true history of the US which includes other harsh realities taught in class rooms. The history they want taught is circumscribed to include only Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln and other WASPs but certainly not the realities of African and Native Americans and what happened to them at the hands of the WASPs.

So now what is at stake is the creation either of a true democracy which includes as full citizens and people allowed to enter positions of power those of African descent and other Persons of Color. What is at stake is a true Rainbow Coalition. The alternative is what the election deniers are trying to bring about which is an antidemocratic autocracy in which the descendants of WASPs prevail. That is basically what the Republican party represents - the descendants of WASPs. This is predominantly what the US has always been controlled by up till recently, and they want to continue in that mold. That's why the culture wars are heating up and what is taught in school is so important. If history is taught in such a way that it includes the realities of all Americans and not simply WASP Americans, it is taught in such a way that it does not reflect so favorably on WASP Americans. If non WASPS are given full citizenship or even if they are compensated for some of the inequities they have experienced in the past, this is threatening to the WASPs who would like to maintain the facade that they are good people and have always been good people. What is at stake is which version of reality will predominate in American society and who will be allowed into the Sanctum Sanctorum of American political power. Either the US becomes a true democracy or it reverts to a tribe controlled by the descendants of WASPs only.

Off the Top of My Head

Problem of American Democracy: Constitution Guarantees Freedoms Without Demanding Responsibilities

by John Lawrence

There is nothing asked of an American citizen by the Constitution. It just gives citizens all kinds of freedoms - freedom of speech, assembly etc - without saying what the responsibilities or obligations of citizens are. It is just a free lunch for citizens. They have no responsibility either to the state or to their fellow citizens. This has led to the situation where every free agent is totally in it for theirself without regard to the interests or plight of anyone else. For instance the rich have no responsibility to alleviate the suffering of the poor. The poor must independently pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. This is the philosophy of liberal individualism. There is no responsibility for any American to the community as a whole. The 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights enumerated the many rights which enlightened governments should guarantee to their citizens. The US guarantees the political and civil rights, but stops short of guaranteeing Article 25: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Article 25 is a step too far for the American way of life which guarantees political and civil liberties, but not economic liberties because that would encumber some better off individuals to be responsible for some less better off individuals, and the philosophy of liberal individualism promotes individual initiative without any sense of responsibility for anyone else. What's mine is mine, and no one else including the government has a right to take any of my stuff away from me and give it to anyone else even if they are starving, homeless and sick.

In 1997 the InterAction Council decided to come up with "A Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities" to counterbalance the UN Declaration of Human Rights. They stated in the introduction: "Globalization of the world economy is matched by global problems, and global problems demand global solutions on the basis of ideas, values and norms respected by all cultures and societies. Recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all the people requires a foundation of freedom, justice and peace – but this also demands that rights and responsibilities be given equal importance to establish an ethical base so that all men and women can live peacefully together and fulfill their potential. A better social order both nationally and internationally cannot be achieved by laws, prescriptions and conventions alone, but needs a global ethic. Human aspirations for progress can only be realized by agreed values and standards applying to all people and institutions at all times."

In other words we are all in this together so it's not enough to "get government off our back." In return for the wonderful freedoms government guarantees to us, government should ask for something in return both to the society as a whole and to our fellow citizens. It's not enough to be free and equal although the meaning of equal is up for debate. The motto of the French revolution was Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. At least there was a mention of "brotherhood", Fraternite, in the French motto even if the French have argued whether or not it means that they have any responsibility to their fellow French men and women. There is a growing realization that freedom must be balanced with responsibility. Otherwise, American democracy is just a big free lunch. You get all this stuff guaranteed by the Constitution including the rule of law with an elaborate court system which protects you from bodily harm, thievery and much else, but there are no explicit responsibilities on your part. It's as if your Dad gave you the keys to the car and said, "Here take it. It's yours" without asking for anything in return.

Article 7 of the Declaration of Human Responsibilities says: "All people have a responsibility to protect the air, water and soil of the earth for the sake of present inhabitants and future generations." There is a lack of responsibility on the part of some Americans who want to maximize quarterly profits without any consideration of the environment or global warming.The US Constitution allows them to do so. It makes no demands on them in this regard or in any other regard. The American way is to seek one's self-interest without regard to fellow Americans or the environment and self-interest in most cases means to maximize profits even when the maximizer is a billionaire with more money than they could ever hope to spend. Some Constitutions not only specify rights but duties as well. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States in Bogota, Columbia specifies among other things that one has both a right and a duty to work if able-bodied.

Americans are only tuned into their rights, but not their responsibilities because the Constitution makes no demands on them in this regard. This leads to and is partly responsible for the break down of the American democratic system. Too many disaffected people feel lost in a society which basically tells them, "You're on your own Buddy. Don't ask me for help." Too many people don't want their tax money going to help the homeless, the mentally ill or those who are barely scraping by. Societal stability is not as important as protecting someone's right to own a gun. Too much freedom without responsibility can lead to the breakdown of democracy, but the US is not really a democracy. As Ben Franklin said, "It's a republic, if you can keep it."

Off the Top of My Head

Why None of the Proposed Federal Legislation Will Stop Gun Violence

by John Lawrence

The proposed legislation is little more than a farce even if it passes. When the most radical item is raising the legal age to 21 for purchasing an AR-15, the whole context of gun control is rendered risible. There will still be 120.5 guns in circulation for every American. None of the proposed legislation will limit the number of gun sales let alone getting guns out of circulation and off the streets. The only effective legislation would be to outlaw the sale of AR-15s completely and initiate a mandatory buy back program to get rid of these guns. This is not even thinkable in terms of the rationality of American lawmakers. The proposed legislation is just skirting around the edges, and it will do nothing to curb gun violence.

After a mass shooting in Australia in 1996, Australia not only banned the sale of AR-15 type guns, it initiated a mandatory buy back program to get these guns off the streets. New Zealand did the same thing after a mass shooting in 2019. In both cases mass shootings and gun deaths in general plummeted. These two countries have demonstrated that the only effective way to counter the American culture of gun violence is to take the drastic step of banning assault rifles and getting the ones already in circulation off the streets by initiating a buy back program. The US, of course, will not take these "radical" steps, and so mass shootings and huge numbers of gun deaths will continue unabated. In a sense legislators are facilitating by means of their inaction the next slaughter of innocent school children. These people who are supposedly running this country fail to realize that gun violence is systemic now in American culture and their "solutions" will do little or nothing to eradicate it. Thank God my parents who were educators never had to even imagine this problem.

BBC News reported:

Firearms deaths are a fixture in American life.

There were 1.5 million of them between 1968 and 2017 - that's higher than the number of soldiers killed in every US conflict since the American War for Independence in 1775.

In 2020 alone, more than 45,000 Americans died at the end of a barrel of a gun, whether by homicide or suicide, more than any other year on record. The figure represents a 25% increase from five years prior, and a 43% increase from 2010.

I for one advocate getting rid of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. No country should enshrine in its Constitution any language which can be interpreted, as these words have been, to give any citizen the absolute right to own a gun. It has been pointed out again and again that there are more restrictive laws for car ownership than there are for gun ownership. The framers of the US Constitution made a big mistake when they didn't qualify the Second Amendment. They could have saved a lot of innocent people being killed if they had. The same thing applies to the First Amendment, but that is a subject for another day. Even the legal shooting of guns is no more than a "hobby" if you want to call the slaying of innocent animals a hobby. This is a hobby that has been elevated, unfortunately, to a Constitutional right with totally devastating results. Any other hobby that killed people would be legislated out of existence. The US needs to follow the example of countries like Australia and New Zealand which have treated gun violence in a sensible manner with the result that gun deaths in those countries have drastically diminished. But this is just another Problem of American Democracy which is putting the US on a downhill slide.

Off the Top of My Head

Problems of American Democracy - Part 5 - Elections Are Popularity Contests

by John Lawrence

The most competent, knowledgeable and experienced candidates are not elected. The most popular are, and in many cases these people don't know anything about governing or legislating. Especially today in America's celebrity culture, media celebrities with tons of name recognition get themselves elected while people who would govern wisely are rejected. Case in point: experienced and talented Hilary Clinton lost the 2016 election to media celebrity Donald Trump. Now Trump goes around endorsing the ljkes of Dr. Oz. Why? Because Dr. Oz is a household name having been on television for a long time. This feature of democracy could mean the end of democracy as more and more incompetent celebrities who know nothing about governing are elected. In fact the candidates who pander the most to the voters are more likely to get themselves elected than the ones who tell it like it is. The question must be asked, "Is this the best way to run a country?"

I don't think so. What you want ideally is the best and the brightest, the most knowledgable and the most experienced running the country. At the very least there should be a requirement that all Presidential candidates must have served at least one term in Congress. But that's not what the Founding Fathers ordained. Any nincompoop can run for President of the United States and become the most powerful man or woman in the world. Kishore Mahbubani writes in his book, "Has China Won?": The Chinese Communist Party is not run by doddering old apparatchiks. Instead, it has become a meritocratic governance system, which chooses only the best and brightest to be promoted to the highest levels." I am not endorsing the Chinese system. Yet by removing selection of people for the highest offices from the general public, the system does not fall victim to elections by the lowest common denominators. In China the people elect officials at the city or county level, and those officials elect officials at the next highest level and so on. So the highest officials are elected by that governing body at the immediately lower level.

It seems that what you want at the national level are officials who represent the best and the brightest not those who have become media celebrities or prominent athletes. You also don't want millionaires and billionaires in a position to buy elections. Money corrupts politics and makes it certain that government will be by the elite and for the elite. Just because a politician has a lot of money or worse yet has people with a lot of money running his campaign does not mean that that politician is in a position to govern effectively. American democracy is entering a phase in which only media celebrities are going to be able to collect enough votes to get themselves elected. They become the ultimate "influencers." Government by the most popular is antithetical to government by the best and brightest. When these "influencers" also are total panderers you have government by those who can most effectively dupe the voting public.

Off the Top of My Head

Problems of American Democracy - Part 4: The Easter Bunny Approach to Good Citizenship

by John Lawrence

Voters usually turn against the party in power in the mid term elections. Why? Because the party in power has promised voters all kinds of Easter goodies, and they haven't delivered on all of them. They haven't delivered all of them because the job of the party out of power is to prevent the party in power from doing so. Meanwhile, the party out of power promises voters a different bag of goodies if only they elect them. After all the party in power hasn't delivered all of the goodies promised. The result is the voters vote for the party out of power in the mid term elections. They've gotten all the goodies they're likely to get from the party in power, and their vote is cast in such a way that they are expecting a new bag of Easter goodies that has been promised by the party out of power if only the voters will vote for them which they willingly do. Why? Because voters don't vote for the party most likely to provide the country with good government. They don't vote for the party that is most likely to provide them with intelligent government. They vote for the party that has promised them a new and different bag of Easter goodies than the party in power which hasn't fulfilled all its promised goodies.

So the mid term elections are coming up. Republicans have done their job of obstructing many of Biden's campaign pledges. He did get an infrastructure package passed and got enormous COVID economic relief for citizens, but his hallmark campaign platform pledge, the Build Back Better plan has gone unfulfilled, thanks largely to the Republicans and two Republican wolves in Democratic sheep's clothing. The fickle voters do not assess how Biden has handled the chores of government, whether or not he's handled them in an intelligent and proficient manner. Their fickleness only assesses whether or not they've gotten all the Easter goodies Biden and the Democrats had promised. They have not. Therefore, it has been decreed by pundits, one and all, that Democrats don't have a snowball's chances in Hell of getting reelected in the Halls of Congress come this November.

Voters would rather elect a nincompoop like Trump who knew nothing about government except for the fact that it made him the most powerful man in the Free World, and, therefore, he could do and say most anything he wanted. He also promised voters the Republican bag of goodies - lowered taxes. Thoughtfully, Biden has carefully changed the Democratic meme from raising taxes on everyone to raising taxes only on the rich thus depriving Republicans of their main accusation towards Democrats: "They will raise your taxes." However, Biden doesn't seem to be getting very far in fighting inflation by raising taxes on the rich. Why? Because most Congress persons and Senators are the rich, and they've been lobbied very thoroughly by the rich. Of course this is all very legitimate. It's the American way of doing government unlike the Russian way where a rich businessman just offers cash to a member of parliament if they'll vote a certain way. In America the rich lobby and make generous campaign contributions in order to get Congress persons to vote a certain way. There's also an implied, though not explicit, wink, wink, nod, nod that the Congress person will get a lucrative job on a Fortune 400 Board when they retire from Congress in order to spend more time with their family. Of course this is not considered corruption, but the result is the same. In Russia politicians and government officials do the bidding of the rich; in America politicians and government officials do the bidding of the rich. What else is new?

Off the Top of My Head

Problems of American Democracy - Part 3 - The Two Party System

by John Lawrence

In short a two party system degenerates into the far left vs the far right. This is what's happening in America today. The only thing worse than a two party system is a one party system. In a multi-party system like most European democracies have, you can still have a far left and a far right, but you have numerous gradations in between. In a two party system people are diametrically opposed to each other and go head to head. The US is plagued by a winner take all society in which the voting system itself plagues democracy. In each district there is one and only one winner. This makes it possible for Republicans, for example, to out primary each other by becoming even more extreme. Why does all the action occur in the primaries? Because the districts are so gerrymandered that one party is almost guaranteed to win in these so-called safe districts. I don't think democracy is doomed, but the American version thereof may be. In America third parties are doomed by the very structure of the voting system. In districts in Europe, for example, that are not winner take all, in which multiple candidates from multiple parties can be elected in the same election, more than one voice can be heard. The result is that the outcomes of elections are not so extreme.

The winner take all system suppresses minorities. The historical minority in American politics, namely black people, have not been able to have much of a voice in electoral politics because of, among other reasons, gerrymandering and winner take all voting systems. The majority always wins and minorities end up with no representation whatsoever. We've seen this in Presidential politics when the only effect a third party candidate like Ralph Nader had was to take votes away from the party he was closest to politically giving the party farthest away from himself politically the win. In 2000 Nader took enough votes away from Al Gore so that George W Bush won the election. This led to Bush lying the US into the Iraq war with disastrous results. In the 1992 Presidential election Ross Perot ended up with 18.9% of the votes. This probably cost George H. W. Bush a second term and elected Bill Clinton President. Taking popular votes away from a candidate can cost that candidate electoral votes. In many states the electoral votes are winner take all so that whoever gets the most popular votes, even though not a majority, wins all the electoral votes.

The solution for the US is not only voting reform - eliminating gerrymandering primarily, but to do away with the district by district winner take all system. This will give voice to minority representation. It's something that might be of interest to European descendant whites as pretty soon they will be in the minority. The US doesn't necessarily have to adopt the European Parliamentary system. There are other variations of voting systems that are not winner take all and that support multi-party winners. A little humility, please, about the superiority of American democracy. It's badly in need of reform.

Off the Top of My Head

Problems of American Democracy - Part 2

by John Lawrence

How is Roe vs Wade like the Iran nuclear deal? They both can be overturned by a new President, Supreme Court or Congress. There is no such thing as "settled law." Another example: the Paris climate change agreement which Obama signed on to and Trump pulled out of. A nation that can't keep its agreements either internally or externally is a nation with no direction, a nation not so much making progress as going over and over again the same ground. We go back and forth and round and round while other countries go forward in the same direction.This whole process is more crucial due to the fact that 1) other countries are losing trust in us if they can't count on us to keep our word and 2) if we're not all on the same page regarding climate change, the earth will be a goner in just a few years. Some countries are already experiencing disasters that they are ill prepared to deal with.

Some of the issues are pretty straightforward. Instead of the US getting its panties all in a wad over Ukraine, the situation there is mainly of concern to Russia since Ukraine is right on Russia's border, and, by the way, used to be part of Russia. Would the US tolerate a hostile government in Mexico? Let Russia deal with it. It should be none of our business. Reagan promised Gorbachev that NATO would not start absorbing countries further to the east. Now that's just what NATO is doing with its cultivation of Ukraine for admission to NATO. The National Interest reports:

"Indeed, Russian Presidents Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin have complained bitterly about the expansion of NATO towards their borders despite what they had believed were assurances to the contrary. “What happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today?” Putin said at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in 2007.“No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”

"As the newly declassified documents show, the Russians might have had a point. While it was previously understood that Secretary of State James Baker’s assurance to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “not one inch eastward” during a February 9, 1990, meeting was only in the context of German reunification, the new documents show that this was not the case.

"Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner."

Obviously, Russia is very concerned about Ukraine becoming part of NATO with the prospects of advanced weapons being placed on its border. So why make a big deal over whether or not Ukraine or part of Ukraine is taken over by Russia? The US has long considered itself to have hegemony over North and South America and has overthrown governments in South and Central America. Let Russia have some degree of hegemony in its corner of the world. There are more important issues which require the cooperation of the whole world - climate change and pandemics to name two.

Off the Top of My Head

Problems of American Democracy - Part 1

by John Lawrence

When my father was a high school teacher in Highland Park, NJ, he taught a course - Problems in American Democracy. So I'm hopefully carrying on a family tradition by trying to elucidate these problems which, to put it mildly, are probably much different today than they were in 1941! The big problem today is that so many people are detached from reality in terms of being in touch with what the real problems are. One of the real problems is climate change, how to get from here to net zero carbon emissions before planet earth becomes uninhabitable. Another real problem is homelessness and affordability of housing. Another real problem is the 80 million refugees in the world. Another real problem is for Americans to be concerned about world problems and not just confine their attention to what goes on inside the borders of the US.  Another real problem is physical and social infrastructure which will be addressed by Biden's Build Back Better bills. But the biggest problem of all, as I see it, is that elections every 2 years make continuity of direction for the US impossible especially when the 2 parties have become diametrically opposed. So today we have the reality that the American government could possibly swing back and forth between Trumpism and what we might call Bidenism. Back and forth between ignorance and enlightenment. To boot the American people are no longer tuned in to authoritative news sources. Too many are only tuned into social media which is greatly responsible for cultivating the divide between two American tribes - the no nothings and the do somethings.

People in the Trump camp could care less about voting for or against their own economic interests. You would think a lot of them would benefit from the initiatives that the Democrats have put forward. But either they are ignorant of them or are willing to vote against their interests just because of the tribe they belong to or out of spite. They are completely irrational. Rationality is not even on the table. Their hate and their spite rules everything as far as they are concerned. They are willing to go down numerous rabbit holes and believe all kinds of conspiracy theories because critical thinking or a concern about human welfare, their own and others, has no place in their consciousness. Their concern and understanding remains at the level of symbols like the American flag. A deeper understanding or analysis of situations is beyond them. What's more this misinformed and ignorant part of the population is significant in number and can easily be responsible for electing ignorant and conspiracy theory infused lawmakers who will do whatever is necessary to pander to their constituents. Thus America as a nation could swerve back and forth between ignorance and rationality as exemplified by Trump's withdrawal from Obama's climate initiatives like the Paris accords and Biden's reinstating them.

Contrast the instability of American democracy with the Chinese system of government in which stability is of utmost importance. They don't want anyone rocking the boat including tennis stars. While this heavy handedness does curtail some of the aspects of western notions of freedom, it preserves the priorities of the long term interests of China itself which has been going in what most experts concede is a very positive direction. According to the World Bank: "Since China began to open up and reform its economy in 1978, GDP growth has averaged almost 10 percent a year, and more than 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty. There have also been significant improvements in access to health, education, and other services over the same period." China has had the goal of eliminating poverty altogether and claims as of 2021 to have done so. According to a Chinese source which admittedly may be biased: "Through continuous efforts, the final 98.99 million impoverished rural residents in China had all been lifted out of poverty, and all 832 impoverished counties and 128,000 villages had been removed from the poverty list by the end of 2020. The strategy of targeted poverty alleviation is China's strongest "weapon" in its final battle against poverty, and a major innovation in the theory and practice of poverty reduction. China's success in poverty alleviation has proven that the problem of poverty, in essence, is how the people should be treated: the people-centered philosophy is the fundamental driving force behind this cause." Independent confirmation of these claims is unclear. The World Bank which is an unbiased source essentially agrees with the Chinese government at to its elimination of poverty: "In 1990 there were more than 750 million people in China living below the international poverty line - about two-thirds of the population. By 2012, that had fallen to fewer than 90 million, and by 2016 - the most recent year for which World Bank figures are available - it had fallen to 7.2 million people (0.5% of the population). So clearly, even in 2016 China was well on the way to reaching its target. This suggests that overall, 745 million fewer people were living in extreme poverty in China than there were 30 years ago. World Bank figures do not take us to the present day, but the trend is certainly in line with the Chinese government's announcement."

So what weapons does the US have in its arsenal for the alleviation of poverty and homelessness? Not many. Biden's Build Back Better plan will help, but the US in recent years has been more interested in funding weapons systems built by the military-industrial complex, weapons that destroy rather than weapons that build. It's only "progressives" that even care about solving the problems of poverty and homelessness in America or in doing something about climate change or about the refugee problem in the world and not just at our southern border. I note that not one Republican voted for Biden's Build Back Better bill in the House. Instead Republican leader Kevin McCarthy went on an 8 hour diatribe in a futile attempt to prevent the bill's passage.