Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists of the 20th century, died recently. He was a proponent of monetarist theory, which regards the money supply as the central controlling factor in economic development. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976 for his theory. He also believed in laissez faire capitalism (as laissez faire as it can be) and small government. Many insisted he was a conservative but he insisted he was a liberal.

Friedman became best known to the general public in the 70's chiefly for his idea that governments should be kept small and that the free market, not government, makes people's lives better. He believed that the chief purpose of government is to create an hospitable environment in which individuals can pursuit their own self-interests.

In the 70's the American economy went through a period know as 'stagflation', a period of high inflation, very low growth and fairly high unemployment, culminating in a stagnant economy. Theoretically this combination of economic events was not supposed to occur simultaneously. Friedman blamed government policy and its economic meddling for this bizarre performance. He believed that if government 'got out of the way', loosened its grip on the economy and used a better monetary policy things would improve substantially. He urged governments around the world to privatize and deregulate so as to free things up and allow economies to reach their full potential. Two of his most devoted followers were Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan.

Friedman first came to prominence in the late 40's with his theory about what really caused the Great Depression of the 1930's and why it lasted so long. He believed it basically had to do with the monetary policy of the time. He believed that if in the late twenties the Hoover government had reined in the circulation of money the over speculation of the stock market would not have happened, causing its crash. Similarly, Friedman argued, an increase in the money supply after the crash, instead of cutting back on it, could have prevented the Depression. In other words, he believed that if the money supply had been handled more wisely the Depression may not have happened or have lasted as long as 12 years. His theory was radical but it put him in good standing.

With hindsight wisdom makes itself known. However, did the economists of the time possess the monetary wisdom Friedman suggested they might have, which could have averted the Depression. Maybe he didn’t believe that they possess such wisdom but he certainly talked as if they did. Nevertheless, in his analysis he projected his hindsight on that time, as if the knowledge of prudent monetary policy existed then. But that knowledge didn’t exist then.

Because of Friedman's death the issue of what really caused the Depression came up again. The argument: It wasn’t the stock market crash of October 1929 that caused the Depression but the bad monetary policy of the time that did. I find this kind of argument misleading because of what it implies. That argument puts what happened back then in the context of today and what we know today. It suggests that people knew enough in those days to stave of a Depression. However, people back then did not have the economic resources or wisdom they have today to avoid such economic disasters.

And that is the problem with some analyses of past events. People tend to put yesteryears in the context of the present, thinking that in the past people knew as much as they know today. Some people think that in the twenties and thirties people had as much knowledge about economic matters as we do today. They think that the world then was as fluent and sophisticated in economic matters as it is today. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the twenties and thirties the world was economically backward in comparison to today. The world had no comprehension of things like money supply and liquidity like it does today. The world has learned empirically from those days and from the economic mistakes of the past.

It is wrong to think the Depression could have been prevented by means we know today because back then those means were non-existent. The economic sophistication of today didn’t exist then to prevent the Depression. Such knowledge wasn’t even a twinkle in the eyes of economists. The means of preventing recessions today were learned from the mistakes made back then and even from the mistakes made just 20 years ago.

In those days the governments of the world did not work in tandem to prevent economic disasters as they do today. That necessary interaction took at least a world war and a few other incidents to discover. The world has had to learn from experience on how to handle its economics. The way I hear it from some, though, is that there is some kind of bible out there, which specifically outlines how to do the right thing economically. But there is no such bible. We have had to learn the ins and outs of economics empirically, through trial and error. And that bible of economic wisdom is still being written.

There is one thing Milton Friedman regretted, that he helped institute the payroll tax during WW2. It was designed to help pay for the war effort. After the war it was supposed to have been dismantled but it wasn't. He regretted it because this tax became a cash cow for the government, which became a direct source of funds for its expansion. For an economist who believed in small government this was unintended consequence. And as we know, the world is full of unintended consequences.

Hawking & Outerspace

Stephen Hawking, world famous scientist and author of the best selling book "The Brief History of Time", recently said that humans should go into outer space because that's where the human race will find its future survival and continuance. He thinks that in time our planet earth will become uninhabitable because of global warming or nuclear annihilation.

I think we should go into outer pace for the same reason Columbus came to America, to preserve and continue civilization. Columbus’ adventure saved Europe. However, Columbus wasn't aware that he was discovering a new world for that reason, to save Europe. (He was looking for a new trade route to the Orient.) But essentially that is what he did. Similarly, we may not be aware that humans have been venturing into space with the purpose of saving the human race. There is a saying, expand or perish.

At the time of Columbus Europe was in need of a savior. It needed to be saved from itself, from its social and political problems. Europeans were crowding each other, getting on each other’s nerves, constantly feuding over domain and ideas. The New World offered expansion and an outlet where, for one, people could live and practice their religions without being harassed. The Jews of Spain helped finance Columbus' voyages in the hope he might find them a homeland. As well, Europe was running out of resources that needed replenishing. Areas of Europe were being depleted of trees for building ships. In the New World there was an abundance of trees. The gold Spain found in the Americas helped lift it out of bankruptcy. For better or for worse, the New World helped rejuvenate the Old World. And later, not only did The New World come to the aid of The Old World in two world wars in the 20th century but also helped rebuild it economically and politically.

Hawking is right. Our survival depends on us going into outer space, but not only for scientific reasons but also for philosophical ones. Going into outer space will alleviate some of the problems the world faces as well as stimulate and ignite new technologies that will help save it. We need two types of technologies, scientific and philosophic.

Science and philosophy have accompanied each other as though they were both essential to sustain humankind. They work like a tag team. Science discovers things and philosophy reflects on them, putting them into context, debating their meaning and ethics. Science is essentially neutral, philosophy isn't. Philosophy challenges science to be relevant and moral, and makes it operational. Science gives use our material world. Philosophy gives as the ideas and techniques to govern and organize our world.

Science keeps on expanding in order to sustain us materially. New technologies have to be developed because old ones ware out, become inadequate or need replacing. Philosophy, as facilitator and provider of ideas, has the same problem. It has to keep on expanding to sustain us cognitively because with time some of our ideas about organization and governance grow stale and inadequate. Both science and philosophy are susceptible to atrophy and changing circumstances. They have to innovate and reinvent themselves to keep up with the times. Like Columbus' coming to America did, going into outer space will stimulate the rejuvenation and expansion of both.

Science, back in the late sixties, afforded us a marvelous, spiritually moving picture of the earth from outer space. As a globe in the dark sea of outer space the earth looked serene and majestic. This was the first time humans had ever seen the earth this way, as the capsule of the human race. It moved some of us to think like we had never thought before, that humanity was one. We also sensed a vulnerability about it because as we looked at this globe of ours in the darkness of space we knew we were not exactly taking good care of it, with our polluting and fighting over it. To some of us the earth looked fragile. Science let us see the earth this way and this view heightened our senses and consciousness, which we expressed philosophically, about what this sensation meant to us.

Science didn't force us to think what we did when we saw the earth the way we did in outer space, as a fragile capsule that needed better taking care of. Yet it moved us in that direction. A new philosophy grew out of that vision. We became a little more conscious about our destructive nature, which in turn changed our philosophical outlook. Some of us became far more environmentally conscious. That isolated image of the globe and what it mentally conjured is one thing that motivated the environmental movement. Perhaps the last time the world changed that dramatically in its philosophical outlook was when humanity saw for the first time the destructive nature of another scientific invention, the atomic bomb. In both cases we developed a new language and attitude which focuses more on our self-preservation. The image of the annihilative force of the first atomic bomb altered political and philosophical thought enough to dissuade us from using such a destructive force again. Our seeing the world as we did in outer space made us a little more conscious about other things we should be doing to prevent is destruction.

"The right to bear nukes"

There is a saying, " An armed society is a polite society." That statement probably was made in defense of the right of Americans to have guns and bear arms.

That statement made me think of nuclear arms. I was thinking that since the advent of nuclear arms the nations of world have become more polite, at least more restrained and responsible about making war. For example, the Cold War could have been a hot one if it wasn't for the possibility of mutual annihilation between the world’s two nuclear powers, the U.S. and the USSR. The possibility of mutual annihilation contained their propensities for aggression. Likewise, Indian and Pakistan have been more polite to each other since they both acquired nuclear arms, each careful not to be too provocative towards the other in case of the possibility of a nuclear exchange between them. And the possibility of North Korea acquiring a nuclear bomb has made its neighbors, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea, more polite with each other. All of a sudden there is a flurry of diplomatic activity in that part of the world like never before.

Iran having the nuclear bomb might have a positive effect in the Middle East, in helping to resolve the Palestinian issue.

The possibility of nuclear war between the U.S. and the USSR eventually brought a détente between them. I think the possibility of North Korea having the bomb is bringing a thaw in relations between its neighbors, forcing them into diplomacy and political engagement. The nuclear issue has made the world more politically polemic and less war-like. It has forced adversaries to engage each other in preventing conflicts because the alternative could be devastating. All this holds with my theory which is that we develop and progress through perverse means. For instance, we do the opposite to disarming to preserve peace. Instead we arm ourselves to the teeth and saber rattle in order to cultivate and preserve peace.

There is at least one commentator who believes the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in August 1945 had a utilitarian effect, "in that it brought the end of World War II in the Pacific and so saved millions of lives". The commentator, though, is well aware that is a dicey argument. However, there was a perverse utilitarian effect from the dropping of those bombs. That act was so horrific it spurred the world to act to create the United Nations as an institution for world peace, an institution the world rejected prior to WW2 because the lack of will to do so. Those atomic bombs, because of their unbelievable destructive nature, changed the world's attitude towards war. It forced countries to act against the possibility of future nuclear wars. Every military devise invented has found its use. If the atomic bomb had not been used then, sooner or later it would have been. However, its use then forced a sea change and the realization among the world’s nations that if there were wars in the future they could never escalate to a level where nuclear weapons would be used.

Sooner or later humankind had to see the destructive nature of the atomic bomb. Perhaps it was better to see it at the climax of a war rather than at the beginning of one. From that moment humankind's mindset changed towards war. Since seeing the unimaginable destructive nature of those two atom bombs the world has worked to prevent that use of atomic energy ever again. This was the first time humankind collectively saw and understood such a destructive force. It captured the world's imagination instantly, all at once. Ironically those two atomic bombs have acted as a deterrent for using such devastating devises again. Nevertheless, sad but true, it is better that it happened then to end a war than to start one.

Perhaps the world is better adjusted because it has nuclear arms. It seems to be more peaceful, with fewer wars, in comparison. Maybe the nuclear bomb is the ultimate weapon after all because its awesome destructive force has virtually rendered it unusable. What state would be foolish enough to use it? The United States could have used in Korea and Vietnam but it didn't because of what that might have brought about. However, there is the fear that it might be used by some 'rogue' state or fall into the hands of a terrorist group. Once nuclear weapons were the preserve of a few elite states. Now it has become a weapon that possibly any body can own, like all the other weapons developed throughout history. Hopefully the world and its people will keep this weapon to the status of deterrent.

History

The other day I was reading the Times Literary Supplement (TLS). It is a tabloid size paper that since 1902 has been reviewing the works of leading writers and thinkers. I generally find it an awkward read. Nevertheless, I found the latest issue (Oct. 13.06) interesting because it touched on a subject close to me, the meaning of history. It talked about how 40 years ago it devoted three issues to "New Ways in History". It commemorated those forty years ago with a feature article entitled "New ways revisited: How history's borders have expanded in the past forty years". The discussion 40 years ago was about the new approaches that were being used in discerning and evaluating history. A new bread of historians, unorthodox historians who incorporated other disciplines to understand and explain history - sociology, anthropology, psychology - wrote those articles. Also, some of those historian believed that current events, rather than past events, were better at explaining history.

"The twentieth century is the first in which comprehending world history has become possible." I thought of that remark as I read the TLS article. I believe it's true. However, scholars have pointed out that that notion is nothing new. It also was believed in the 19th century. For instance, Hegel thought that history had reached a climax in 1806 and that future history would be comprehended and shaped from that moment on. However, human history marched on and historians know that what happened then didn't really settle anything, let alone the meaning of history.

I'm really not sure what Hegel sensed in 1806 that made him think that from that moment on world history could be comprehended. (He did see Neapolitan ride by on horseback in Jena, Germany, after defeating the Prussians.) How, though, could world history be fully comprehensible after 1806 when it had not yet experience the horrendous world events of the twentieth century. Yet around that time Hegel must have experiences something significant because he became aware of the very force that drives and determines human and world history. He discovered that one thing that made the comprehension of history truly possible. Without knowing this force it would be impossible to give any historical meaning to human endeavour. Hegel recognized that the main driving/ determining forces of history was the human struggle for freedom and recognition.

Obviously the TLS article made me think about history. It also made me think of a book that is probably the antithesis to what the TLS postulated in its New Ways in History articles. The book is "The Killing of History: How Literary Critics And Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past" by Keith Windschuttle. One social theorist of history Windschuttle railed against was Francis Fukuyama, because of his book "The End of History". What Windschuttle disliked most about Fukuyama's approach to history is his economic determinism and his injecting philosophy into it, not just any philosophy but Hegelian philosophy. Fukuyama also used history to discern a truth, something traditional historians are against. According to Windschuttle history should just be a narrative and accounting of events, without injecting meaning or a truth into it. Windschuttle doesn't believe that history should be mixed with other disciplines in order to troll for meaning.

Fukuyama's interpretation of history impressed me because I was thinking the same thing. We both believe that the collapse of Communism means that there is now only one alternative in human governance left to the world, Democracy. Humankind had exhausted all other possible forms of governance in its struggle for freedom and recognition. History had an empirical purpose, helping prepare human governance for the modern world and establishing Democracy as the only true governance of human freedom and recognition. Fukuyama saw that the universal human struggle for freedom and recognition could only realistically be fulfilled within and by Democracy.

I noticed that TLS did not include Fukuyama in their revisiting New Ways in History. However, as things go he is a giant in new ways of viewing history. He discovered one of the defining, pivotal moments in history by linking it with the human condition and needs and aspirations, the collapse of Communism and the ascendancy of Democracy. As an historian he believes that current events can explain the meaning and trajectory of history. He introduced one big new way of examining history, through human governance. He re-introduced the idea of ideology in history and the idea that we have reached an end point in our ideological evolution when in comes to defining and establishing legitimate human governance. He rightly pointed out that if humans hope to fulfill their needs and aspirations in this modern world the only realistic alternative form of government is liberal democracy - capitalism and democracy - Democracy.

I am surprised TLS omitted Fukuyama in its revisiting of New Ways in History because he discovered a new way of evaluating history, through human governance.

Technology

The other day I was using a new technology. I am a picture framer and the technology I was using was a cloth for cleaning glass. It is odd to think of a cloth as technology. But technically it is a technology. A definition of technology is "The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives". And that is what was occurring.

3M made this cloth, one of the world's most technologically driven companies. They are most famous for their adhesive tapes and glues. What is great about this cloth is that it can be washed and used again and again. In picture framing having clean glass is vital, so it isn't lightly that I praise this cloth because I am fussy about clean glass. I found that with this cloth I could use plain water instead of glass cleaner and get just as good results.

Another technology I am enthusiastic about is LED technology. LED stands for light-emitting diode. So far most of us have only experienced this technology in Christmas lights and in cars. But I am sure that LED bulbs will replace traditional light bulbs in the near future. Many of the traffic lights in our cities are now LED based. This type of lighting technology will do a lot to help conserve energy because it uses 80% less, plus it doesn't generate heat like conventional lighting, thus requiring no additional energy for cooling, saving even more energy. Imagine when LEDs are in full use. The savings! This technology will revolutionize the energy business.

The electric generating industry needs revolutionizing, and overhauling. A few years ago the industry in the United States was deregulated. The thinking back then was that allowing competition to enter the industry would bring down prices, the theory being that more electricity would be produced, thus making it cheaper. But prices have not come down like they did it other deregulated industries. Instead prices have gone up. Electric utilities in the United States have been playing a shell game with consumers, flipping electric utilities and passing on the cost to them. The industry has not been regulated properly. One of the most notorious companies for doing unscrupulous things with energy and overcharging customers was Enron. Perhaps the new technologies for generating electricity, like LEDs, solar cells, wind turbines and batteries, will wrestle some of the power away from utility companies and eventually give us lower prices. If the past is any indication, technological advances will eventually make electricity cheaper. I even heard talk of nuclear batteries some day.

Years ago a survey was taken among scientist asking the question, what has been the most important technological development of the 20th century. The response was, the laser. The laser is probably the most diverse technology ever invented. And imagine, when it was first discovered it was not known what it might be good for. Today it has multiple uses. It is used in fiber optics for communications. Neither the Internet nor capable TV would be possible on the massive scale it is if it weren’t for the laser and fiber optics. Lasers are also used in construction, for measuring distances and laying pipes. Lasers are used in printing newspapers and books. Lasers are used in all kinds of surgery. I understand they are now working on lasers that will link computer chips instead of using wires, which are susceptible to overheating and breakage. What would we do without lasers? For one thing we certainly wouldn't have the Internet and it fountain of information.

Technology has brought about both the modern world and has made the modern world possible. I remember the movie "Brazil: A state of Mind". The movie offered a view of the future, albeit a pessimistic one. But the future it presented was a futuristic version of the 1930s and 40's, so it was distorted. For instance, the telephones pictured in the movie were made to look modern and supposedly up-to-date by having hundreds of wires connected to them, making them bulky and inefficient looking. What impressed me about the movie is that the technological advances were made to look big and bulky, meaning ‘more is more’. Really, though, modern technology does the opposite, making ‘less means more’. That future in the move didn’t look very modern because technological advances took up to much space. The modern world has put a premium on space and resources because those things are not been made any more. In the real world technology has reduces the size of things while at the same time increasing their efficiency. Remember IBM's first computer? It was the size of a small house and used plenty of electricity to run and cool. (At the beginning IBM though it would only sell a few computers a year. It also wondered what computers might be used for.) Technology has also found alternatives and better use of our scare natural resources.

A few years ago I became interested in desalinization. For those countries that are short of drinking water there certainly is plenty of it in the ocean. However, it needs desalinated before it can be used. Recently I learned that Spain has been desalinating sea-water for over 40 years and is the most advanced in this technology, which it has been selling all over the world for years.

Democracy! Where would it be without technology? Technological advances gave us the printing press and the information age. Democracy is impossible without information and communication. Mobility is also important to Democracy. It has given us the freedom to move around and discover the world for ourselves. In communist countries such mobility was forbidden, denying that personal democratic freedom the West took for granted. Technology has certainly given us many modes of mobility. And our traveling has expanded and strengthened Democracy.

More significance of 9/11

The people who instigated the attacks of 9/11 naively thought they could bring down a civilization, Western Civilization. Instead, the attacks showed the resilience and strength of this Civilization, to survive and carry on. In fact, I am impressed how robustly this Civilization has come roaring back from that disaster, with its cosmopolitism and internationalism. Many thought globalization was domed because this event conceivably could have ended it and spread isolationism throughout the world. The terrorists were hoping for that. The terrorist failed. I believe the fact that Western Civilization has shown such resilience and strength since the attacks signifies and confirms its preeminence in this world.

Another significant development of 9/11 is that it started the Islamic Reformation. Islam has never gone through a reformation in the way Christianity has. I find it interesting that Islam is five hundred years younger than Christianity and that its reformation is starting almost five hundred years after Christianity's.

What was done in the name of Islam on 9/11 by its Islamic perpetrators, and to a further extent by the bombings in London, Madrid and Bali, has provoked an awakening and a reflecting in the Islamic world, on what it is to be Islamic/Muslim. Because of this terrorist act done in their name, Muslims around the world have been looking inwardly and questioning their faith on mass. For the first time in history the Koran is being interpreted, something that in the past was vigorously discourage. The Bible, on the other hand, has been interpreted and debated for centuries. I think it is great that this kind of discourse has begun in Islam.

I think that the discourse started by of 9/11 among Muslims is really the only way of starting the process of democratization in the Islamic world and not through regime change or by military means. It has provoked politicking and independent thinking and self-expression among Muslim lay-people and scholars alike, something that has rarely occurred. This is an excellent start on the road to democracy. This is the way it started in Christianity, through its Reformation, which led to the Enlightenment, which paved the way for Democracy.

Perhaps the Islamic Reformation started before, but 9/11 blew it wide open. The antagonism Islam has endured from some sectors of the Christian world recently, like the Danish cartoon episode and the Pope's comments, has fueled and spurred on this Reformation.

Martin Luther was responsible for staring the Reformation in Christianity in the 16th century. The New York Times had an opinion piece entitled "Looking for Islam's Luther. That essay is what encouraged me to write what I am writing here. It also got me thinking of a falsehood, about the Reformation started by Luther. If anything, the Reformation he started, as we know it, was the result of an unattended consequence. It originally started off as a fundamentalist movement. We generally think of a reformation as an event that tends to liberalize and open things up. But Luther was a traditionalist and his idea of reformation was a way to push the Catholic Church back in time, to its original principles and traditional roots. Luther also thought the Church had become too liberal and wayward. Luther's Reformation was intended to clean up the Roman Catholic Church and put it back on the straight and narrow, not open it up to change and modernization as is what eventually occurred.

Luther was a fundamentalist and so were the perpetrators of 9/11. However, as we see from history, though Luther unleashed a reformation that was intended to restore traditional values in the Church, it had the opposite effect. This reformation did have some desired effects, in that it stopped some of the Church's capricious and corrupt behaviors. But it also had the undesired effect of splintering the Church and ushering in the Enlightenment, which started the development of Democracy. So instead of tightening things up, Luther’s Reformation cause a social upheaval. I think the Islamic/Muslim world is facing a similar prospect from the salvo that was launched on 9/11, which was hoped would push the world back to a more traditional, non-modern time, by its perpetrators. The idea backfired, as it did in Luther's time, The Islamic world is now in a social upheaval and is engaged in soul searching. And more often than not, when such things start things never remain quite the same and things usually change mutually for the better.

Democracy

I don't think Democracy has been studied enough, about how and why it works. And even though I have been studying it for some time I still find it hard to explain. Much of it seems to be a mystery. Nevertheless, I am going to tell you what I think.

Some people have been naive about establishing Democracy in Iraq. George Bush is one. Another is a noted scholar and teacher of Democracy at Stanford University, Larry Diamond. He eagerly went to Iraq to help establish it. In doing so he felt that he was party to something unique and helping to develop a new frontier. He soon left in despair because he realized that Democracy could not be established in an insecure environment. Iraq is socially, politically and militarily insecure, more so since the war began.

Some people naively think that since America managed to establish Democracy in Germany and Japan after WWII the same can be done in Iraq. Iraq is a different place. Those two countries had some of the basic components for Democracy prior to America’s involvement. Japan and Germany were pretty much socially homogenous nations. Iraq is not. Homogeny is one essential for Democracy taking hold. Also, Germany and Japan were industrially based nations prior to Democracy. Iraq is not. Industrialization pre-organized the populations of those countries and prepared them for Democracy. Industrialization and the culture it spawned, like the middle class and compulsory education, gave the populations in those countries a direct interest in the welfare of their countries, helping to establish the foundation that would later serve in developing Democracy. Autonomous hierarchal social structures such as corporation, unions and religious institutions were also critical in preparing Japan and Germany for Democracy. Those autonomous centers helped cultivated Democracy's future lieutenants. Iraq had no such political power centers waiting in the wings to help launch Democracy. A secular society is also essential for Democracy because it affords a common environment in which it can unfold. Iraq is not a secular society or a society that can easily put its religious differences aside, like Germany and Japan did.

One thing I have noticed is that democracy has a better chance in complex societies. But a thinking seems to suggest the opposite, that less complex societies would be better for Democracy's chances because there is less involved and less to worry about . However, Democracy is not like a machine that functions best with fewer moving parts - the fewer parts the better and the less chance of a break down. There also is a Catch-22 involved here. For instance, how can a nation like Iraq or Haiti who have never done Democracy before hope to achieve Democracy if they lack the complexity Democracy demands? How are nations and societies like Haiti and Iraq supposed to attain the complexities of the modern world if they have always shunned it or are incapable of it, so they can establish Democracy. The complexities of the modern world and Democracy were made for and necessitate each other.

By complex I mean that there has to be a whole host of different activities and self-interests competing and meshing with each other for Democracy to truly work. Iraq is not a very complex society. It does not have corporate and individual interest vying with government, religious and social interests. Even the complexity that is generated between men and women in Western societies, which is almost non-exist in the Middle East, makes a difference. Democracy, in order to really work, requires many masters making many demands on it. The many demands put on Democracy, ironically, are what keep it alert and alive. This is something Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islam, touched on in his book "What Went Wrong?", meaning what went wrong in Islam. He said that one think lacking in Islamic societies, which discourages the development of Democracy, is polyphony - many voices competing, demanding to be heard and juggling each other. In Islam there aren't many voices speaking out, inquiring and expressing themselves. That is one thing Democracy seems to require and thrives on, polyphony and diversity.

Most people think democracy is just about voting, that is why so many people got so exited about the first election in Iraq. Well, that has not lead to Democracy nor will it any time soon. Democracy requires back-up systems, like a truly free press, pluralism, secularism, a sense of equality, the rule of law for all, property rights and honest individual recognition and freedom. Democracy requires a whole host of things happening at the same time for it to really work. Under this scenario Germany and Japan were ripe for democracy with their diversity of intellects, scientists, educators, industrialists and politicians. But Iraq and the Islamic world do not have the diversity Democracy requires to take hold. In the West democracy has taken centuries to develop and here, astonishingly, it is expected that Iraq pick it up just like that, as if it was natural. Democracy doesn't come naturally. It seems natural because it addresses basic human instincts but it takes nurturing, though a long arduous process

To Western countries Democracy has come in a backward fashion, through the back door. First, people in Western nations gained economic freedom and then political freedom followed. This is how Western women eventually got the vote in the 20th century, because of the economic clout they acquired in running the household. With economic freedom women gained a measure of respect and recognition. With their economic clout women could not be easily ignored. And from that evolved, with addition pressure from the suffrage movement, political freedom for them. This is how Democracy is slowly emerging for the people of China. First they are economically empowered and engaged and then they will become politically empowered and engaged.

At the moment I don't know what the answer is for Iraq, whether Democracy will ever be possible there or not. I can only see that they are incapable of Democracy. I mean, if they ever hope to achieve Democracy their culture will require a revolutionary change. But is that possible? America has sure tried in a clumsy way.

*What did you do on your summer holiday?*

This is a "What did you do on your summer holiday?" type of essay.

We, my wife and I, went to New York City. We spent four days there and then departed from there on a cruise ship which took us to Halifax, then south to Bar Harbor, Boston, Newport and back to NYC.

While in NYC we went to the Museum Of Modern Art. There we saw an exhibition of Da-Da, which was highly recommended. We were lucky because by change we caught it in on its last day. Da-Da was an antibourgeois art movement started in 1916 to protest the hypocrisy of authority and the political order of the day. It mirrors a skepticism. It still seems relevant and appropriate for this day and age, considering the political events in America and all. You could see that the art on display had a rebellious nature about it and showed little deference to a ruling order. When Da-Da first appeared it must have really jolted the art world. Today, though still provocative, it seems no more than a curiosity and mainstream. However, the message of Da-Da is still there, agitating the senses and questioning the status quo.

Before we left on the trip I bought two books to read. One book was entitled "Democracy, A History", by John Dunn and the other "A History of the World in 6 Glasses", by Tom Standage. I always want to make connections between things and events. In this case it was between these two books and my trip. There certainly is a connection between the books because they both deal with social evolution and human enlightenment. The book by Standage, about the world's 6 major liquid refreshments, probably had more to do with my trip because I drank them all. As for Dunn's book on Democracy and its connection, I wasn't that aware of my partaking in Democracy while traveling, although I am sure that the trip would not have been possible without our living in a Democracy. The ship itself wasn’t a paragon of democracy but it certainly was surrounded by it.

We left for NYC on 9/11. As it happens, we also left on a cruise from NYC in 2004 on 9/11. I mention 9/11 because I thing it has a significance on what we experienced on our trip. The world came to a halt after 9/11. People believed that globalization would come to an end and that international travel would be greatly reduced. On the contrary, globalization and international travel have increased since, to levels even higher that before 9/11. This indicates to me the world before 9/11 had something that was worth perpetuating. It also showed the resilience of that world in that it came roaring back, stronger. The terrorists that cause 9/11 believed it was an unjust and corrupt world. But their attack strengthened the resolve to continue and improve on that world. The fact that globalization and international travel continue to grow is a good indication that the attacks of 9/11 really validated the trajectory of the world prior to 9/11 rather that repudiated it, as some believed it would. Our being in NYC traveling and cruising with thousands of others, along with our onboard staff from 42 nations, was also testimony to the international environment that has developed around us, one of interdependence and cooperation.

The cruise had a speaker on board to entertain some of us. He was Harm de Blij. He wrote a book "Why Geography Matters". He talked about his book and the fact that Americans in general knew very little geography and that universities like Harvard stopped teaching it long ago. He said that if the Bush administration had known its geography it might not have started a war with Iraq. Personally, I thought the war had nothing to do with Bush's ignorance of geography but had to do with revenge and a corrupt ideology. I was surprised he got so political about his subject. Nevertheless, I relished it. He also talked about climate change and how the present American government has tried everything to deny and ignore it.

Speaking of climate change, on board the ship I got the opportunity to finally see Al Gore’s movie “ An Inconvenient Truth”. It may have exaggerated some points but I think overall it made a truly valid case. I don’t understand how so many people can still deny that human activity is not affecting the climate of the world. After all, the human activity of the last century has increased dramatically, not only in changing the landscape of the world but also in adding tons of pollutants into the air. The evidence is there. The movie didn’t mention 9/11. I think it should have been because of what occurred on 9/11. Airplanes were grounded for four days and in those four days the skies were noticeably cleaner. That happening really showed that human activity has had a huge impact on the quality of our air. From that event a rational mind can understand that even the human activity of air travel can contribute to some form of climate change.

After leaving the ship we took a cab to the airport. Our cab driver was a Pakistani. This reminded me of something I had read, that Muslim immigration to America was on the increase, after a large drop following 9/11. I believe this development is a validation of what followed 9/11. What followed 9/11 was a mindset that continued to accept and not reject a civilization that truly recognized and offered life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For a few years after 9/11 Muslims did not come to America because they were restricted and felt unwanted. However, after things settled down Muslims started again to immigrate to America in larger numbers from all over the Islamic world. Say what you will about America, but the reason they started again coming to America is because America’s culture recognizes individual rights, which their cultures did not. In America Muslims find that they are free to worship as they wish and that they have the economic opportunities that were denied them back home.

The significance of 9/11

An article appeared in the Los Angeles Times by Brendan Simms, a lecturer in history at the Center of International Studies, Cambridge University. The article was "9/11: Historic Turning Point, or Bump in the Road?" He wrote that we will have to wait some time before the terrorist attacks fit into history's big picture.

After reading Brendan Simms' article I came to a conclusion about one big significance of 9/11. It didn't change the world that much. Yes, it changed some of the mechanics of running the world. However, it was more a sign of validation than change. It validated a civilization that most of us have a stake in, one that has given us, to use Simms' references, motor cars and prosperity. Most of the world personally felt the attack on the WTC like it was an attack on their civilization. It validated the interdependent world we live in. It validated globalization and world travel, things which came roaring back and increased after 9/11. On this validation the future is being built.

Idea Framing

Because my last post was about being a picture framer I thought I would revisit a related post I did last year. It's related because it's also about framing, not about picture framing but idea framing. As a result, I think of myself not only as a framer of pictures but also as a framer of ideas:

Isaiah Berlin said that philosophers are adults who persist in asking childish questions.

Does that mean that adults who ask childish questions are philosophers? Not necessarily. For one to be a philosopher, childish questions should be followed by reflection and possible explanations. For example, Albert Einstein is considered a philosopher because he reflectively answered his own childish questions. One of the biggest childish questions he asked was, “Did God have any choice in how he created the world?” All his life Einstein developed thought experiments and theories that showed reasonably well that God did not have a choice if the world is to be the way it is.

I’ve asked childish questions. In my attempt to answer them I haven’t necessarily become a philosopher but I did turn to philosophy to answer them. What philosophy offers an inquisitive person like myself is a toolkit of ideas and methods for understanding and explaining. One thing I know is that many of the childish questions I have asked don’t have simple answers. Sometimes they have contradictory answers. Philosophy helps put the contradictions into perspective and sort out the confusion that can arise from them. In the process philosophy has helped develop lucidity in my thinking and an ease of thought that never existed before. I've often said that if there were no contradiction in the world we wouldn't need philosophy to help figure things out.

One of my big childish questions was, “Why is the world the way it is?” I didn’t ask it in the wonderment of its physical nature as Einstein did, but in the wonderment of its social evolution. I was thinking about its political and economic development. I wanted to know why humankind organizes and governs itself the way it does. I saw a singular, standard system of human organization and governance emerging. I wanted to know why.

I say my question was a childish one because in a sense it was like asking why the sky is blue. The standard answer to that question usually is, “Because! that’s the way it is.” However, with me, as it is often with children, that statement is usually followed by “But why?”

I can’t think of a childish question Berlin might have asked. I know that he was deeply against the idea of determinism, the philosophy that believes that there is a particular determining social force in the world. He knew that historically this philosophy often led to human subjugation. For instance, both Hitler and Stalin believed in social determinism, which they fashioned into totalitarianism and the subjugation of their people. The people who didn’t fit into their deterministic visions were often imprisoned or completely eliminated. Perhaps the childish question Berlin may have asked is, why has humankind been so brutal and insensitive to itself?

Life!

I am a picture framer. I became one by accident. I am self-employed and like it that way. A lot of good things have happened to me by accident or things not being planned.

This got me thinking about how and why things happen. I mean, I could have ended up working for somebody else. However, there was something about me that said I wanted to be self-employed. I didn't know that at the beginning of my employment life but that is how it developed, just naturally. Also, the trajectory I took in life ensured that I did not work for anybody else. When I did work for somebody else it was either temporary or I got fired. I got fired from at least four jobs. And some jobs I applied for I didn't get because I was told I was over qualified. The whole experience was as though it was predetermined that I be independent and work for myself. Perhaps, too, I eventually realized I could not work for anybody else. My calling was to be independent. Events in time confirmed this, that independence was in my blood.

Most likely I got my independence and need to work for myself from my mother. She was independently minded. It was late in her life but she eventually went independent. She started a shop selling things from South America, a continent she became very intrigued with. The shop was called House Of The Americas; La Casa De Las Americas in Spanish. I helped around the shop now and then. As an added attraction my mother began selling paintings with themes of Latin American. They were always sold unframed. And this is what got me thinking about framing, because some people wanted their painting framed. We then introduced framing for those who wanted it.

My mother's store had three different locations; the first two locations were in Toronto's Yorkville district and the third in a small town west of Toronto. That is when I really became involved in her enterprise. I started and ran a cafe in that store. But I felt isolated in this store, in this small town. I wished and wished I had my own store in Toronto, in the city. Lo and behold, as though it was preordained, the opportunity arose.

It was extraordinary how I got my first store in Toronto. I mean, I could never have afforded it or its location if it didn't happen the way it did. I didn't have much money. The store was in a pretty prime location. How it all happened is that my mother had an acquaintance who had a gift shop. This women was wanting out of the gift shop but wasn't about to give it up completely. She suggested that I take over her store, pay the rent and sell her merchandise, and as I did I kept a percentage of sales. There was no startup cost involved for me, so it was like landing in a ready-made situation. I also saw the opportunity to introducing framing into the store because something else was needed to make money and attract people. Another good thing is that there were no framers in the area.

One moral of the story is that I saw an opportunity and wasn't afraid to take it. The opportunity was the store falling in my lap, a store that I had dreamed about. Another good thing is that it all happened with little investment. The biggest investment I made was my buying an air conditioner for the shop. I borrowed money from the bank to buy it. That was the first loan I ever made and that loan established my credit rating. I paid the loan back in three months.

That is one of the nice accidents that happened to me. But really, it was no accident. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I was also fortunate to have the wherewithal to sense a good opportunity when it came along and grab it. Ultimately, I made the luck that caused this to happen. But it also came from how I was nurtured and brought up, to have confidence and be prepared.

Not every aspect of this story is unique. But there is uniqueness about it in that it is an individual's story. Is there a philosophy involved? I suppose there is, one of letting things transpire and unfold. Don't force things too much and be realistic.

Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart has been in the news lately for both business and political reasons. Business wise it had its first drop in profits in ten years. In Germany Wal-Mart decided to cease the operation of it 84 stores because it could not compete. One senior official at Wal-Mart was recently charged with embezzling funds from the company. Politically, it has been criticizing it for its low wages, poor health benefits, employing illegals and forcing American manufactures to go to other countries to remain competitive. The man it hired to head its Public Relations department to improve its image, Andrew Young, recently resigned because of racial slurs he made. Chicago city council said that Wal-mart will have to pay employees more and improve health coverage if it wants to operate in the Chicago area. And in China, a union is trying to organize employees, something Wal-Mart is very much against because that increases costs.

I remember a drive to unionize was successful in a store in Quebec, Canada. But that store was closed down because of Wal-Mart detests unions. It would rather lose a store than unionize. Wal-Mart has a lot of clout because of its size. A lot of communities are afraid to challenge it because its big stores can bring much needed employment and tax revenues. However, a backlash has been growing to keep stores out of some communities because of the destabilizing effect they have. Now Wal-Mart is thinking of creating more intimate stores which can be located in downtown areas.

During Hurricane Katrina Wal-Mart was a savior for many. When the government wasn't there to help and assist those who had been devastated by the Hurricane, Wal-Mart was there distributing essentials and supplying power generators. Many of its stores in the area were badly damaged by the storm but Wal-Mart, with its vast network and expertise, recovered quickly so it could assist the community. It gained many brownie points for that effort.

Wal-Mart is the largest corporation in America (in the world) with sales of more than $220 billion dollars. I remember when GM was number one (now #3). I guess the new mantra in business now is , What is good for Wal-Mart is good for America. That saying was coined in the fifties and used to belonged to GM. The only thing is, that new mantra includes a sad turn, the dumbing-down of American business practices. They include no unions, the downsizing or elimination of employees' pension plans, smaller or no health coverage and low, low wages. Wal-Mart has also destroyed many small-town business areas and many state side manufacturing jobs in its ruthless quest for cutting prices. Many mom and pop store have vanished because of Wal-Mart's competition.

Wal-Mart has helped feed and cloth the poorer people of America by keeping prices down, and has kept inflation down by reducing prices. This is very commendable and democratic. But it has also contributed to the widening gap between rich and poor by creating a ripple effect throughout the nation of cost cutting and the elimination of pensions and health plans. All this has created a greater burden for the middle class, which seems to be losing ground.

Wal-Mart has probably done more for the developing world than it has done for America, by creating manufacturing jobs and raising salaries elsewhere. However, I think there is a positive aspect to this. By creating jobs abroad, Wal-Mart has prevented a possible greater hoard of illegal aliens clambering to get into America due to them not having employment at home. Wal-Mart, thus, has made the world saver for America, by helping to level the playing field, increasing living standards and creating manufacturing jobs abroad, making the world more in America's image.

Perhaps a dose of Wal-Martism has been good for America. It has shaken-up the business community. And business communities need shaking up now and then in order to remain viable, so they don't grow stale and atrophy. Wal-Mart has introduced new management techniques and more efficient ways to produce goods and distribute them. By shaking up things it has kept American business competitive. In being so frugal with medical and pension plans it has force competitors and other corporation to reexamine and restructure their bloated medical and pension schemes. One of GM's biggest business problems, one of the main reason for it constantly losing money and market share, is that over the years it has became saddled with very expensive medical and pension programs. Its cars cost more to manufacture because of those expenses. One reasons for Wal-Mart extraordinary success is that it is leaner and meaner than most. Nevertheless, maybe some day in the future Wal-Mart will also loose its vaulted position and be challenged to do better for similar reasons, because it too became top heavy and out of touch.

Fiasco II

I disagree that all aspects of war amount to fiascos. However, there are those who believe the opposite. I guess it depends on what you mean by fiasco. One thing is clear, war is horrible.

The dictionary describes fiasco as a "complete failure". But what is complete failure in war? A war wouldn't be a complete failure if one side defeats an enemy. For instance, Vietnam was a complete failure for the United States but not for the North Vietnamese who were successful in defeating the United States in South Vietnam, reuniting the country. However, in the long run, was the war in Vietnam really a complete failure for the United States? Today America and Vietnam are at peace with each other. Today Vietnam is one of America's trading partners. Where once North Vietnam remained isolated from the rest of the world, the war made it an engaging and active member of the world community. American corporations are now investing heavily in Vietnam, especially in the high-tech industry. American's are traveling to Vietnam. Though Vietnam won the war, it now resembles America more than America resembles it. Vietnam is developing a capitalist economy. Of course, there is a real fiasco involved, that this war took so many American and Vietnamese lives to end and finally bring peace between them, and make them partners in globalization.

War is diplomacy by other means. Could diplomacy have prevented North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam? Probably not. The North was determined to take the South by force and the South was determined to remain free. Antiwar people think America should have stayed out of the conflict and let the warring parties settle their own dispute. However, America was fearful of the South's defeat because of the 'domino effect' that would cause, the theory being that the invasion of South, a non communist country, by the North, a communist country, would lead to other Asian countries falling to communism. America felt democracy was threatened by such a situation, hence it getting involved, to stop the spread of communism. America's involvement in Vietnam was really a fiasco because America kept compounding its failures there, through incompetence, lack of transparency, corruption and its deceit about the war's siccess. If it acted as a peace keeper between the two instead, America's role may not have been such a fiasco.

Somebody said that WW2 was a fiasco because of the Versailles Treaty. The Versailles Treaty was suppose to have ended WW1. Instead, the Treaty really didn't resolve much but made things worse, which in turn led to WW2. The perceived wisdom is that WW2 was an extension of WW1 because WW1 never really ended. However, it is hard for me to understand how or why that made WW2 a fiasco. Agreed, WW2 was a byproduct of the unfinished fiasco of WW1. However, the real fiasco lies in a fact, that the warring parties of WW1 didn't sign an unconditional surrender treaty, only an armistice. One was signed after WW2, clearly ending hostilities. Also, the victors of WW1 did not attempt to rehabilitate the losers like they did after WW2. Since unconditional surrender treaties were signed ending WW2 and rehabilitation was implemented, I believe that WW2 was chiefly a success, not a fiasco as some believe. The world has not had a world war since.

However, just to puncture my argument a bit, WW2 led to another war, the Cold War. Because of that some think that makes WW2 a fiasco because it also left many conflicts unresolved, such as Korea, Vietnam and the growing conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, it was a cold war that followed, not a hot one, like the other two wars. It was a cold war because during its duration the majority of the world lived in relative peace, in comparison to the experiences of WW1 and WW2. The Cold War managed to contained the outbreak of a third world war, which was real possibly due to the looming conflict between East and West. The lessons learned in WW2 made the Cold War 'cold', not 'hot'. The devastation and destruction caused in WW2 with conventional weapons and the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan brought a realization to the world, that such wars should never happen again. Hence the Cold War. A 'hot' third world war would probably have meant total annihilation. I consider that a partial success, not a fiasco, because lessons were learned from the past, that engaging in total war was no longer an option.

The main reason why one would consider war a fiasco is because of the lives lost and the destruction caused. I understand that. It is such a waste. However, humankind has always been determined to fight. We have had to learn otherwise. Past wars have shown us the futility of war in resolving our differences. We've had to learn the hard way, that wars are futile. I think slowly we have gottten the point; the majority have. We created the United Nations after WW2 in order to prevent future wars, an institution that was tried after WW1 as the League of Nations but failed. Some consider the U.N. a fiasco and a complete failure. I disagree. Yes, the U.N. is dysfunctional. But it reflects the dysfunctionality of its members. At least it has managed to contain this dysfunctionality so that it hasn't manifested itself into a real fiasco, like a WW3, which would truly be a fiasco and a total failure.

Fiasco

From the blog "Crooked Timber" Alex Tabarrok writes that he is dismayed that people would think that the Iraqi war would be anything other than a fiasco. He has been reading Thomas Ricks' book "Fiasco" where Ricks says "the war on Iraq and subsequent occupation was ill-conceived, incompetently planned and poorly executed". No wonder it has been a fiasco, Tabarrok writes, because "all wars are full of incompetence, mendacity, fear, and lies. War is big government, authoritarianism, central planning, command and control, and bureaucracy in its most naked form and on the largest scale".

I agree that the war in Iraq is a fiasco. However, it didn’t have to be that way. Wars aren’t inherently or necessarily fiascos as Tabarrok writes. This Iraq war has been run especially badly. In comparison, though, the first Iraqi war, in 1991, was much better organized and executed and ended in success. In the present war Bush the younger (his father organized the first war) has ignored advice, ignored history and ignored the world. Had Bush&Co not been so arrogant, ignorant and naive this war could have been a success. This war has been waged by children in comparison. This war was based on the lethal combination of ideology, simple mindedness, inherent incompetence, hubris and shear stubbornness. No wonder it has been a fiasco.

Tabarrok puts the incompetence of this war directly at the feet of the Pentagon. The Bush administration naively gave the Pentagon full command of what was to happen in Iraq, from the execution of the war to the rebuilding and democratizing of it. This completely shut out the State Department which generally is responsible for helping the democratic process in other lands. It is more experienced in such matters. For instance, the State Department played a major role in democratizing Germany and Japan after WW2. The Pentagon doesn't understand diplomacy, an essential factor for ending wars. The Pentagon has monopolized the whole process in Iraq and when monopolizing happens big problems inevitably develop. That is why democracies like the U.S. have developed competing levels of power, to discourage monopolistic practices. Had the Pentagon shared more responsibility with The State Department and others in securing Iraq it most likely would not be the fiasco it is today.

Had the administration not gone it alone this war would not have been a fiasco. Sure, it assembled a “coalition of the willing” but most of that has fallen apart, except for the British, as the situation deteriorated. Had the administration listened more to the military, which had learned valuable lessons from the first Iraqi war and Vietnam, this war would not be a fiasco. Bush&Co seemed to throw past experience out the window when it came to this war, thinking it could do it on the cheap and with minimum effort. Up to this point America had learned to be more cautious and pragmatic about war, especially after Vietnam. Political and economic engagement were now supposed to be the alternatives to war. But the Bush administration refused to do either with Iraq. The “age of reason” did not enter into the equation in this White House. They saw the alternative to war as appeasement and rewarding “evil doers”. The naiveté of this Company and its lack of understanding and nuance is what made this war a fiasco, not the inherent nature of war. Enough has been learned about war to make it reasonable successful, like the one launched against Yugoslavia under the Clinton administration.

Another blogger, Peter Levine, sees the Iraq war as systematic failure, meaning that the whole system of America, the collective zeitgeist of its people, the media, Congress and so on, is responsible. Somebody described what transpired as a group delusion. I agree. However, being the head of the system that failed, Bush&Co. deserve most of the blame. The “buck” stops with Bush. As America’s leader he is ultimately responsible. It is said that people deserve the administration they pick. So, by association the people are also part of the failure, as Levine implies.

After 9/11 America was itching for revenge but Afghanistan, where the attackers were trained, was not a target enough. The public and the media, and perhaps the military, wanted and needed a larger, more visible and rewarding cathartic experience. Afghanistan was not enough, Iraq was. What followed was like sheep following each other over a cliff. Perhaps this blind eagerness helped cause the fiasco.

As for the blog I quoted from at the beginning, “Crooked Timber”, I assume its name comes from something the philosopher Emmanuel Kant said : “From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned”. It is sort of appropriate for this subject because nothing about the Iraqi war has been straight. It was presented crookedly and it was executed crookedly. From such crookedness fiascos are bound to develop.

Philosophy of Containment

Time magazine recently published an essay entitled "Let Your Enemies Crumble" by Peter Beinart. In it he discusses an extremely important lesson of the Cold War that the U.S. forgot or ignored when it came to Iraq. I found the article interesting because I did wonder why this important lesson hadn't been discussed as an option, instead of war. I felt vindicated because the article made a case for a foreign policy I believed was superior to Bush's choice of 'preemptive war', which Beinart said he had initially supported but now acknowledges was a failure.

The gist of Beinart's essay is about the policy of 'containment' America devised to deal with the ideological expansion and military build-up of its arch enemy, the Soviet Union (USSR). This foreign policy was adopted during the Truman administration, following WWII. The idea behind it was that instead of going to war with the USSR, as many wanted, to prevent it from becoming a political and economic threat to the U.S., the USSR would be 'contained' through a number of measures that would limit and thwart its expansion. The idea was that the U.S. would patiently wait out the USSR until it could no longer compete with the U.S. The belief was that eventually the USSR would collapse and crumble of its own accord because its system was inferior and corrupt. In those days, thought, as was with the Iraqi war, it was conservatives who pushed for war. Fortunately, it was liberals who prevailed with their policy of containment, which in the end did the trick. Beinart wondered why liberals didn't evoked this example when it came to Iraq.

One reason America adopted the policy of containment when it did was that America was in no mood to get into another war soon after finishing one. Also, there was fear that a war with the USSR might trigger a third, even more dangerous world war. Under the circumstances, the policy of containment was a prudent choice. Because it didn't start another war, instead, America was free to employ its energies to build and reinforce its democratic institutions, which helped contain the USSR. America's efforts to reinforce democracy at home and abroad succeeded, by way of comparison, in exposing and portraying the USSR's system of governance for what it was, fraudulent and a bad alternative.

This is Wikipedia's definition: "Containment refers to the foreign policy strategy of the United States in the early years of the Cold War in which it attempted to stop what it called the Domino Effect of nations moving politically towards Soviet Union-based Communism, rather than European-American-based Capitalism."

As Wikipedia added, the strategy and policy of containment became a tactic. The tactic was one of military and economics. Militarily, the idea was to continually keep one step ahead of the Soviet Union through advancements in military technology. That technological advancement could only be achieved if the U.S. invested heavily in science and education, which it did and could. Having a military advantage also acted as a deterrent, which was an intended consequence of containment. Another tactic the U.S. had, which it naturally has at its disposal, was capitalism and the free-market. This was a huge advantage the U.S. had over the Soviet Union - which prohibited free-market enterprise - because the competition generated by capitalism and the free market continually developed and produced the best possible military equipment. This tactic came to a climax under President Reagan, whose huge increases in military spending was virtually the straw that broke the back of the USSR, causing it to crumble. The Soviet Union could not keep up or compete with the U.S.'s industrial-military complex, scientifically or financially. This is a classic example of how the U.S containing the USSR.

The main idea behind containment is that an adversary can be kept at bay and eventually defeated through the superiority of ideas rather than through the use of military power. The practitioners of democracy knew they had a superior product to communism because democracy catered to human nature and its predisposition, unlike communism which tried to subvert and alter it. The pioneers of containment were convinced that the best way to combat the expansion of communism was to promote and cultivate democracy in as many places as possible so as to not only stand-up to communism but to show the world its exceptionalism in comparison. After the second world war The Marshall Plan was set-up specifically to do just this. The Plan's intention was to economically redevelop Europe in free market, democratic principles so that countries there would not be susceptible or vulnerable to communist take over. Communism prayed on economically and politically weak nations. The Marshall Plan was meant to off-set the allure of communism's false promises. The intention was to encircle and contain communism with shining examples of democracy and capitalism, as beacons. Japan and South Korea are other example of America's democracy building for the purpose of resisting and containing communism.

Communism and the USSR were contained and defeated in the manner the original practitioners of containment had envisioned. However, the the policy of containment didn't do it all on its own. It had help from within the enemy that was been containing. Communism essentially brought about its own demise because unlike Democracy it was a stagnant economic and political systems, incapable of reform or reinventing itself. The USSR and communism eventually atrophied and collapsed of its own accord. Containment essential hastened the process because one of the provisions of containment was that no trading be done with the enemy (except for humanitarian aid) that might help sustain it, such as much needed technology, financial assistance or anythings that might help prolong its life. The USSR's economy was inherently such that it was incapable of developing the technologies or financing then so as to keep it up with America or the modern world. This kind of containment, Beinart argues, could have also brought down Iraq because it too was vulnerable to such pressure,

That is the lesson the U.S. forgot when it came to Iraq, that instead of going to war, the U.S., with its allies, could have contained Iraq economically and politically, without firing a shot or killing so many people. And, as it happens, Iraq was on the verge of crumbling anyway. Moreover, because the U.S. couldn't contain its desire for war with Iraq it has seriously damaged its image around the world for being a pragmatic and thoughtful nation. However, the irony is that because of its war and its image problem, it is the U.S. that has been contained. With the Bush doctrine of preemptive war the U.S. acted unilaterally. But as the U.S. has found, to its consternation, containment can also work in reverse. The world, because of its distrust of America's unilateral behavior, has essentially contained the U.S. The majority of world has indicated to the U.S. in various ways that in this modern, globalized world it is imprudent and foolish to act unilaterally, ignoring institutions like the U.N. and bilateral treaties. To compound it all, the cost of the failing war in Iraq has been another self-containing mechanism for the U.S. Because of the expenditure and poor results, the U.S. will now think twist before starting another war, instead relying more on the the time tested policy of containment.

Liberalism vs Liberalism

There is classical liberalism and then there is contemporary, modern liberalism. I have tried to understand the distinction between the two. I have also wondered why conservatives admire and quote classic liberalism but detest modern liberalism. Now I think I have the answers.

Classical liberalism, in many respects, is the foundation of modern conservatism. It started off with the idea that people should be liberated and free from the tyranny of government and that governments should exist for the purpose of helping people purse their own self-interest. Classical liberalism was about "natural rights" as defined by John Locke. Those natural rights are the rights to life, liberty and property. Locke's idea was that government should ensure those rights. Conservatives today whole heartily agree that those rights are sacrosanct, that no government should stand in the way of them.

I suspect that the conservatives of John Locke's day were quite against his liberal ideas because they believed those ideas would challenge the status quo and bring about social upheaval. Conservative in all eras have generally been against social change because it disrupts the existing order they've grown accustom to. Locke's liberalism greatly changed the social and political order of 17th century England. His brand of thinking forced the King of England, Charles I, to relinquish a lot of his authority to Parliament. Because of this, conservatives and liberals battled each other in England's Great Civil War. The conservatives lost. However, in time conservatives adopted the reforms brought about by the civil war and embraced them as sacred conservative values, the rights of life, liberty and property. Today, American conservatives point to the inclusion of those values in their Declaration of Independence as sacred conservative value. However, it was classical liberalism that revealed them and brought them to life.

I wrote about this before, that liberalism is the wedge behind which social change occurs and conservatives are the ones that conserve, hence the label conservative, and consolidate the best of what liberalism produces. Liberalism also play a much needed and vital role. If it didn't instigate social change, and social change didn't occur periodically, there would be more civil wars like the one which took place in England between Parliamentarians and Royalists from 1642 until 1651. If social change had occurred in Czarist Russian, and the Czar had relinquished some of his authority to the people, the Russian Revolution probably would not have occurred. Similarly, had the Shah of Iran been liberal minded and brought about social reform in his country he probably would have remained in power.

Classical liberalism and modern liberalism aren't that different. The latter is an extension of the former. However, liberalism today has taken on a derogatory connotation and conservatives have become very expert at painting it that way, especially neoconservatives (new born conservatives). Both have felt that liberalism had become too extreme and socialistic. Yet liberalism's mission is still the same, to fight for and entrench peoples natural rights, those of life, liberty and property. Today's conservatives point to the 1960s as a time when liberalism went extreme.

In the 1960s there was sort of a civil war, a revolution between conservative and liberals. Again, such a social revolution occurred because conservative wanted to keep the status quo, which included the continuance of racial and sexual inequalities and a stubborn support for a ruling class that was proofing illegitimate. Why liberalism went extreme in their demands for sexual and racial equality is because it had to if it wanted to permanently move and over come the conservative mindset that stubbornly refused to budge and implement changes. Conservatives were as determined to keep the status quo of racial segregation and social differences as liberals were determined to change things and create a more open and flexible society.

Classical liberalism as espoused by Locke encompassed something that sounded natural and logical, and is something that was assumed enlightened future generations would naturally bring to reality. Moreover. this Reason was enshrined in one of the most salient and revered documents in history, the American Declaration of Independence, which later became the foundation for the UN Charter. However, though the Declaration and the Charter said life, liberty and property were unalienable and self-evident rights, those rights were not logically or naturally recognized or bestowed to all. In American, many citizens, blacks, women and minorities, were denied them. Those self-evident, unalienable rights were not naturally bestowed to all as the Declaration and the Charter pronounced. It is this state of affairs that gave birth to the modern, more radical liberalism of today. In the case of America, if conservatives had not blocked some of the social changes society was due in the 60s, liberalism would not have taken some of the extreme measures it did, such as affirmative action, busing and sexual promiscuity, extremes that were necessary to ensure that true social change did occur so that people would get what was naturally due them, the rights of life liberty, and property.

Hedonism

The conservative blog I have been reading, The View from 1776, wrote an article on hedonism. Many conservative see the world as full of evil and hedonism is one of these evils. This blog associates hedonism with liberalism which it also sees as evil and destroying society.

Admittedly, the word hedonism sounds harsh and derogatory. It sounds like something akin to cannibalism. However, fundamentally it is not evil. The dictionary describes it as the pursuit of pleasure. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with pursuing pleasure because it makes us happy.

Ironically, the American Declaration of Independence, which The View naturally supports, declares the pursuit of happiness - pleasure, as a fundamental human right. The Declaration sees it as unalienable right. So I find it ironic that The View doesn't support hedonism because it naturally follows if one pursues pleasure, if one purses happiness, which the Declaration says is a fundamentally all right, one is being hedonistic.

The View, though, doesn't connect hedonism with the pursuit of happiness. However, as I see it the pursuit of happiness is inexorably linked to hedonism. The “pursuit of happiness” idea in the Declaration was borrowed from Locke's idea about the right of the individual to pursue and own property. It was changed in The Declaration because "property" sounded unpoetic and too materialistic. However, from what I have read the pursuit of happiness means the same thing as the pursuit of property because such a pursuit leads to happiness. So for The Declaration property and happiness are interchangeable.

The View is a great admirer of Adam Smith. Smith told us about the importance of self-interest and its pursuit. Now, to my way of thinking, the pursuit of self-interest leads to and is hedonism because in that pursuit one is pursuing a pleasure and a happiness, a self-fulfillment. The pursuit of self-interest and hedonism, then, are also one in the same. Smith believed that through an ‘invisible hand’, self-interest - hedonism, inevitably converts and manifests itself into acts of good for the whole of society. So I am surprised that The View despises hedonism because perversely it ends up being good for society as a whole.

The View views the individual as paramount in America. It is constantly tells us that individualism is the foundation of America as The Declaration and Constitution intended it to be, as they proclaimed. It shouldn’t be a surprise, then, that hedonism exists in America writ large because the pursuit of individualism inevitably encourages hedonism. I don't see how one can separate the two. Individualism is the belief that one’s own interest come first and if so, hedonism is bound to follow. As I see it The View is arguing against itself.

Above all, hedonism protects the individual from the State. The View, being conservative, is constantly telling us we should be protected from the intrusion of the State. One sure way of protecting oneself from the State is to show the State who is number one. By being hedonistic, pursuing self-pleasure and interests, one is definitely showing the State just that. It comparison, hedonism was not permitted under communism. And without that basic right, the communist State trampled on all individual rights.

There is something I didn’t mention about The View. Besides being a conservative blog it is also quite religious. So it views hedonism unchristian. It believes that pursuit of happiness in The Declaration is about the pursuit of moral virtue. Therefore, it believes that America has developed and progressed into the great nation it is by pursuing moral virtue. Well, nothing could be less true. That looks good on paper but it isn't reality. America’s and humankind’s moral virtue has generally come as an after thought, developing out of first amoral behavior. In other words, humankind and America have developed perversely, from first behaving badly and doing wrong and then discovering the errors of their ways.

Let’s say that hedonism is an amoral behavior as The View believes. My argument is that without being hedonistic, pursuing self-gratification first, we would not have the foundation to develop into something better. Humans develop perversely, first pursuing their own self-interest and then realizing and becoming enlightened that one cannot only think about one’s own welfare but also that of others if one want to maintain one’s own.

Hedonism is a necessary evil, a wellspring from which better things develops. America has developed and progressed through material hedonism and the View is denying this.

Jane Jacobs as a Conservative

The View From 1776, the conservative blog I have been reading, wrote a favorable article on Jane Jacobs, about her conservatism and her desire to preserve cities. I am glad that The View wrote of her as a conservative because I think of her as a liberal.

That The View wrote about her as a conservative points to the fine line and the topsy-turvy world which often exists between conservatism and liberalism. Jane Jacobs emblematized both philosophies, depending on the social issue. When it came to the preservation of cities and neighborhoods she was conservative. What made her a liberal is her support for things like affirmative action and social justice. Most of us are like her, a bit of both, depending on the issue. People aren't as black or white as the labels of conservative or liberal placed on them imply.

The idea of conservative comes from conservation. People who conserve are conservatives or conservationists. In politics it is the same. Conservatives want to preserve the old ways. Conservatism, as one conservative commentator wrote, "is the persuasion and mentality that seeks order". Most of us seek order because it gives us stability and security. So liberals have a streak of conservatism in them because they also appreciate order and security.

Jane Jacobs, in her conservatism, wanted to retain the order of neighborhoods and cities that she felt worked well in sustaining and animating urban populations. But she didn't hold that view at the expense of ignoring social improvements that could make neighborhoods and cities better, like the involvement of minority and fringe groups in decision making. Conservatives, then and now, are generally reluctant about such involvement because it upsets the order of the day. However, conservatives have come to realize that they can't remain totally rigged and inflexible about change. Some have realized that in order to maintain a secure and stable social environment they must accept change and the input from minorities in urban and social planning. If conservatives had prevailed in maintaining the status quo the barriers between the races may still exist today and with that an eventual social instability and disorder. So to retain order conservative have had to change, to be flexible and innovative in their social planning and policies, like liberals.

In many respects Jane Jacobs behaved like a liberal rather than a conservative when she protested to preserve the inner cities. She was fighting City Hall, that bastion of perceived order. To be noticed she sometimes broke the law and was jailed. Conservatives normally don't behave that way or indulge in civil disobedience.

The View, in its anti-liberal stance, explains that Jacobs had challenged a liberal notion about how modern cities should be designed. That is what made her a conservative in their eyes, that she challenged the liberal notion that modern people should live in tall buildings, spaced far apart like in a "garden city". In between the widely separated buildings would be a network of highways. On paper this liberal planning looked very orderly and efficient, but sterile and uninhabitable. However, that this liberal notion looked so orderly, with buildings and people in their proper places, the whole concept appeared to be a conservative plan rather than a liberal one. My feeling is that if "The View of 1776" had existed in the 60's when Jacobs was battling City Hall and its planners they would have perceived her as liberal and an anarchist, intent on creating chaos, as they think liberals do today.

A view

I have been reading a conservative blog. It is called “The View From 1776”. From that title you can imagine that it is living in the past. And it does. For instance, it believes that the American Constitution should be interpreted the way it was written, just like the Bible should be interpreted, as it was written. According to this blog the Constitution is not a living, breathing document. It shouldn’t be studied or interpreted in different ways. The View believes that America was based on one idea, individualism, and not the collective. However, it sees that the collective has taken over. This is mainly what The View rails against, that the United States is descending into socialism.

One thing The View is really against is the New Deal which was introduced during Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration. The New Deal is ”the social and economic program implemented from 1933 to the 2nd world war to combat the effects of the great depression of 1929. It used federal funds to strength the economy and relieve unemployment, chiefly through public projects, relief to farmers and small businessmen, economic controls and labor reforms”. The View argues that this policy has trodden on the very individualism American was founded on. The New Deal was a form of economic liberalism and redistribution, which conservative sight and detest as socialism. However, the New Deal saved capitalism from itself.

Recently The View posted an article entitled “ Gasoline Price Gouging?”. The impression I got from this blog is that complaining about high gasoline prices is un-American and doesn’t adhere to the rugged individualism America was founded on. It believes that complaining about high gasoline prices shows a lack of stoicism and a disregard for the free enterprise principles America was founded on, failings which highlight the socialistic tendencies America has adopted.

The View article about gasoline price gouging starts off, "One legacy of New Deal socialism is the now unquestioning assumption that the Federal government can and ought to fix whatever problems come our way, rather than allowing the ingenuity of millions of individuals to find accommodations and solution.”

Isn’t that an exaggeration, about our expectations of government? But, then, we exaggerate to emphasis a point. The View exaggerates here is to impress upon us that the American oil companies are behaving in the true American fashion, in a way that most Americans champion and in a way that the economy depends on to function efficiently. It also exaggerates to scold us for being cry babies. After all, we should also take responsibility for high oil prices because we, as owners of gas guzzlers and being the biggest consumers of energy in the world, have helped push up prices. It is saying something to the effect that we can’t have it both ways. It is saying that without the oil companies profiting we wouldn’t have any oil or gasoline, period.

However, complaining is part of the system and Americans shouldn’t be denied their bitching. Such bitching ‘pushes the envelop’ to find alternatives and, in the sentiment of The View, to ignite the “ingenuity of millions of individuals to find accommodations and solutions”. Complaining and bitching also is part of the American way. Its purpose is to keep the government and the system accountable and transparent. Without it thinks would be worse.

It is not wrong to expect government to help fix and correct things. That is what government is for. That is why it was invented, to maintain and facilitate a healthy infrastructure. For instance, the government should have done a better job after Katrina but instead it made things worse. The people's expectation of good government management after Katrina had nothing to do with the New Deal raising people's expectations as The View would argue. Had the American people a more competent government, whose incompetence, by the way, can’t be blamed on the New Deal, the pain of Katrina would have been far less and oil prices wouldn't be so high.

Maybe there is something there. Perhaps the New Deal can be blamed for the Bush government’s incompetence, like it is blamed by The View for everything else that besets America. If the Bush administration hadn’t been so consumed with trying to undo the legacy of the New Deal, like it was determined to do, it may have been more focused and competent with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and high oil prices.

On that note, can the New Deal and its legacy be blamed for the bungling of the Iraq war by the Bush administration?

A Mystery

I just happened upon a very interesting and fitting article, “The ‘Mystery’ of the Soviet Collapse”, written by Leon Aron in the "Journal of Democracy". He reminds us that we are approaching the fifteen anniversary of this extraordinary event. An article like this is grist for my Mill.

As you may know, my Mill is the study of liberal democracy's ascendancy and the collapse of communism. The name of this Mill is “The Triumph of Liberal Democracy”. However, to understand this triumph, this ascendancy, I've had to discover and understand why communism collapsed. China is one of the few countries that still clings to communism as a central governance but even there its influence is receding. Aron’s article is a nice welcomed opportunity for me to expound on the subject.

Aron’s article mentions the failure of many Sovietontogists to anticipate or explain the death of Soviet communism. They couldn’t understand that such a revolution had occurred without their prior knowledge. He mentioned a 1993 article in “The National Interest” (the magazine that also published Fukuyama's end of history thesis) entitled “The Strange Death of Soviet Communism”. I haven’t read the article but I understand it mentioned a major reason for its death as economic stagnation. However, Aron did not mention economics as a a major possible cause for the Soviet/communist collapse. In fact, he wrote that the economic condition there failed to account for it, even though it appeared to be the chief cause of it.

I concluded some time ago why communism collapsed. The cause is convoluted, but no mystery. Ultimately, it was the lack of economic renewal and reform that did communism in. The lack of political renewal/reform was also a key factor. Renewal of any kind was something the Soviet/communist state was inherently incapable of, chiefly because of its archaic and static ways in state control and central planning. It is for this reason that China, albeit slowly, also is beginning to shed its communist ways.

There are many factors why communism collapsed, but ultimately it was economic. Some have attributed Reagan’s U.S. military build up in the 80s as the chief cause for the Soviet/communism collapse. However, this also is an example of the economy's reach, because it shows that the Soviets did not have the economic resources to compete with America’s military buildup. They did not have the money to pay for new military equipment since they were virtually bankrupt. They also lacked the science and technology required to achieve military parity with the U.S. This lack also points to the ultimacy of economics because it is from good economic stewardship that the Soviets could have afforded the science and technology needed to keep up with the Americans. The type of economics produced under communism was so inferior to that produced under liberal democracy that it is no wonder their failure to muster the finances needed to keep up. Because of the nature of the Soviet/communist economics - the lack of competition and free markets, the Soviet Empire ultimately collapse because of its own economic ineptness, because it didn’t know or follow the economic imperatives of regeneration and renewal. So instead of being the chief reason for the collapse, the Reagan administration’s military buildup really was one final straw that broke the 'camels' back. Without that straw the Empire may have clung to power a little longer but inevitably it still would have collapsed of its own economic incompetence.

Some think Pope John Paul II was responsible for the Soviet/communism collapse. He was a Pope from a communist country, Poland. This was a kin to putting a fox in a chicken coop. This Pope was seen as a threat to communist world because of the Church’s ingrained anti-communism sentiment. This Pope embolden and gave strength to the Polish people to organize and challenge communism’s authority, a challenge that spread to other communist countries. In a sense The Church and the Pope were taking advantage of a growing discontent. The Pope’s threat to communism was taken so seriously that the Soviets tried to kill him. To my way of thinking this Pope’s tenure reflected and paralleled communism’s decline. In hindsight it appears that communism was on the wane when the Pope was elected in 1979. In sensing this decline perhaps The Church, with this Pope, saw the opportunity to once and for all seriously challenge this authority it always found threatening to its religion. However, I think the Pope, like Reagan, rather than being an instigator or a major cause of the Soviet/communism collapse, really was just another straw that broke the 'camels' back.

It is said that humans can’t live by economics alone. It also needs a spiritualism. The Pope didn’t represent or have an economic connection. Instead, he offered and represented a spiritual renewal. That is one reason for his influence in undermining the Soviet/communist regime, because he offered a spiritual renewal where none existed. This inability to spiritually renew made the Soviets and communism vulnerable to the Pope’s “legions”. However, in the final analysis there is a connection because economic renewal does rely on a kind of spiritual renewal. Perhaps that is where the real mystery lies, in understanding that connection.

Liberal democracy as number one

Since he first introduced the subject in his 1989 essay, "The End Of History", Francis Fukuyama has unwaveringly claimed that liberal democracy is today and in the future the only alternative form of government for the world. He came to this conclusion after studying the sudden and unexpected collapse of Communism, up until then the only competition and alternative to liberal democracy. He said this climax represented the end point of humankind's ideological evolution, an evolution to determine how humankind should ultimately govern itself. Fukuyama felt this extraordinary event required an equally extraordinary explanation, hence his end of history analogy. In a sense it was the end of a history. Not only had liberal democracy triumphed over Communism but it had triumphed over all other forms of government known to humankind. He viewed this outcome as historically determined, having come as a result of a human realization and through the empirical process of elimination.

Why didn’t Fukuyama call this final form of government just plain Democracy instead of using the dual term liberal democracy to describe it? After all, that is what it was known as when it was competing and dueling with Communism for 70 years. I thought Democracy was democracy, no matter its composition. By using the split terminology to describe this end point in human governance, Fukuyama introduced some things that need better explaining.

Fukuyama said that “there are two separate motors driving the historical process”. The first motor is economic and the second is what Hegel called humankind’s struggle for freedom and recognition. They are first principles, hence their saliency. Instead of calling the economic motor capitalism, after the most successful and predominant economic system in the world, he called it liberal. He used liberal in its classic sense. Classic liberalism is the origins of capitalism. As he explained, he used liberal instead of capitalism because capitalism had acquired a pejorative connotation. Nevertheless, they both mean free market principles. Democracy is the name of the second motor because democracy is the only means of addressing and satisfying the basic human id, the struggle for freedom and recognition. He linked these two motors because he realized that neither capitalism nor democracy could on their own satisfy the human condition or fulfill the needs and aspirations of the modern world, whether it be in economics or in the struggle, but together they can.

I had wondered how capitalism and democracy fitted together. Some think that democracy and capitalism are opposing, contradictory systems. However, after some thought I realized that their closeness in western governance has meant and is due to the fact that neither institution can exist without the other in the long run. Their linking together is what has made western governance successful and superior to Communism. Fukuyama understood this. I think he also understood the dualistic nature of the world and its essentialness, hence his understanding the need of two separate motors for a sustaining, meaningful governance. He sensed that the modern world’s needs and aspirations can only be met with two such institutions meshing together. I was thinking the same when I thought that democracy and capitalism could not exist without each other. I also felt Communism collapsed because it lacked such a dualistic nature like that of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy encompasses two interest, private and public, making for a hearty, engaging and active governance. Bifurcation in governance, like that in liberal/democracy or capitalism/democracy, is essential because it affords a feedback system that keeps a governance vital and active, Communism obviously lacked this quality in its single mindedness and composition.

Whether he used the term liberal or capitalism, by joining it with democracy he accredited the idea in me that capitalism and democracy constituted one system, that neither can function well or properly without the other. I don't think he was aware of the implication he made at the time, that good governance requires two separate aspect of itself. Though he didn't say it, I think he believes this, as I do.

The Russian philosopher Berdyeav was astutely aware that a governing system needs a dualistic nature, a bifurcation of authority, to be credible and govern legitimately. He became aware of this as he watched Communism develop under Lenin. Communism was solely base on one theory, that of total state control, without opposition. He instinctively knew that if a government was structured thusly, on one theory, it would lead to totalitarian. He was right because Communism was a totalitarian regime and in time, as we know, a defunct one for it. Democracy and capitalism may have been just as dangerous on there own, without a challenging partner.

Niall Ferguson begged the question, as though suspicious of Fukuyama's claim, "Are capitalism and democracy the 'double helix' of the modern world?". I wondered the same thing. I did imagine that they formed something like the two strands of a governing DNA. I am glad, though, he posed the question first because as a respected scholar he gave the idea gravitus, more than I could have done. I think Ferguson believed they formed a special relationship but couldn’t quite accept the idea that they constitute the final form of human governance as Fukuyama and I believe. However, Ferguson inadvertently implied something profound, that the modern world might not be possible without such a DNA. I agree. If the world was not as advanced as it is today perhaps, then, such a DNA wouldn’t be necessary. I think the pace of this world has made such a partnership/DNA necessary. Prior to this, a DNA has never existed in human governance, either because it wasn’t yet needed or it hadn't yet been realized. The modern world has necessitated such a double helix in human governance for its survive and continue.

As I stated earlier, at first I didn't know what to make of the relationship between democracy and capitalism. Then, I thought, capitalism was an arm of Democracy. Then, because of their close ties, I came to the conclusion that neither one could exist without the other. I realized, with the helpful arguments from Fukuyama and Ferguson, they are two separate branches of the same system. That is why Ferguson's DNA idea appealed to me so much. I was thinking, if all other organic systems in nature require a DNA to keep them healthy and alive, why wouldn't this also apply to human governance. Prior to liberal democracy there had never been a DNA in human governance. Is it that one had to evolve first and then could only emerge under the right circumstances?