Let's Reason

It is common for humans to pay more attention to bad than good things.  Being attentive to dangerous situations or negative news protects us from harmful risks.  But not paying enough attention to good things has its own risk of depriving us from useful information on which we can capitalize to achieve more progress. 

Case in point is an international survey from 2016 reported by Max Roser who runs the site Our World in Data.  Surveyed about the state of the world, only 10% of Swedes, 6% of Americans and 4% of Germans had a positive opinion.  Even after accounting for the usual pitfalls of surveys, that’s a remarkable discrepancy between public perception and the actual state of the world.  (You may recall that I had covered this tendency to miss the positive in an earlier blogpost based on the book Factfulness.)

So, I thought it would be a useful exercise to remind myself and others of what good things have happened or are under way, so that we can feel a bit better about ourselves despite our current miseries and discontents.  I will end the post by explaining why, in my opinion, attention to these good developments gives us a springboard for further progress.

Let’s start with global good news.  In 2021 the percentage of people around the world experiencing extreme poverty (living on less than $1.90 per day) was 9.2% compared to 75% in 1950.  In 2021, eighty-six percent of the world population was literate with women closing the gap with men.  Instead, back in 1930, only one third of the world population could read and write.  Measured by child mortality, the rate was 27 per 1000 children in 2020 compared to 200 children in 1950.  Despite some slippage toward authoritarianism during the past ten years, democracy, even with flaws, is the political system of the majority of countries in the 21^st century, appreciably higher than the number of democratic countries in the 20^th century.  Although fertility rates (especially in rich countries) have dropped the world population has doubled the last 100 years thanks to advances in health care that have helped extend life expectancy. 

These good global developments mean that as a species we are becoming more educated, healthier, less in the grip of the want for food and shelter, and importantly more tolerant to the rights of others as institutions of governance come under greater control of the people.

The above information reflects mostly the mega trends taking place on a global scale.  We also have significant current developments that exemplify our good side notwithstanding other darker events.  The primary piece of evidence in this connection is the global response to the covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

The last two and a half years the world has come together to provide a collective response against the devastating health and economic dangers unleashed by the pandemic.  Thus, the world summoned its scientists to design and produce vaccines against the virus in record time.  National governments used their fiscal powers to shield their populations and industries from economic ruin and hardship and rich nations extended their assistance (no matter how inadequate some would claim) to poor nations.

Moody’s Analytics has estimated that the response to the pandemic came to about $9 trillion worldwide.  Obviously, the richest countries dedicated much higher sums to help their citizens than poorer nations.  Thus, the US government allocated 25% of its GDP to fight the pandemic while the European Union countries threw $1 trillion to the same cause.  According to the International Monetary Fund, the fiscal response to the pandemic was indeed worldwide.  And an OECD study found that states and official donors contributed $179 billion to developing nations, a record amount (on an annual basis). 

The war in Ukraine and the resultant crisis in the energy markets presented additional opportunities to governments to display their care for their hard-pressed citizens.  The EU has earmarked $350 billion for aid to households and industries while the UK plans to spend $172 billion to fight economic hardship due to rising inflation.

This vast global operation of fiscal largess has no doubt received a lot of criticism by orthodox economists (because of the fear of inflation) and conservative policy experts (because of aversion against governments doing too much).  From the left, the criticism refers to the one-off nature of most of these measures which fail to address the structural causes of insufficient economic resilience. 

What matters though is that current and past fiscal measures to fight poverty have improved the lives of millions of people.  In the US alone there has been a sustained downward trend in child poverty, which by 2019 had declined by 44% since the early 1990s and dropped further thanks to fiscal measures during the pandemic years.  Overall, the number of Americans living in poverty in 2021 was 25.6 million down from 50 million in 2011! 

The important implications of how governments around the world reacted to the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have to do with what they tell us about attitudes toward solidarity and the role of government.  It is extremely important, for example, that the assistance programs were undertaken by both conservative and liberal governments.  In the face of acute crises, governments reacted in a humane and altruistic manner.  They put aside ideological and policy principles to ensure that no one was left behind (a hyperbole perhaps but it captures the spirit).  To paraphrase Warren Buffett’s reaction to the government’s response to the 2008 financial crisis “You first need to put the fire out and then worry how to rearrange the furniture.”

These government responses are important in another respect.  They demonstrated that governments do matter.  In times of acute crises, it is only organized governments that stand between human sustainability and ruin.  Furthermore, and I think this is even more important, our worldwide response to these crises showed that we have the moral and practical wisdom to act on behalf of our collective common good instead of acting selfishly.  It is in such moments our scope of “We” expands to include more of “Them.”

Our world is still a messy and hard place for many of our fellow men and women.  But hardships caused by illness, illiteracy and oppression are affecting fewer and fewer of us.  That along with our expanding social consciousness give us hope we can become a better species or at least not a worse one.

It seems that humanity is still in the phase of being consumed by inter-country squabbles that distract us from addressing our common and serious challenges.  That’s why it is useful to occasionally look at the bigger picture. 

In a recent article in the New York Times, Ezra Klein worries that many adults are reluctant to have children because of the threats their offsprings will face due to climate change and overall environmental degradation.  He makes the case for parenthood by reminding us that not much into the distant past the majority of people lived in poverty and disease and their offsprings had limited potential for a better future.  Thus, in comparison, we have a better world in which we can bring children.  The problem with this thought is that two centuries ago we had little idea what the advent of the industrial age and the resultant intensified exploitation of natural resources would eventually do to climate and the ecosystem.   Now we do know that without changes in human behavior the future, science tells us, is bleak. 

Until advances in medicine and health care cut drastically infant mortality, high birth rates were the only defense against ending up without children.  Reducing infant mortality and extending the human life far beyond what was natural back then also increased the human footprint on the planet with all its adverse consequences for the environment.  Klein does not ignore the challenges but he takes hope from the accelerated replacement of fossil fuels by renewable sources of energy.  And he is emphatic on the need to start educating school-age children about the climate and the environmental threats we face.

In a very hopeful development, despite all the political divisions in Washington, Congress is poised to enact the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act.  This will be the greatest pro-nonhuman species law since the Endangered Species Act passed during the Nixon administration.  This is definite progress as we come to realize that humans and other species co-habitate this planet, and that humans, thanks to our superior intellect, are, so to speak, the planet’s designated custodians.

The third piece that I found inspirational is The Green Imperative a book written by Victor Papanek in the mid-1990s, as the urgency to act on the environment was starting to gather steam.  Papanek was a renowned designer who dedicated his career to promoting smart and eco-friendly products and solutions.  From packaging to the manufacturing process and all the way to the end product, Papanek believed that we should prefer options that wasted as little of the irreplaceable resources we take from the environment.  Most importantly, for Papanek the design and making of products and structures came with an ethical obligation to do good for the environment.

Making the changes that are necessary to protect the planet’s ecosystem requires that we have some sense of the factors that impact the environment.  In that connection, I have come up with a simple multi-factor model that seems, in my non-expert’s opinion, to capture the dimensions of our problem.  According to this simple model, the human impact on the environment can be explained by focusing on four factors and their multiplicative relationship:

Human Population times Volume of Human Needs and Wants times Volume of Matter Used times Energy Spent.

I doubt that we can control or reduce our negative impact on the environment if we continue to increase any of these factors without taking offsetting actions in the others.  To achieve this, we must be cognizant of the influence of religion, politics, economic structure, biology, and technology.  For example, population is influenced by nationalist and religious ideas.  But policies favoring population growth must be balanced by policies that allow the other three factors to reduce the harm of human population growth on the environment.

Economic systems and structures that see no problem with the infinite growth of needs and wants, that is, insatiable consumerism, also face the same problem.  Firm competition that puts no limits in the acquisition of advantages by using designs and usage of materials that are appealing but hurt the environment is also counter to a strategy of environmental sustainability.  Finally, unrestricted energy use from all sources of power generation while we allow the other three factors to grow is also a dead-end from an environmental standpoint.

The above approach of capturing the human impact on the environment demonstrates that we have to perform a very delicate balancing act among competing ideas and beliefs as well as pragmatic realities.  To get on an environment-friendly trajectory, it is important we come to accept as our common goal the sustainability and even betterment of the natural environment.  Our big challenge is to not only accept that goal but also to adjust human activity to serve this goal.  This is no different from the use of goals to guide political, economic, business and a whole lot of other areas of human life.  Even religions use goals (like the salvation of the soul) to guide human behavior.

Programmatically (that is, as a program of action) to achieve environmental goals, it may not be necessary all countries act the same way on all the factors that affect the human impact on the environment.  What is of importance is we all, individually and collectively, aim for the same goal of doing no harm to planet earth, i.e., its environment and its species.

To do this, we need to rely on constructive behavior on an individual and national scale.  Just like religious and secular beliefs shape individual behavior from a moral standpoint, the same can be done for ideas that aim to be environment-friendly.  That’s where the education of the public, and especially of young people, becomes important, since it is knowledge about and empathy for our planet and all its species that can guide each one of us toward planet-friendly lifestyles. 

This is not a project of a few countries alone.  We need cooperation across nations.  The magnitude of the environmental project is enormous, both in terms of the risks it holds for humans and our obligation toward the other species.  That’s why I think our current inter-country squabbles seem to be trivial compared to the big project we all face.

To apply what Benjamin Franklin said about the dangers of discord among the American rebels, we can also say “We must hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

One of the surprising developments of the last few years is that the volume of global trade has continued to rise, reaching a record of $28.5 trillion in 2021, despite the pandemic’s grip on the global population.  The outlook is more uncertain for 2022 in the wake of the West’s embargo on Russian exports and imports in retaliation for the invasion of Ukraine. 

There is, however, another area of concern regarding the future of the global economic order and trade, and this is none other than the growing antagonism between the US and China.   To see the dangers of this antagonism we need to take a detour into past history.

In a new book Blood and Ruins: The Last Imperial War, 1931-1945 historian Richard Overy casts a new light on the meaning of World War II, a meaning that differs depending whose perspective one considers.  Overy writes that for the western nations and the Soviet Union the war against the Axis of Germany, Italy and Japan was for freedom and the defeat of dehumanizing fascism.  But for the many countries still under colonialism or foreign occupation (like China) the war was predominantly between established and aspiring colonial powers.  That is, between the colonial nations of Europe and the US on one side and Germany, Italy and Japan, which were either stripped of their colonies after World War I or were left out of the colonial game, like Japan.

According to Overy, the WW II actually started in 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria, and then moved on to invade China and claim significant parts of Southeast Asia.  Japan’s goal of this belated colonial expansion was to expand its sphere of economic influence.  In a like-minded calculation, Hitler and Mussolini launched their wars in search of “living space.”  This appetite for economic space can be explained by the fact that the 1930s started with the Allies controlling colonial lands 15 times that controlled by the Axis countries.  Colonies proved to be of particular importance during the Great Depression when protectionism limited access to raw materials through free trade. 

In Overy’s book, America’s belated entry into the WW II was triggered when it became clear what was at stake for the US (as well as Great Britain) in terms of economic advantages in the Pacific basin.  Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was only the opening salvo.  On the next day, Dec. 8, 1941, Japan attacked US possessions in Guam, the Philippines, Midway, and Wake Island and British possessions in Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong.  This coordinated attack was the clearest sign that Japan was intent on claiming for itself Pacific space that was vital to its economic aspirations.

Now we can move forward to our time and use Overy’s historical account to try to understand the risks for global trade and peace. 

Global trade, like its domestic counterpart, requires free flow of goods and fair competition.    Ever since China joined the international economy, a long- standing complaint from its trading partners is the restrictions placed on foreign firms doing business in China and its other anti-competitive tactics, especially in the area of intellectual property rights.    

No less important though is the problem with international supply chains which can fall victims to national interests in critical periods, like a pandemic.  If a trading party cannot depend on the other party’s willingness to trade certain products, then international commerce will retreat within national border.  The US is already engaged in a broad examination of its vulnerabilities to international supply chains, especially those that involve China. 

A related and often underappreciated risk to free global trade is the formation of trading agreements and blocks that confer privileged, if not exclusive, economic ties with countries rich in resources.  When a country gains a lock on rare and valuable resources available in another country, that posits a risk to those denied access.  This is the modern version of old colonialism as a method to create economic advantages.  In a sign of progress, the modern version relies on diplomacy rather than gunboats and armies.  At least for now.

China, having supplanted Japan as the preeminent power in the Southeast Pacific, has proven very efficient in spreading its influence across the island nations that dot an enormous area of this ocean.  China is doing this by building infrastructure projects, providing training, and support for overall development.  This is the same approach China has adopted in building economic ties with countries in Africa, Latin America, and even Europe.  Without any military involvement, China has been able to build a constellation of trading partners and acquire influence across the globe.

What about the US?  As several commentators have written, American efforts and results in countering China’s growing economic influence are falling behind and are hamstrung by our own domestic problems.  First, American influence abroad is being understood first and foremost as the projection of military might demonstrated by over 700 military bases in 80 countries.  But while the American navy continues to challenge China’s ambitions in the South China Sea, it is China’s trade volume and investments that keep growing around the Pacific.

The populist backlash in the American heartland against globalization has also frozen American foreign policy out of the pursuit of forming trading partnerships in Asia.  Without a clear plan as to how to protect workers from global competition, American administrations are reluctant to enter cross-border trade agreements.  Thus, after the scuttling of the Trans-Pacific Partnership by the Trump administration, its resurrection as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is mostly a document of aspirations than actionable steps.

Having access to international trade is of vital importance to all nations.  It can be accomplished through cooperation and fair dealing or through hostile actions.  The present danger for peace and the global economic order is that China overreaches in its strategy of expanding its economic influence and the US relies more on military power than diplomacy. 

There is currently a sense that economic globalization has not brought the benefits of peace (with Russia) and democratization (of China) the West expected.  There is, however, a greater risk in the absence of open and fair trade across nations, and that is recreating the nationalist feelings of resentment that ignited the WW II.

Less than a thirty-minute drive from my home in Long Island there is a place called Sagamore Hill.  That’s where Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, the 26^th president of the US, built his home and died in 1919.  I have visited the place several times, but in a recent visit I spent more time reading the exhibit labels in the small museum that commemorates the illustrious life and career of TR.  One of them caught my eye.  It read:

“The Progressives’ campaign platform supported votes for women, old age and unemployment insurance, social security, the abolition of child labor and the regulation of industry.  Roosevelt believed these reforms would achieve “industrial justice” and balance the average citizens’ needs with those of corporations.”

In a way, Roosevelt was an accidental president.  Mistrusted by his fellow New York State Republicans, he was coaxed out of his governor’s job to run as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the Republican nominee William McKinley.  McKinley won the election of 1900 but was shot and died in September 1901.  That’s how Roosevelt became president.  He won reelection in 1904 and despite his popularity he sat out the election in 1908 in favor of his chosen successor William Howard Taft.  Finding Taft’s policies short in progressive causes, Roosevelt formed his Progressive Party, known as the Bull Moose Party, and challenged the Republicans under Taft in the 1912 election.  Although the Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the election, Roosevelt’s party outvoted Taft by a considerable margin.  That’s right.  A whole lot of Republicans sided with Progressivism than main stream Republicanism in that election.

By 1900, Progressive sentiments had started to sip out of the Democratic Party and influence the political philosophy of many Republicans.  Teddy Roosevelt was the most notable of these Republicans.  His seven years in office were critical for the Progressive agenda not only for the reforms he managed to enact but also and most importantly for the influence his progressive ideas had on both parties, thus, setting the stage for important subsequent reforms all the way to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

Roosevelt’s political philosophy can be found in a series of articles he wrote for The Outlook in which he defended what he called “the great movement of our day, the progressive nationalist movement against special privilege, and in favor of an honest and efficient political and industrial justice”.  Roosevelt understood that democracy had to work for the average citizen and to this effect he argued for the priority of labor over capital interests, the control of corporate power and the protection of the less fortunate members of society.  He believed that the country belongs to the people, and its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner would best promote the general interest.  He and other Progressives of his day were imbued with an egalitarian and communitarian ethos in the pursuit of the common good.

Roosevelt’s administration brought to life the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Meat Inspection Act to humanize work in the meat packing industry, the Pure Food and Drug Act to protect consumers, and the United States Forest Service.  With the creation of national parks, bird reserves, game preserves and national forests he protected the natural environment in an area covering 230 million acres.  He actively prosecuted antitrust cases, while his advocacy for labor unions, a federal income tax, and an eight-hour work day bore legislative fruits in subsequent administrations.  All in all, Teddy Roosevelt wanted to reform laissez-faire capitalism and make it kinder and more responsive to workers and the country’s interests.

Equally remarkable was TR’s balance of his devout religious feelings with his public views.  In 1907, reacting to the emblazonment of money with the motto “In God We Trust,” he wrote, “It seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.” 

The force of the Progressive ideas was such that during the years following TR’s presidency major reforms were voted with remarkable bipartisan support.  Even, FDR’s New Deal, ferociously resisted at first by conservative Republicans and business interests, was adopted as a matter of acceptable political sense by Republican presidential aspirants, like Thomas Dewey, and Republican Presidents, like Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.

All that started to change in the 1970s.  First, Southern Democratic Senators revolted against the reaffirmation of voting and civil rights for Black Americans.  They undermined the Democratic social agenda and then effectively switched to the Republican Party.  Second, the economic model of equitable sharing of economic gains between capital and labor started to shift toward the winners take all mentality where profit maximization was pitted against labor compensation.

Third, conservative thinking started to view government as a burden that had to be reined in.  Government’s purpose was no longer to ensure fairness and unity but rather sit back and let self-reliance and individualism play out.  Adult and child poverty, drug abuse, suicides of despair, crime-infested neighborhoods, job losses to globalization, and social decay became acceptable collateral damage to the working of unfettered capitalism. 

To be sure the notions of self-reliance and gritty individualism play very well with a considerable portion of the population.  It is also fair to say that they are conflated with racial stereotypes that suggest that it is mostly minorities that benefit from an activist government.  This belief is exemplified in the refusal of conservative states with sizable minorities of color to expand Medicaid to provide health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. 

This brief historical perspective shows that Progressive movements have been viewed with as much suspicion and resistance in the past as they are now.  But the historical record shows that it was the Progressive reforms and their focus on the common good that turned the 20^th century into America’s century.  And as for its feared radicalism, TR’s words are still relevant:

“Fundamentally it is the radical liberal with whom I sympathize. He is at least working toward the end for which I think we should all of us strive; and when he adds sanity in moderation to courage and enthusiasm for high ideals he develops into the kind of statesman whom alone I can wholeheartedly support.”

It is shocking that here in America we have reached the point to ask this kind of question.  But the signs are all around us.  Bending and corrupting basic democratic rules is actively sought and reaction to it remains muted by those whose party harbors these anti-democratic forces. 

Accepting the election results followed by the peaceful transfer of power is supposed to be the defining tradition of US democracy. Though this tradition was preemptively questioned, it did survive the 2016 presidential election.  But its reversal was openly attempted after the 2020 election and it is actively pursued in anticipation of the 2024 presidential election. 

In another sign of the corrosion of faith in democracy, the Conservative Political Action Conference chose Hungary, an only-in-name democracy, as its venue for this year.  So, the message is clear.  A significant segment of Americans not only do they want to control the election results as a way to seize power, they also wish to do that in order to impose the type of illiberal democracy that suits their political and personal choices.

So, what accounts for this recent slide toward authoritarian attitudes and actions?  Is it the emergence of new political and economic realities that never before tested American resolve to preserve democracy, or an erosion of our inner faith in democracy?  Let’s look at some of the proposed explanations held responsible as undermining our commitment to democracy.

One is economic anxiety and displacement caused by the elimination of well-paying jobs and the decay of social and civic life that comes to the affected communities.  That, we are told, has generated a strong resentment against the established political order which is held responsible for the abandonment of working class and rural Americans.   

Another more invidious reason is what is promoted as the “replacement” fear propagated on broadcast news outlets, like Fox News, and online social and news media.  The development of a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society has apparently reached the point that makes “old” white Americans unsure of the future of their culture and power sharing.  (As an aside, let me say that if there is any group of Americans that were truly replaced these are the indigenous Americans!)

Another fear is that of the presumed loss of religious freedom.  Christians, especially, feel that their freedoms are somehow under attack.  This, of course, originates from the belief that despite its secular Constitution America is fundamentally a Christian nation.  Nothing, therefore, short of aligning the nation’s laws with Christian dogma would satisfy the adherents of this national narrative.

Finally, the last foil for staunch conservatives is the rise of liberal thought and culture.  Galvanized by the attention-catching slogans of woke and cancel movements, conservatives have come to believe that liberals are about to capture the nation’s soul and drive it to hell.

The difficulty I have with all these explanations as drivers of the political movement toward authoritarian tendencies and solutions is that they do not describe entirely new experiences in the history of this country.

Americans have suffered economic hardship through the Great Depression and workers have lived under worse conditions when labor regulations, health insurance and unemployment benefits were absent.  Nor have Americans been sealed better from the booms and busts of the economy in the past than now.   And yet through out those moments of financial hardship, Americans did not lose their faith in democracy.

The replacement or augmentation of the American population with fresh immigrants has been around since the founding of America.  Yes, every new wave of immigrants, whether from Christian Europe or other continents, has been viewed suspiciously and met with hostility by the population-in-place.  But, again, those generations of earlier Americans did not abandon democracy to protect their own interests.  When it came to granting equal rights to Black people, America even paid the price of a civil war to achieve a more inclusive democracy.

Religious freedoms are not less today than in the past.  If anything, religious rights have found a receptive ear in the courts all the way to the Supreme Court.  This court’s conservative majority guarantees that religious rights will keep expanding even beyond the point the Constitutional separation of church and state permits in the minds of many Americans.  Thus, fears concerning  religious freedoms is overblown and not consistent with recent experience.

What about the case of liberals?  Liberals like any other group engage in the marketplace of ideas no more than the think tanks funded by conservatives.  The bias against certain topics of speech and speakers is nothing new in America.  Over time content and speakers have been excluded for offending the sensitivities of the right or the left.  Besides, liberal thought has done more than conservative thought to expose the plight of working-class Americans as a result of economic inequity and the scant attention to their living conditions. 

So, the point I am trying to make is that the above conditions have been around before and yet they did not lead previous generations of Americans to abandon democracy.  Therefore, something else must account for the current drive toward anti-democratic means.

Democracy is a governance system that promises to be a win-win arrangement for all participants over the long-run.  For this to work, we trust that the rules of expressing our political choices and the transfer of power are fair and durable.  For people to lose that faith in democracy, they must truly feel an existential threat so that they no longer consider democracy to be a win-win arrangement.

I cannot think of any more potent force in generating feelings of existential fear other than the influence of social media and the emotionally charged information flowing across the internet.  We know that this is behind the rise of teen anxiety and suicides.  It is not an implausible leap of reason to argue that this is working the same way among adults when it comes to our emotional reaction to the unrelenting barrage of information on political, social, cultural and economic opinions splashed on the web.  

This means that similar experiences generate a greater emotional load because we are given much less space to engage in reasoned reflection as we come under the pressure of emotional stimuli.  Which raises the question: “Will democracy survive the public square of the web?”  And “What is our personal responsibility?”

These past four years of the blog’s life I have kept away from writing about abortion.  It is a sensitive and highly controversial issue fraught with nuances that one can easily miss.  If I finally have decided to tackle this topic is only because I am stunned by how polarizing it has become and how easily opinions have frozen around extreme polar points with little appetite for some reasoned compromise.

First, it is important to understand that the abortion issue fought right now in America is not about morality.  It is about rights.  That does not mean abortion is not a moral choice.  Of course, it is.  But what is debated in the courts and in the streets right now is whether the right to abortion is preserved, as codified in Roe v. Wade, or it is repealed, as the leaked preliminary opinion of the Supreme Court seems to signal.

The right to abortion does not impose abortion on a pregnant woman against her will.  It simply gives women permission to exercise this option.  To support the right to abortion does not mean one morally condones abortion.  It only means one does not wish to impose his/her moral code on everybody.  On the other hand, to be against the right to abortion means that one wishes to prohibit abortion for all regardless of their moral code.  So, it seems to me the burden of convincing society why a moral objection to abortion must also become a legal prohibition against it lies with the side of those who are against the right to abortion.  Nonetheless, the pro-abortion camp is also compelled to make a case as to why the right to abortion does not cross at some point a universal moral objection to it. 

The sad reality about the fight around abortion in the US is that moral beliefs and political calculations are conmingled so that cognitive and moral dissonance muddy the waters.  That’s why we have to address both when we raise questions about abortion.

When does life begin?  The most potent anti-abortion argument is that abortion means the termination of life and as such is criminal.  But do we agree when human life begins?  Some say it begins at conception.  There is no guarantee though that a fertilized egg will result in actual life.  There are miscarriages, still births and infant deaths shortly after birth.  It seems that abortion does not terminate life with the certainty a murder terminates an actual life.  What about life starting when heart beat is detected?  Some though would argue that life starts later when the brain stem is formed by the end of the second trimester.  And the brain stem is the organ that regulates heart-beat.  So, what’s the real beginning of human life?

Is objection to abortion truly about protecting life?  Can a society legislate both, against abortion and for the death penalty?  The argument that the fetus is innocent and the death penalty befalls guilty persons is not a good one.  Don’t we have cases of innocent people who were falsely put to death only to be proven innocent afterwards?  The same question applies to abortion and gun controls.  How many innocent children and by-standers have been killed as a result of loose controls on gun ownership?  Moral consistency and integrity require that society’s respect and protection of life includes all life.

Should women’s right to control their lives be respected?  The anti-abortion view tends to ignore the impact of abortion prohibition on the welfare and freedom of women.  But then, how do we reconcile adherence to an anti-abortion stand and opposition to restrictions to protect life from the Covid-19 pandemic?  An often-used argument against such restrictions has been that they would impose unreasonable constraints on people’s liberties and personal lives.  If we are prepared to accept deaths due to the pandemic in the name of people’s liberties, can we do the opposite when it comes to women’s liberties and welfare?

Should we only value the biological life of the fetus or should we also value the actual life of newborns?   Our biological existence is only part of our whole life.  There is also the other part that is defined by the dignity and love we are given by parents and society.  Can a society oppose abortion and yet be indifferent to providing decent foster care services, or child care and support to under-privileged mothers?  Shouldn’t we support policies that show how truly welcoming society is to newborn babies?  

Is the argument against abortion inviolable even in cases of rape and incest?  Can we let anti-abortion beliefs deprive women of their dignity and instead impose on them the suffering of having to bear the fruit of violence and humiliation?  Do we wish to return to theocratic and misogynistic oppression against half of our species?  To the extent that rape and incest are motivated by a man’s desire to control the reproductive power of the female, doesn’t prohibition of abortion in cases of rape and incest reward evil and perversion? 

Should we be indifferent to the abortion of viable human life?   Can pro-abortion rights people walk away from the fact that the fetus reaches viability by 22 weeks so that what is aborted after that is pretty much a human being?  The argument that just over one percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks (The Guttmacher Institute) is not good at all.  Any termination of viable life (except for reasons of fetus deformities or risk to the mother’s life) is nearly impossible to defend.

Why don’t we aim at reducing unwanted pregnancies and, hence, abortions?  The evidence shows that abortions have declined in the US over the past few decades.  The global data show that unintended pregnancies fall as income and education levels rise.  More importantly, the rates of abortion are not lower for countries with more restrictions to abortion.   Actually, abortions have increased in countries with more restrictions and especially in those where contraceptives are less available.  Therefore, by raising educational levels, improving family incomes, and availing women to contraceptives we could lower abortions more effectively than by imposing extreme restrictions and punishment.   

As Americans we must ask why we have been so incapable or unwilling to debate the issue of abortion without making it a flash point for political wars.  European countries have managed to settle the abortion issue with much less rancor and polarization.  Europeans have achieved that by allowing abortions up to 12 to 18 weeks (below the point of viability in Roe v. Wade) and later abortions only for serious reasons related to the health of the fetus or the mother.  Are the people of Europe morally bankrupt when they allow abortions with limits?  Are the people of Europe indifferent to women when they set limits below the viability point? 

Or is it, really, our intolerance to the arguments of our opponents that prevents us to compromise in light of the many legitimate and extremely difficult questions surrounding abortion, questions we are unlikely to settle with moral or legal clarity? 

Very wealthy people do things the rest of us may not exactly understand or be able to handle.  They buy huge yachts though they may know nothing about sailing.  They buy huge mansions that could house several families.  They have multiple homes though they stay very little in most of them.  They build their own rockets to launch themselves and other rich people into space, when they should all go instead into poor neighborhoods to learn more about the human condition.

I especially admire their ability to come up with ideas how to spend their money.  I am really bad in that respect.  I keep asking myself “What else do you need? Come on you, lazy brain.  Come up with something. Anything!”  But nothing.  So, I have resigned to the conclusion that not everybody is made to be a very wealthy person.

Elon Musk is one of those, not just very, but extremely wealthy persons.  He achieved this by establishing the electric car as a viable alternative to fossil-fuel burning cars.  That has social value.  It has also made him fabulously wealthy.  And being in that rarefied class of humans, he is now starting to do things that make the rest of us scratch our heads.  Like his offer (successful as it now sounds) to buy Twitter at a cool $44 billion price.  The questions abound: “is this a reasonable price?”  “Does he know how to recoup his investment?” “Will he run Twitter responsibly or will he let it turn into a megaphone of misinformation?”

I have some observations and questions of my own that I like to share here.  If they have appeared elsewhere, I apologize for being redundant.

Let’s start with what Mr. Musk’s offer to buy Twitter means from the standpoint of financial behavior, investing in particular.  Financial economics assumes that investors are rational value maximizers.  This means an investor invests his money on projects that promise to maximize his payoffs net of any costs, including the original capital invested.  The reason we apply value (or more generally speaking wealth) maximization as a criterion of capital investment is because we assume that people have a positive utility of money.  That is, no matter how little it is, you feel some satisfaction from an extra buck.  Elon Musk does not wish to be this kind of investor.  “I don’t care about the economics at all” he declared referring to his offer of $44 billion.  Are we then to conclude that wealth maximization ceases to be relevant when one’s wealth exceeds some very large amount of money?  (Musk’s wealth is estimated at well over $200 billion.)

Now, wealth maximization is nothing like a law of nature.  Behavioral economics shows that people often violate this principle.  We also know that CEOs buy other established firms for the satisfaction of corporate empire building.  Or because of hubris, that is, an overconfidence about the expected payoffs of a new acquisition.  Ultra-rich investors may also engage in acquisitions because beyond a very high level of wealth the marginal utility of money is so tiny that it is easily overtaken by other behavioral factors.  Even if Elon Musk were to lose all $44 billion, he would still be an extremely rich person.  So why should his spending/investing behavior be constrained by the criterion of wealth maximization?

Which brings us to a very implication.  If capital investments are not driven by value creation but rather by other motives, what happens then to responsible and accountable use of scarce resources?  The theoretical basis for value maximization is that value originates from the efficient utilization of resources (tangible and human capital), which means we seek maximum output for minimal use of input.  Investments that fail this criterion become less valuable in the market for capital (e.g., stock and bond markets) and drive the enterprise out of existence, thus terminating the waste of resources.  In this paradigm, individual investors and financial institutions are the gatekeepers of capital to ensure its productive use.

However, If I am a very wealthy person, I can finance a project for a long time using wealth from other sources with disregard to the efficiency criterion.  It is well-known in finance that commingling the payoffs of different projects can procrastinate the destruction of value caused by inferior projects.  And if I run my business as my private concern, I can escape accountability to a board of directors.  Thus, indifference to economic losses and private ownership place investments beyond the disciplinary power of gatekeepers, like directors or investors at large. 

This may very well be happening in this takeover of Twitter.  Mr. Musk has said he plans to unlock Twitter’s (monetary) value, that is, create additional value but has offered no business plan to this effect.  And yet venerable financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America and BNP Paribas, have lined up to provide funding. 

We may have various other reasons why we must be skeptical about extreme wealth, but the breakdown of financial responsibility in the use of economic resources must give serious pause to financial economists about the validity of value maximization and its alleged social value under states of great wealth.  It should also give pause to the rest of us if we are concerned with the best utilization of our scarce resources.

And now two questions of political nature.  By adding Twitter to his portfolio, Mr. Musk does not violate any anti-trust laws.  But he adds to his economic and by extension political influence.  The same is true of other super-rich people like Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Gates.  We need to distinguish between being rich through passive investments that endow no control over the operations of firms and active investments that do.  Being rich is one thing.  Personal control of major firms in important sectors of the economy is another. And it should concern us greatly.

Finally, what about the concern that under Elon Musk’s control Twitter will become a free-for-all platform with little regard to whether it harbors misinformation and hateful or fearmongering messages that undermine democratic institutions and public trust?  To that concern I respond by asking, why didn’t we then see a coalition of democratic and public-good minded interests to come forward and counter-bid for Twitter?  The money is certainly there.  Why don’t they put it where their mouths are?

Elon Musk may be viewed as an egregiously outspoken and maverick tycoon.  But his latest foray into social media forces us to consider serious questions about market-driven economics as well as political influence and liberal politics. 

It is not an exaggeration to say that today we have a crisis in the exercise of freedom.  Not that freedom was never before in crisis.  It is only now, however, that technology and mass communication tools have expanded the voices and the audiences on the subject of freedom as it is understood by the individual and not just the traditional gatekeepers of freedoms.  That means the exercise of freedom is influenced by a multitude (some would say a cacophony) of voices.

The crisis of freedom is most salient in democratic societies because it is there where freedom can be debated widely and with least encumbrance.   We have seen how contentiously democratic societies have responded to the containment of our freedoms in order to defend against the pandemic.  In this post, I will not talk about freedoms in democracies versus autocracies.  I will rather talk about some generic freedoms that we do not hear or talk about as much as their importance suggests.  And yet, I believe they are critical and can help us understand part of our modern discontent.

The freedoms I have in mind are those D. Graeber and D. Wengrow call primordial freedoms in their book The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity which I have referenced in a past blogpost.  They are: the freedom to move; the freedom to disobey; and the freedom to reorganize social relations.  The important message of the book is that in the course of human history, there have been times that human communities were able to organize themselves in ways that made enjoyment of these freedoms possible to a greater degree than it is possible to us. 

Freedom to move means that if and when we feel our freedoms to be threatened, we vote with our feet and move away.  That’s what humans used to do for millennia.  That’s what Europeans did when they sailed to the New World to escape persecution in their native lands.  That’s what migrants from war-torn and oppressive countries do today as they gather outside the borders of America and Europe.  Actually, the freedom to move was widely exercised until the emergence of states and national borders some 400 years ago.  The strict immigration and naturalization laws we now see around the globe are even a more recent phenomenon of the last century and have further hemmed in our freedom to move.  And with the earth’s ecology and climate being damaged by our modern way of life, our freedom to escape natural degradation becomes more elusive by the day.  On the other hand, modern technology has allowed millions of workers to decouple their employment from their domicile thus giving them the freedom to live in communities more suitable to their preferred life style and values.

Freedom to disobey is not the same as freedom of expression or peaceful protest.  It is the freedom Antigone claimed when she gave her brother a proper burial against the commands of her King and for which she sacrificed her life.  We now live in states that exercise sovereignty over a broader range of individual initiatives than ever before.  Bureaucracies are the handmaids of state power spinning out proscriptions and prescriptions of how to live our daily lives.  They draw legitimacy from the complexity of modern life.  They purport to assist us in navigating a myriad of actions fraught with risks and unwelcome consequences that bureaucrats (i.e., the class of experts) wish to protect us from.  But inherent in their power is the temptation to cross the line that separates them from encroaching our freedoms.  How much respect and credibility state bureaucracies have with the public determines whether the arm of the state is seen as an enabler or a usurper of freedoms.  In many countries, the policies to fight the covid pandemic were deemed by many people as overbearing and we saw wide-spread civil disobedience.  As life becomes more complex, thus, fueling greater regulation of people’s lives, how we defend the freedom to disobey against the power of the state will increasingly test our understanding and exercise of freedom. 

Freedom to reorganize social relations is I believe the ultimate and most precious freedom, one that has suffered the most as we have ossified and been brainwashed into patterns believed to be immutable.  At the end of the cold war, Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the End of History, meaning liberal democracy had proven its mantle and there was no other path forward for the humankind.  The present state of the world is anything but the triumph of liberal democracy.  What history teaches and the Dawn of Everything makes abundantly clear is that human history is not linear so that we can extrapolate its future state from our present experience.  Even more important is the fact that humans have tried a variety of social organizations with public welfare results that compare very well to those offered by the modern agricultural-industrial states.  Therefore, the historical experience of humankind is such as to suggest there are always alternative paths that can lay a claim on its future.

We have reached a point of collective awareness about the big challenges we face as a species.  We have been given many warning signs as to what the perils are if we continue down the same road.  Climate change, threat of pandemics, overpopulation, and technological innovations with unmitigated unintended consequences will test our freedoms.  And yet we seem to make little progress in standing up to the call of our times. 

Regrettably this failure is not only one we can attach to authoritarian states.  Liberal democracies around the world have also been captured and used by the winners not only for political influence but worse to control the information and knowledge that a responsible debate demands.

If there is any kind of freedom a liberal democracy ought to preserve is our capacity to re-imagine our future and shape it to serve the common good and our inescapably shared destiny.   

Think what happens when we decide to invite others to go out to the movies or dinner.  With how many of them do we have similar tastes of cuisins or movies?  So, how many should we invite?  We make these calculations because we wish to avoid frictions and disagreements.  Sometimes the potential difference of opinion may be such that we prefer to cancel the whole outing.  In these and other similar cases, we are faced with the problem of scaling up.

Anthropologists have found that the scaling up problem applies to the formation of larger communities of people as they attempt to expand from clans to tribes and beyond reaching all the way to state formation.  It was found, for example, that indigenous communities in New Guinea had difficulty holding together more than 300 people.  Going beyond that size, discord and intragroup frictions ended up with the break-up of the community.

But then they found one indigenous community, the Ilahita, which numbered over 2,500 people.  So, how had the Ilahita succeeded scaling up beyond the typical size?  The answer was two, let’s call them, social innovations.  One was the performance of rituals that brought the whole community together, thus fostering a spirit of common experiences.  The other was the adoption of common Gods that demanded certain code of behavior by all members.  Solidarity and cooperation were further built across the community by bringing members of different clans together in preparing rites and carrying out common projects for the community. 

Another way to promote intragroup harmony is to differentiate ourselves from another community.  We can do this by adopting cultural and other customs very different from those of the neighbors.  Once such red lines are set, then intergroup competition – the familiar Us versus Them – strengthens the cohesion of a community. 

These findings have implications for our times.  What if present-day states are experiencing scaling up challenges, they are ill-equipped to navigate?  History shows that large conglomerations of different tribes, ethnic or religious groups have been kept together by the power of the state (the Roman, the Ottoman and the British Empires are some example).  The motto of the French monarchy, one king, one law, one faith, perhaps best exemplifies the top-down imposition of one overarching force to keep the state’s subjects together by suppressing individual differences.  But what if we try to scale up on the basis of free choice?  What if we have a menu with something for everyone and we are fine with it?  That is, what is the power of democratic rule to overcome the challenge of scaling up? Can we still all agree to go out to dinner without tearing up our friendship?

A relatively modern approach to scaling up is the appeal to some universal human rights.  This is what the American Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of the French Revolution aimed for.  The United Nations has also adopted a declaration of human rights as a way to build tolerance across people around the globe regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, nationalism and religion.  As we see, though, this approach is not working well at the national or international level.

Let’s stay closer to home and talk about the American experiment.  When we hear that the American Republic is an ongoing project working toward a more perfect union, this is an admission of our difficulty in overcoming the challenge of scaling up.  From its beginning, the American project faced two challenges.  One was the religious diversity of its people.  The constitutional separation of church and state was a way to prevent antagonisms across creeds that would spill into politics.  After the Protestants’ acceptance of American Catholics and Jews, the Judeo-Christian tradition was coined as a unifying national motto.  We no longer hear much of it today though.  One reason is that it does not include other Americans, like Muslims, Hindus, and the non-religiously affiliated.  The other more important reason is that the politicization of Evangelical and other conservative religious groups has tarnished the brand of the motto and has rendered it unappealing to many Americans, especial younger ones.

The other challenge for America was how to scale up by admitting into its citizenry Black Americans.  More than 150 years after the Civil War, racial equality and harmony are still an unfinished project.  Immigrants present the same challenge.  Not every American agrees to scaling up by admitting immigrants into the fold.

The problem with scaling up does not start and end with just how many people of different races, ethnicities, religions and so on a state encompasses within its jurisdiction at some point of time.  The scaling up challenge can also come from within a society because of the evolving nature of cultural and moral norms and personal choices.  Awareness about the rights of women, the rights of people regardless of sexual and gender orientation, as well as changing views toward secular and religious freedoms, to mention a few, can open up fissures in social cohesion and jeopardize the scaling up project.

In the background of these challenges, there lies a reality of American life that is the opposite of what the Ilahita used as their social glue.  While they brought different clans into common projects of cooperation, American life has drifted toward segregation, not only along the old racial lines, but also along class lines.  Living parallel and rarely intersected lives – that is, meaningfully intersected lives – we miss the opportunity to understand the human condition of our fellow citizens.  With little appreciation of other people’s problems and values we gather into silos of narrow interests and identity politics.

The scaling up problem is not uniquely American.  It is the problem of societies that wish to become more inclusive without abandoning though the principle of democratic consent.  Is there an iron law of social evolution that says we cannot scale up as much as we wish?  Or is it just another challenge which is within our capacity to overcome?

The signs that liberal democracy is ailing are too many to miss.  We see them here in the U.S.  We also find them in international surveys.  Organizations like The Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence, and V-Dem have documented a decline in democratic norms and a rising discontent with how democracy works. 

In its 2020 survey in 34 democratic countries the Pew Research Center found that 52% of the people asked expressed dissatisfaction with how democracy worked in their countries.  This percentage was 59% in the U.S., 69% in the U.K., and 58% in France.  Across the sample, the dissatisfaction mostly stemmed from the perception that elected officials are disconnected from the people’s concerns.  Now dissatisfaction with how democracy works does not mean rejection altogether.  The percentages of dissatisfaction do not seem to correspond to the perceived quality of democracy in the various countries.  It is often the case that citizens in more democratic countries are actually more critical of their democratic institutions. 

What is more worrisome, however, are the trends toward more or less democracy across the globe.  The Freedom House and IDEA (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance) found that in 2020-21 more countries moved in an authoritarian direction than a democratic direction.  The Freedom House has found that democratic standards have declined for 16 years in a row.  And backsliding toward less democratic rule has occurred even in well-established democracies.  Some of this can be attributed to public health policies to contain the Covid pandemic, but the dissatisfaction with democracy goes beyond that.

The receding satisfaction with democracy among citizens of democratic countries along with the economic successes of the Chinese one-party politico-economic model and the forceful way Russia is challenging Western values have heightened the anxiety about the future of liberal democracy.  Liberal democracy is in competition with one-party capitalism and autocratic governments and the question seems to be which system is or will be perceived as the best in delivering results for the people.  From a geopolitical standpoint, the concern is whether countries will coalesce around different governing models which will then choose to compete – not necessarily by peaceful means – for influence and economic resources.

To have a thoughtful debate about liberal democracy, it is important, I believe for us in the Western world to realize that liberal democracy in the modern era is mostly a western phenomenon and our anxiety about its state and future may not be shared equally by the rest of the world.  In the West, liberal democracy grew gradually over several centuries to serve religious, political and economic freedoms.  The Reformation gave a first opening to religious freedom by rejecting the centralized authority of the Church of Rome.  The Enlightenment period philosophers promoted freedom from unaccountable state (monarchical) authority.  And the market economy was the way to establish economic freedom. 

These developments made the individual a central agent in the practice and allocation of power, and inevitably it fostered a highly individualistic attitude and approach as a way of life.  The rest of the world, however, developed out of other historical experiences and human needs.  Contrary to our celebrated individualism it is the socio-centric principle that is celebrated in many parts of the world outside the West.  Therefore, the practice of democracy may be understood differently or influenced by other underlying cultural conditions in the rest of the world.  The Western sense of cultural superiority has often led Westerners to overestimate the universality of their values and, thus, to be often disappointed when other nations do not fully adopt them.   

We also need to recognize that although the West gave rise to liberal democracy, it is also the one that gave the world fascism and communism that stood opposite to democracy.  That means, liberal democracy has not been a constant organizing principle in the West.  Liberal democracy, therefore, has waxed and waned even in its Western cradle.  Today, we face again an ebbing of popular confidence in the efficiency of democratic states to address human needs, fears and aspirations.  Questions about economic security and cultural and national identity have acquired such critical importance within wide swaths of the citizens of democratic countries that now they threaten to undermine their democratic systems. 

I think that in order to understand the changing fortunes of democratic governance we need to identify its foundational principles.  The first is tolerance toward other peoples’ ideas, beliefs, and ways of life.  The other is acceptance that we are all members of one species, which means we refuse to be racists or xenophobic.  And the third is that we trust that the passing of governing power through elections does not forestall our return to power.  These are sentiments that do not remain constant over time.  They change and they are challenged.  And as they change and are challenged our faith to liberal democracy is tested by our capacity to accept others, tolerate new beliefs and ways of life, and have trust to the rules of political process.

Today a good number of Western democracies are been confronted with issues that test our tolerance and trust to each other.  The economic freedom promised by the model of market economy is seen to reward more the accumulation of wealth than being concerned with the basic needs of the everyday citizen.  Our tolerance regarding racial issues and matters of personal choice is challenged by differences of opinion about secular and religious freedoms.   And under the weight of immigration and economic globalization, our attitudes toward foreign people and nations have grown more ethno-centric.

Institutions like democracy and market economy are not ends in themselves.  They are instruments toward solving needs and it is as such they are judged by people.  What the rest of the world sees now is that Western democracies find it difficult to deal with the changes and challenges of our times.  No wonder then they start to question the value of democratic governance. 

I would conclude then that the responsibility to restore the appeal of democracy, especially in its liberal form, belongs to the West.