Letter

I haven't written anything recently because nothing much has inspired me to do so. So for those of you who are wanting and expecting some new words of wisdom from me I will post a letter of mine that was published in a philosophy magazine. The subject deals with pop-culture, which was the theme of the particular issue of the magazine I responded to. And the particular subject I responded to was about "Captain America".

Here is the letter:

As I was working away framing pictures I was also trying to frame a philosophical idea in my head. Framing pictures and framing ideas are similar activities: both need boundaries to help define and animate them. The idea I was trying to animate has to do with Major Todd A. Burkardt's article 'Operation Rebirth: Captain America and the Ethics of Enhancement' in Issue 64. Burkardt portrays Captain America as an individual, but his creator might have intended him to represent all Americans. In other words, Captain America is symbolic and representative of the exceptionalism of America, in terms of its focus on freedom and liberty for all.

I think Kant would have liked the representation of Captain America as emblematic of peace, because he wanted to see people and nations live in peace. And Kant was right to speculate that democracies needn't go to war with each other. Creating enhance soldiers, as Burhardt advocates, would be counterproductive to the world's continuing efforts through agencies like the UN to make war a thing of the past. Creating enhanced soldiers would send the wrong message, certainly not one of peace. Instead we should work to enhance democracy so that countries don't go to war with each other, thus having no need for enhance soldiers. Enhanced soldiers, like any soldier, can't impose democracy, as we have recently learned with Iraq.

Hegel and politics

I'd like to expand on the idea that the dialectic is a metaphysical phenomenon which makes civilization possible.

As I wrote in an earlier essay, Robert Fulford of the National Post wrote an article about a metaphysical, behind the scene characteristic that is at the core of our existence. The article was "What divides us makes us Hegel". The article discussed the division that has existed between Canada's two founding but conflicting cultures, English and French. He writes that this division paradoxically has made Canada what it is today, an exceptional country. But as I see it he also could have been writing about the world in general.

Hegel, who popularized the dialectic, was a world-system thinker and a visionary. He saw a grand plan for the world, not determined by individuals but by civilization itself. He believed the whole world represented a single civilization on a common course. His thinking foresaw today’s globalism. However, he must have known that the coming together of the world wasn't going to be easy as he saw from the divisiveness that engulfed his beloved Europe of the 19th century. He believed, though, that unification would eventually come through the  political reconciliation of differences. He named the process by which it would happen the dialectic - the argument – the conflict/contradiction of opposing ideas culminating in resolution. Through the dialectical process Hegel believed humans would discover common sense and Reason, which would advance them and teach them to live in harmony. He believed that in the discourse of the dialectic the world would become a pragmatic place, where future human confrontations would be of a cognitive nature rather than physical ones. He saw the dialectic as a life force for human progress.

When Hegel formulated his theory of the dialectic shaping and making the world more intelligent he couldn't have imagined the physical conflicts the world would first have to endure, such as two world wars and countless other skirmishes, before it found a measure of common sense and Reason. Looking back one might imagine that after the destruction of WW1 the world might have learned a lesson or two and resolved to create the League of Nations, like many leaders wanted, in order to stop similar horrific acts. Obviously, though, WW1 was not horrific enough to bring sufficient reconciliation between nations as one might have imagined. The dialectic of ideas WW1 provoked was obviously not sufficient enough to bring Reason to bear so that the world might organize itself in order to prevent future wars. WW1 did not smarten up the world as Hegel might have hoped. It took a second world war to dialectically induce the world with sufficient Reason to establish a agency that could put an end to such wars, like the United Nations.

Hegel believed that we need conflict to remain alive and awake, to keep us from growing stale and atrophying. He didn't mean physical conflict but the conflict brought on by politics and the world of ideas. He believed that the conflict of ideas - the dialectic, and the struggle for resolution stimulates us cognitively , provoking further thinking and new ideas. This process not only revitalizes us but also keeps us lucid of mind and adds to our intelligence. The process is one of mentally spiraling upwards in which we develop new skills, which also brings forth solutions to complex problems we may never have imagined possible.

This is what Fulford was writing about, that the divisive and contradictory make up of Canada, with its two opposing cultures, is the engine that keeps Canada humming, in tune and alive. Canada, in true dialectic fashion, has used this division and the conflict that arises from it to its  advantage. It has learned from it, developed and improved its operational philosophies. Instead of these opposing cultures continuing to quarrel with each other they have learned to coexist and created an exceptional state of affairs. Subsequently, in its struggle to equalize things between the English and the French, Canada developed extraordinary governing skills that have become extremely useful in managing another of it unique situation, its growing multicultural society. Intellectuals recognized Canada as a Hegelian nation years ago because of its dualistic nature and that it didn't completely try to extinguish the clash between its two founding cultures but used it in a dialectical fashion to create a unique and exceptional country, something that would have made Hegel proud. And it the course of things Canada‘s experience has become an example for the rest of the world.

I want to use a phrase I just made up, ‘deliberative philosophy’. It is akin to deliberative democracy, a process that helps sustain Democracy. In a discoursive manner deliberative philosophy also is sustaining and is what the dialectic process is all about. Through the clash and the deliberation of two opposing forces, two ideas that are contradictory but are assumed equally valid, (like Canada’s two founding cultures) it reasons out and synthesizes a pragmatic philosophy and a course of action that is mutually beneficial. Confronted by two contradictory forces, its two cultures, Canada was wise not to abandon one in favor of the other but instead used both, through discoursive give and take, to devise a philosophy and political policies that has made it socially richer and more harmonious. Had Canada not taken this route and instead favored one culture over the other as its chief governance there certainly would have been a ‘clash of civilizations’ which most likely would have torn the country apart. One thing that has encouraged this process in Canada, of reaching out, is that the alternative was not an option and unthinkable.

I am fond of saying litigation creates civilization. What happens within the dialectic is a litigation of sorts. Under the proper conditions the dialectic provokes and enables litigation and mediation in resolving political and cultural differences, as those between the English and the French in Canada. As a result Canada has developed a unique civility between diverse cultures.

The economist Julian Simon once made a classic Hegelian remark, "that the world needs problems because they make us better. Problems make us better off than if they never happened." I am sure you can imagine what Simon was saying, that in having problems intelligent people work together and seek solutions, thus advancing themselves. However, I think Simon made that remark unsuspectingly because he was no Hegelian. Nevertheless, I think his remark proves that we live in a Hegelian, dialectic world whether one knows it or not. It also shows that what conflicts us can make us stronger if we work to resolve it. For example, after 9/11 a clash of civilizations didn't occur as some had predicted but instead the world that existed prior to it continued in its globalism and interdependence because people came together to resolve their differences, because there was the understood that we are all in the same boat and have common goals, of common needs and aspirations.

Hegel didn’t invent this system of the dialectic. He discovered it as he observed the world, knowing that it was the natural procedure of things. He also discovered it with the help of a previous thinker, Heraclitus, an ancient Greek philosopher who realized that the world is made of contradictions and that their existence and reconciliation makes the world possible. In his article Fulford expounded on this theme and the cultural contradictions that makes Canada possible, exceptional and vibrant.

Multiculturalism in Canada

The National Post has been doing a series of articles about some of the biggest political mistakes in Canada. Barbara Kay wrote an article about multiculturalism being Canada's biggest mistake. I composed a letter in response and this is what I wrote:

Hi Barbara,

Thanks for the provocative article. It appeared to me in a timely fashion as I was contemplating the subject.

Perhaps multiculturalism is a mistake but I don't think it's been a matter of much choice. Canada had multiculturalism thrust open it from the beginning with its to founding cultures, English and French. Canada was wise to adopt both cultures for its governance. If it hadn’t it truly may have been a 'clash of civilizations', one that would have torn the country apart. Similarly, it has been wise of Canada to allow the cultural differences of others to survive and continue because stymieing them could have led to social unrest. Instead Canada has learned to cultivate them all, maximizing their potential.

In contrast, had multiculturalism been practiced in Yugoslavia and its different cultures been treated equally it probably would not have been torn apart as it was. Tito, who ruled the country with an iron grip, forced everybody to coexist, but mainly his ethnic group ruled the country. Subsequently, after he died, the country and Tito's cohesion fell apart.

You deny that multiculturalism has made the country richer. Dynamically it has, economically and in overall human relations. It has made Canada an exceptional country and an admiration of the world. People who have experience multiculturalism in other parts of the world find it blends best in Canada because of it unique situation and of it first having two founding cultures that prepared it for more.

People think that in multiculturalism each separate culture carries on as it wants. That misconception is why people are bothered by it. But in all fairness, the people who come from other countries culturally assimilate more to Canada's way of life than Canadians do to theirs. For instance, they adopt Canada's laws, we don't adopt theirs. For the most part they adopt the countries values and practice its philosophies of democracy and capitalism. In fact, multiculturalism helps expand democracy because it encourages diversity, putting pressure on democracy to live up to it reputation of being an all-inclusive governing system. For democracy to remain legitimate and vital it require many masters, which multiculturalism tends to be. The demands of multiculturalism rejuvenate democracy.

Some people think multiculturalism doesn’t make common sense because it defies a ‘centre’. Yeats said of a civilization, if the centre doesn’t hold things fall apart. He would have viewed multiculturalism as having not center. However, he said that in a less sophisticated world, a world that was still chiefly racist and xenophobic, and less understanding of diversification. Today, with human rights at the center of world politics, racism has subsided and the world is more diversified. The championing of multiculturalism has been one way of combating racism and promoting human right, with the freedom to choose and keep one's identity. Canada, with its multiculturalism, is at the forefront of this brave new world.

Robert Fulford, another writer at the Post, wrote an article entitled "What divides us makes us Hegel". He was writing about the division that has existed between the English and the French. As he says, that division has paradoxically made Canada possible and exceptional. Canada wisely did not pick one founding member in favor of the other for its governance. Instead it has worked to reconcile the division between the two and in so doing has developed and incrementalized its governing skills and operational philosophies. Multiculturalism has further heightened this exceptional about Canada because it encourages Canada to constantly reflect and refine its skills. Multiculturalism has kept Canada politically alive and awake.

In multiculturalism Canada has been an example and a laboratory to the world. Canada is really a harbinger of the world to come, or the one that is already hear because of globalization.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Barbara Kay was kind to write back but she thought I had the wrong end of the stick. She said that she isn’t against biculturalism, the origin of this country, and that I had it confused with multiculturalism. However, I made the connection because Canada’s biculturalism in many respects laid the ground for the later acceptance of multiculturalism. In other words, biculturalism morphed in multiculturalism. She also contrasted Canada with the US. She wrote. “ As for making a country great, what greater country is there than the US, made great by the melting pot and forced integration? If you consider Canada great now, imagine it 10 times greater, which is what forced integration would have done.”

All I can say is that the US and Canada are different places. I don’t think integration, per se, was forced on Americans. It happened sort of naturally, like multiculturalism happened sort of naturally in Canada. Each country made different choices. People went to each country for different reasons. Moreover, the US is more densely populated than Canada so cultural differences there, personified, would have been more frictional and perhaps worse. One thing that has makes the US different is a common patriotism, crossing all cultures lines. Canada didn’t go that route. But I think Canada is better prepared for a globalized world because of its multiculturalism. And today we notice how different the makeup of the US is becoming with more people choosing to keep their own cultural identities.

The Dialectic

It just dawned on me that the dialectic is a metaphysical phenomenon. The dialectic is a behind the scenes phenomenon, like anything metaphysical, which makes civilization possible.

I got the idea after reading an article entitled "What divides us makes us Hegel" by Robert Fulford in the National Post. He writes that the division that has existed between Canada's two founding cultures, English and French has made Canada not only possible but exceptional, due to its dialectical nature.

Instead of adopting one culture and one language to govern the country Canada went the duality route and adopted both cultures. This certainly made it more difficult to run the country but in the process of reconciling its two conflicting members, as in the dialectic, Canada has become a richer and a more sophisticated nation. As Hegel argued, the clash of ideas, as has been occurring between the English and the French in Canada, has an incremental effect on people and in the process expands their skills and improves their operational philosophies.

The clash of ideas causes problems but it also forces a mindful and determined nation like to Canada to seek solutions. In its clash between English and French identities, Canada's dialectically has developed and implemented a unique form of governance that makes it not only exceptional in the world but has prepared it to be home for other ethnic groups and to become a truly multiculturalism nation.

"Behind the 'Modern' China"

As I was thinking about what else I could say about democracy I came across Robert Kagan's article in The Washington Post, "Behind the 'Modern' China". The article is about the lack of real democracy in China. Kagan emphasizes the word 'Modern' to emphasize the presumption of China's modernity. Just because it has embraced capitalism and free-market principles doesn't mean China is modern. Kagan says that without democracy China isn't real a modern country or living in the 21st century. In fact, he says, it is still living in the 19th century.

He has a point. A country has to be modern, more like postmodern, to deal with democracy. Nevertheless, there is a modernity to China in that it does accept capitalism and the free market. But capitalism generally comes easier to most nations because it appeals to the human predisposition for consumption and wealth. Democracy, though, requires a higher and more sophisticated level of modernity, or postmodernity, which China doesn't yet have. However, Kagan thinks that China will never become that sophisticated.

There are other things Kagan has been wrong about, likes the war in Iraq, the staying power of neoconservatism and America's hegemony. I think that eventually he will be proven wrong about the emergence of democracy in China. In his argument he forgets about all the historical baggage China has to deal with before its people can truly adjust and deal with democracy. (China’s autocracy is preparing its people for democracy.) Moreover, the Chinese people have more freedoms than they had a generation ago, in personal mobility, employment and consumption, freedoms that eventually will lead to democracy. And there is a parallel between China's fledging democracy and America's since economic freedoms also first came to America before full-blown political freedom. He also forgets that South Korea and Taiwan, countries with similar backgrounds to China, were once dictatorships. But as they industrialized and got richer they eventually evolved into democracies. Kagan should be more patient.

There is something naive about Kagan's analyses. In the past he showed his naivety in supporting the war in Iraq, the Bush administration, preemptive war and neoconservatism. Now he shows his naivety about democracy.

I don’t think he realizes that democracy can be very destabilizing for countries that have never practiced it before, hence their reluctance to embrace it. For instance, when Russia first attempted democracy in the 90's it was very destabilizing and ruinous for its people. Some people really took advantage of it for their own personal gain, at the expense of everybody else. As a result most people in Russia were in favor of some form of autocracy to stabilized thing, hence Putin and his strong-arm tactics. Similarly, the Chinese people are not ready for full-blown democracy, because they are not familiar with its ins and outs as we are in the West, where it has taken centuries to develop. Chinese leaders are aware of the instability democracy can bring if one is not versed in its nuances. That's why their cautious and leery approach to it.

Kagan points to a long held doctrine in the West that believes if autocracies are engaged economically they will eventually liberalize themselves politically. Well, he says, it hasn't happened in places like Russia or China. In fact, he adds, as these countries have gotten richer they have shunned the political liberalization that was supposed to have accompanied the liberalization of their economies. However, he doesn’t see to the underlying things that are occurring in both these countries that eventually will lead to more political freedom.

Trade with China has had its liberalizing effects in that it has encouraged a more open society there. Though Kagan knows this he hasn’t mention it. An 'open society' is a prerequisite for democracy. There was an instance recently where China was distributing tainted products throughout the world, products as diverse as toys, pet food and medical ones. People and pets have died from these tainted products. This has come back to China with demands from its trading partners that it cleanup its act and adopt stringent regulation to protect people from tainted products if it wants to continue to trade with the West. This ultimately has opened many aspects of China's economy to internal and external scrutiny. China, therefore, has had to become more transparent and accountable, in the process opening itself up and preparing itself for more liberalization and democratic procedures.

Another incident that has contributed to China becoming more open, because of it economic engaged with the rest of world, is SARS. SARS created quite a health scare around the world, as we know in Canada. Canada, like China, was negatively impacted by it, financially. Again, if China wanted to be part of the global community and prosper from world trade it had to clean up its act in regards to health because people were not willing to do business in or with a country that had contagious deceases. In the past, when China was more isolated, it could hide contagious deceases from the rest of the world and its people. However, now that it has integrated itself into the rest of the world in has to act more responsible and open about such matters. As a result every individual has had to become more responsible in order to insure a healthier China. This rise and expectation of individual responsibility is further preparation for the emergence of democracy.

With their newfound wealth and economic freedoms the Chinese are doing a lot of traveling, something they could not have done under communism. Travel has an incremental democratizing effect on people and a nation, especially when done on mass as the Chinese are doing. As Jeffery Sachs said, “ Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.” The removal of those negative attitudes bodes well for the development of democracy in that it also contributes to a more open society. And travel is also fatal to an autocracy because people who travel tend to get infected with new ideas and a sophistication that ultimately questions authority. The Olympics and trade have also incrementally opened China the other way, in that it has brought travelers into China who have also brought with them ideas and procedures that eventually challenge authority. Trade and travel are cotangents that unhinge autocracies.

One of the many institutions that have developed in Russia and China is that of private ownership. Under communism private ownership was forbidden. Private ownership is now a way of life in these countries and more and more protected by laws. Private ownership is a bedrock of capitalism and of eventual democracy. As the wise Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once said, "Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom". Both Russia and China have opened that Pandora's box, one that is unlikely to be closed by anyone.

Creative destruction.

When I think of the subprime debacle I think of "creative destruction". That sort of puts a positive spin on it.

The economist Joseph Schumpeter popularized the phrase. He attributed it to capitalism, about its capacity to cause economic ruin but then invent something new from the aftermath and rubble. In other words, capitalism is a rejuvenator and a restorer. So from the destruction left in the wake of the subprime debacle and the housing bubble it spawned we can expect an economic revival, like grew out of other past economic quakes.

The subprime debacle has certainly wrought economic upheaval and destruction. Subprime loans helped enable the housing bubble that subsequently burst, forcing many people to give up their homes, builders to go bankrupt, financial institutions to quake and communities to suffer financially. The ripple effect has staggered many sectors of the economy in America and abroad. Prior to the housing bubble there was the dot-com/technology bubble of the 90’s, which collapsed in 2000, ushering in the longest bear stock market in 60 year. It is hard to imagine how those collapses could be viewed as creative destruction. Nevertheless, past economic disasters heralded new technologies, management skills and resources to sustain economic activity in the future.

Capitalism's creative destruction is rooted in nature where nothing remains static and is constantly changing. Capitalism is a social construct designed to manage it better, the effects of the natural, cyclical deterioration and renewal of material on society. Capitalism's creative destructive style is also seen in the creative but some times destructive manner it replenishes and restores the resources we consume.

Let's examine another example of creative destruction in the mode of nature and capitalism. Some may consider it a sick example of creative destruction. Nevertheless it is. The event was 9/11. After 9/11 there was a rebirth and renewal. Some economists and intellectuals saw 9/11 as the harbinger of things to come, as the end of how things once were, the end of capitalism and globalization. However, what transpired after that horrendous event was the opposite. The world proceeded to continue on the same trajectory as before, of globalization and interdependence, only to a greater extent, as though validating what transpired before 9/11. Moreover, New York City, where 9/11 occurred, continues to grow and prosper, as did the rest of the world, and not go down hill as many had predicted. And 9/11 did not bring about the ‘clash of civilizations’ as some had anticipated but instead reinforced the globalization that was already happening throughout the world.

Creative destruction is a paradoxical phenomenon. In a brutal way it reinforces that which is essential and legitimate. I have a theory as to why it occurs, because societies and governing systems sometimes grow inadequate, become complacent and stale, and need disrupting. Societies periodically have to be awakened from their complacency and staleness, hence the need for the imposition and agitation of creative destruction. In the past nations used war as a form of creative destruction, to overcome the slumber and decay they fell into. Today, though, for obvious reasons, wars have become less of an acceptable way to achieve the creative destruction needed to keep a society from atrophying. Wars tended to throw the baby out with the bath water, so it was essential the civilization find an alternative form of creative destruction. Today that mantle has passed on to the discipline of economics because wars have become far too destructive and now not very creative. The world can no longer endure or afford the 'creativeness' of wars, hence the creative destruction of economics and capitalism. The creative destruction that wars once brought about, and now economics does, was also an historic meant to transcend many of the obstacles that humankind had erected, like those of isolation, racism, inequality and complacency.

Systems of governance have collapsed because they ignored or thwarted the cycle of economic creative destruction. Communism is the last such system to collapse because it did. Inherently, creative destruction is incompatible with communism, because it is a closed system that doesn't allow for such flexibility. It forbad any creative destruction through stringent controls and the manipulation of markets. In capitalism creative destruction emanates from individuals, individuals who ‘rock the boat’. Communism, to its determent, didn’t recognize the individual, just the collective. Creative destruction also occurs naturally. Capitalism has acknowledged and incorporated this fact when it harnesses and cultivates its forces, allowing individuals to take the lead. Communism thwarted and denying this organic order of things. Because communism didn’t acknowledge its existence it was domed and unable to renew itself, collapsing in favor of capitalism. Without creative destruction and its agitating forces communism didn’t develop the necessary technologies, resources and management skills to keep going.

To many it doesn’t seem right that we should have to endure these cycles of capitalism’s creative destruction. Why do we need so much creative destruction? The creative destruction capitalism foments does seem exaggerated at time, what with its disruptive ways of out-sourcing jobs, plant closures, market sector collapses and constant socioeconomic upheavals. One reason economic creative destruction seems so have intensified lately is because, as mentioned above, there aren’t the wars like before to change things. Also, the pace of the world has intensified, therefore increasing the need for renewal and the need for other alternatives and additional ways of doing things. The pressure has intensified to keep civilization humming, so it can and will combat its natural tendency to grow complacent and static.

The subprime debacle is not the best example of creative destruction. Perhaps it’s been too destructive and its creative abilities are still questionable. The subprime debacle really shouldn’t have happened in this age of economic savvy and sophistication. People knew better. However, one reason it happened is because the economic lessons learned in the past were taken for granted or ignored. Some people thought they had discovered a new economic nirvana, a new paradigm, or that the laws of economics had been repealed. People weren’t using common sense and forgot that what goes up must come down and that there are limits to borrowing and spending and borrowing and spending. So if there is a creative aspect to this latest economic crisis it is its bringing attention to the fact that the economic principles learned in past still stand and should be relearned. What also must be relearned is the fact that the free market is not the be-all and end-all as some believe it is. For another, the free market shouldn’t be completely left unfettered, but at times needs selective regulation so that it acts less destructive and more mutually beneficial.

Spitzer, sex and subprime.

I think that Eliot Spitzer's downfall was politically motivated. If it wasn't it sure looks suspiciously like it was.

For those who don't know, Eliot Spitzer resigned as the governor of New York because it was revealed that he had sex with a prostitute. He was found out through a supposedly suspicious money transaction. He had transferred something like $15,000 from one bank account to another in order that he could make secret payments to an escort agency. This movement of money looked suspicious to the banks, so they reported it to the US Treasury. The reason it was reported is because after 9/11 it became mandatory to report such movement of money, because such transfers might be for financing terrorism. It was also thought that Spitzer might be laundering money or that he was being blackmailed. (I think that last explanation was a cover, to legitimize the government's monitoring of him, as though it was trying to protect him.)

Spitzer met the prostitute in a Washington hotel on Feb. 13th. By coincidence an article by him appeared in the editorial pages of the Washington Post on Feb. 14th entitled "Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime" It outlined how the Bush administration had enabled the "subprime" debacle. Perhaps the excuse he used to go to Washington was to submit his article to the Post.

His article stated that Bush and his administration were partially and criminally responsible for the financial mess that the US was finding itself in due to subprime leading and the housing bubble that followed. He also charged that the Bush administration looked the other way when it was known that lenders and bankers were making predatory mortgage loans to unsuspecting borrower. The loans that were been made were called teaser loans where a loan would be made at a ridiculous low interest rate and then jacked-up to unaffordable level at renewal time. Spitzer, as New York's attorney general, along with other state attorney generals, tried to implement laws that would protect consumers from this blatant, fraudulent practice. However, the Bush administration used its federal powers to block the enactment of suchlaws that would stop this predatory lending.

The reason why Bush&Co blocked the passage of legislation to stop such questionable loans was because it might stop the realization of one of its pet projects. That project was the expansion of America’s "ownership society". Cheap loans would enable the poorest of people to afford a home and buy into the American dream. If Spitzer and his colleges had their way, of stopping such loans, he could ruin the chances of Bush realizing his dream. Spitzer actions could also endanger the unfettered ways of the market place that Bush&Co. worshipped so much.

My feeling is that someone in the administration wanted to pin something on Spitzer because of his efforts to derail the administration dream of expanding America’s ownership society through cheap loans. Stopping such a practice would also affect the banking industry that was aligned with Bush. The banking industry profited handsomely from these types of loans. No, I think that someone deliberately wanted to pin something on Spitzer because of the trouble he had been causing Bush&Co and its associates on Wall Street who had profited so much from these loans. Spitzer was viewed as a pest and had to be stamped out.

When one thinks about it the money transferred by Spitzer from one bank to another wasn't that large and may have otherwise gone unnoticed. As Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor and one time teacher of Spitzer, pointed out to The Times of London, "The movement of the amounts of cash required to pay prostitutes, even high-priced prostitutes over a long period of time, does not commonly generate a full-scale investigation.” The Times added, "Others on Wall Street were wondering whether Spitzer’s financial dealings had been singled out for scrutiny as revenge for his past prosecutions." Spitzer over the years had prosecuted and won against a number of Wall Street financiers.

There are several theories as to why Spitzer got himself into the sexual mess he did. One is that he got so involved in the prostitute business when he prosecuted it as New York's attorney general that he got ensnared in it. He got caught in its vortex. Another explanation is that his arrogance got the better of him, believing that he, as a 'captain of the universe’, was above the law and couldn’t be caught. Spitzer was also a powerful politician. It has been theorized that some powerful men feel so guilty about wielding so much power that they feel the need to be subservient and dominated. With a prostitute they could fulfill that need.

Another theory is about Spitzer being an 'alpha male'. I tend to agree more with this one. The theory goes that alpha males are so work and career oriented that that they are incapable of intimacy. This lack of intimacy hinders and damages their sexual relation with their partner because they avoid and shun closeness. Nevertheless, sex in such a person is still desirable, but with a prostitute it can be had without being intimate.

At first blush the crime committed by Spitzer, if it was a crime, is quite off-putting and serious. But in comparison, his crime is no match to the crimes Bush has perpetrated against the American people, from lying to them about Iraq, to administrative corruption, to his allowing and enabling the fleecing of America.

The subprime market debacle

"Subprime” refers to an unusual and complex economic situation that has been unfolding in the United States. The term conveys a negative situation, which is the intent.

I’m fascinated with the subprime market debacle and its repercussions. I’m waiting for someone to write a definitive book on the subject. I’m surprised nobody has yet. But that might be due to the fact that it is such a convoluted subject and still unfolding. It’s like a pyramid scheme. The phenomenon is like an octopus, with tentacles reaching out into numerous finance markets and who knows where else. I don’t know all the ins and outs of it but here’s what I understand about it.

What people associate most with subprime is the housing market and the real estate bubble it created. But it is also about its contagions in other areas of finance and commerce. If there were a beginning to the whole thing it might be the recession of 2000-1 and the weak stock market that followed. However, there are also other factors that occurred before which helped enable it. Also, a big part of its happening has to with American culture and its attitude towards capitalism.

There are many reasons why something occurs. It's never just one thing why something happens or becomes possible. It’s a combination of things. I keep saying that about democracy. The subprime debacle is no exception. Nevertheless, everybody likes a starting point. So if there were really a starting point it would have to be human greed, and the personal need for more. It also has to do with the American way of life and its pursuit of happiness. And then there is the bandwagon effect, with people saying “me too, me too".

The greed factor is not just an American trait. However, in many democratic societies we tend to have laws that protect us from ourselves, from the worst aspects of human behavior. Americans tend not to like such restrictions because they are more libertarian and distrustful of government interference, on telling them how to live.

Back in the 1990's banks demanded looser restrictions on their activities. Many of those restrictions were established during the Great Depression in which many bank failures occurred. The pro-business Republican Congress in the 90's obliged the banks and dropped many restrictions. This allowed the banks to be more aggressive and creative, allowing them to design many exotic and complex investment vehicles know as derivatives. In time some of those derivatives would incorporate and hide the subprime loans that would later act like time bombs, affecting other areas of the economy.

What also made subprime loans possible were low interest rates. The Federal Reserve of the US had cut interest rates almost to the bone to get America spending and out of the recession, to keep the economy growing. Money was very cheap to borrow and available to almost anybody who wanted it; to almost anybody who could breath, as the saying goes. It was lent even to those who seemed to have no chance of repaying it. But that didn't stop lenders because in a sense the rules had changed, like the laws of economics and what-goes-up-must-come-down had been repudiated. Logic and reason about lending and borrowing money seemed to have gone out the window. And the government and its financial regulators watched all this as though nothing was wrong, as though a new dawn had graced America.

Another thing that enabled the subprime debacle was the huge drop in the stock market in 2000-1. Investors were unwilling to invest in it because the returns were unfavorable. Instead they turned to real estate and housing which was relatively cheap and cheap money made it even cheaper. People thus started to invest and trade in housing like it was a commodity, "flipping" properties and houses left and right. From my perspective it seemed crazy because the prices where spiraling ever upward and becoming ridiculous, Nevertheless, the practice continue for many years, as long as money remained cheap.

All this frenzy inevitably begot more frenzy with every "Tom, Dick and Harry” getting into the act. It also spawned unscrupulous mortgage lenders, mostly due to the lack of government oversight and the relaxation of mortgage and banking regulations. But all this was also made possible by the philosophy of the Bush administration, which encouraged such practices. It had total confidence in the freedom of market, as though it was some elixir. Its philosophy was to encourage an "ownership society" which dovetailed nicely into the subprime activity. People who normally were unable to buy or own a house, because of a poor credit rate or lack of sufficient capital were now owners. Bush&Co, which seems to have a C- in economics, were ecstatic with the results because the subprime market was expanding the ownership society.

The market and the people involved thought that this 'game' could continue forever. And the surprising thing is that people that we would think of as intelligent and in the know, like two Federal Reserve chairmen, thought everything was just fine, that people could continue to push up prices and spend money like there was not tomorrow. To them it was just a bit of "irrational exuberance". Eventually, though, the cost of borrowing money increased, ending the party and forcing many people to give up their houses because they could not afford their escalating mortgages.

All this frenzy eventually led to overbuilding, which then put downward pressure on the value of properties. In many cases the value of the property became lower than the mortgage. As a result lenders would instigate foreclosure proceedings and called in their loans for fear of losing their money, further exacerbating the situation.

Like all bubbles the housing bubble burst, last year, sending shock waves through the financial markets, which had packaged and buried many of the bad housing loans in the derivatives they had devised and sold to unsuspecting investors. Some of the big institutional investors did know what was taking place but thought that since this was a brave new world, as they imagined, the market was immune to the shocks this activity might cause.

One thing that has suffered through all this is, trust. Banking and financial markets operate on trust. Members trust each other to tell the others about the possible risks involved. They generally support each other in times of financial upheavals. But this time it's different. It's as though a line was crossed and a bond was broken. In the old days derivatives involving things like subprime loans were consider "junk". This time they were peddled as if they were prime and classified as AAA. Those who held large positions on those derivatives had the rug pulled out from under them. That trust will take time to rebuild. One other major fallout from all this is that many credit markets and sources of venture capital have dried up, vehicles that are essential for keeping the economy going.

There's lots more to be said about the subprime market.

Global warming

Philosopher Nicholas Maxwell asks the question "Are Philosophers Responsible for Global Warming? It’s an odd question and he admits it.

At first I thought the question was absurd but then I saw the merit in it.

What Maxwell is trying to say is that if philosophers had spoken up earlier about the perils of carbon dioxide, that it is a greenhouse gas, the world would not be going through the climate change that is occurring now. He pointed out that as early as 1859 a John Tyndall discovered that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas and that a Svante Arrhenus in 1896 speculated that it would cause global warming. According to Maxwell we should have acted on this information sooner.

Now, philosophers have done some great things throughout history. What philosophers do best is discuss ideas and speculate about how humankind can improve itself. They throw out ideas about how we ought to behave and how we might best govern ourselves. They ponder why things are and attempt to explain what they discover to the rest of us. The first such pondering by philosophers led to the natural and social sciences. There would be no science if philosophers hadn't first asked questions about the nature of things and the world around us. Before philosophy, and the sciences that arouse from it, the world was governed by mythology and superstition. Today, one of philosophy's jobs is to challenge its creation and ask ethical questions of science, so as to make sure that it works in the world's best interest.

One thing Maxwell is saying it that philosophers in the past have not challenging science enough on subject of greenhouse gas and the technologies that spews them out. However, philosophy may have been blind-sided by science and that’s why it didn't speak up early. Science has had this alluring, magic appeal and for years has told us that it could fix and cure what ails humankind. For example, one major aspect of human governance, communism, was founded strictly on science, believing that the world could be organized just on scientific principles, without having to be questioned by philosophers. It took years to discover that fallacy. Within democracy we hardly did much better but at least we let the philosophers who criticized live.

Maxwell thinks that if the idea of global warming had been introduced into the curriculum and in the press years ago we would have done something about it sooner. But I don't think it is philosophers fault that they hadn't managed to reach a consensus on global warming earlier. I think that back then, as far back as Maxwell goes in his admonishment, people were not ready to hear or deal with this stuff. People were to busy dealing with other things in history and first getting them out of the way. Now that the world is more settled and basically thinking as one, we can truly start thinking about and dealing with global warming.

I think many other things had to transpire before we could begin to think about global warming, like, for instance, seeing the world from outer space. For another, we first had to develop a political will to do something about it. And seeing the world from outer space as we did for the first time, in its solitude, gave many of us a sense of how fragile the world can be. From that episode Earth Day was born and thus our more unanimous concern for the planet we live on. And until recently we never had a person like Al Gore, who has been the pied piper of global warming's consequences.

There is one thing that Maxwell neglected to address in his argument, the hurdles philosophers may have faced in trying to impress upon the rest of us about the need to do something about global warming. He wishes that philosophers had been able to warn the rest of us about climate change earlier. However, he didn't consider the fact that there have been skeptics and obstructionists in great numbers that have made it difficult to convince a large enough number of us that global warming is a threat, and due to human activity, so that we could start doing something about it. Skeptics and obstructionists probably have been drowning out the voices of reason on this issue for decades.

Today, though, those obstacle are not as prevalent as they used to be because reason has succeeded in convincing most of us that human activity does cause climate change. The skepticism is being swept away by hard evidence. And now what Al Gore has been saying makes perfect sense to the majority of us, the people who count, who care and are rational; the people who want to make a difference and improve the world.

And that is one thing philosophers also do, they bear reason on the world. On this score Maxwell only wishes it could have happen sooner.

Common Sense

The idea for this post came from a review I read about a book that talks about common sense. This book was written by a French sociologist, Raymond Boudon, and is entitle "Renouveler la democratie", which I think means 'renewing democracy'. As I understand it, the theme of this book is that common sense is needed for reviving the democratic process. The author thinks democracy has been flagging recently due to the lack of common sense.

The reviewer of the book, Stein Ringen, is also a sociologist. He tells us about a powerful idea in today’s world, "relativism", or postmodernism. He says that at its extreme relativism means "there are no truths or objective facts, and all opinions are equally valid”. (I think that is an exaggeration.) However, he says, there is a counter-idea to relativism, common sense. Like Boudon he believes common sense is a rational thing whereas relativism is not. Both Boudon and Ringen believe that relativism poses a threat to democracy because it doesn't foster the common interests that democracy depends on. They also believe that relativism doesn't foster the social cohesive on which democracy is very dependent on to survive. Well, I think both men are really talking about multiculturalism, which is a relativism. They think that multiculturalism doesn't make common sense and like relativism it is divisive and destabilizing to democracy.

I never though of common sense as a counter-idea to relativism or postmodernism, so I was drawn to the idea. However, I do think there is a common sense in relativism. Relativism, as multiculturalism, allows for many cultures to coexist and thrive together. In many mature democratic countries that recognition is prudent to keep harmony. But this does not mean a different set of laws and rules for different cultures as some argue. It does, though, make sense because relativism/multiculturalism in many ways adds to the polyphony democracy thrives on, to keep it vital, legitimate and relevant. In Canada multiculturalism makes sense. Canadians have learned to view multiculturalism as making perfect sense, embracing and cultivating it. If Canadians didn't, there certainly would be some serious social unrest, considering Canada's bicultural British and French background and the multiculturalism it has spawned.

I think it’s worth repeating that I think Boudon’s common sense views sounds anti-multiculturalism, since multiculturalism is a relativism. Some people think that multiculturalism, like relativism, is a threat to social cohesion. However, the reverse behavior can also threaten social cohesion, by denying diversity and multiculturalism, forcing people to assimilate culturally. Such a denial can produce clashes that can destroy any possibility at social cohesion. However, multiculturalism does not mean the flaunting of the basic, common laws of the land as some have argued. And there can be comfort in that fact because the common laws of a country like Canada are what unity people and in a way nullify the aspects of relativism that many find harmful to democracy.

The review by Ringen appeared in TLS. It is written under the caption "Trust the people" as though to say that the people are the source of common sense. And this is what Boudon is saying in his book, that the source of democracy comes from the common sense of the people. That common sense is a wellspring for democracy. He also equates common sense with ordinary thinking. Ordinary thinking comes from ordinary people. And ordinary people are what makes democracy possible, government of the people, for the people and by the people.

However, the common sense or ordinary thinking that is behind democracy has not always been there. It has taken time for much of the common sense that is behind democracy to surface. For instance, it wasn't always common sense that blacks and women should have the vote or that people should be treated equally under the law. No, there are very few things on their own that make common sense. Common sense is something that has usually evolved into common sense. Oh, there are some common sense ideas that come naturally, like don’t lend money to people who can’t pay it back. But even that common sense comes from experience.

Culture can determine common sense. The recent brouhaha in Britain about the using of sharia law attests to that. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, suggested that the incorporation of parts of sharia law into British civil law would make perfect sense. In his view aspects of sharia law could be utilized to help cultivate social unity, to help integrate the Islamic population in Britain into the rest of society. Sharia law, he argued, would help the Muslim population traverse and navigate many of the difficulties it has had in simulating into British society.

Well, the majority in Britain thinks that Dr. Williams’ proposal makes no sense at all. Sharia, many argue, would have a negative impact on social cohesion because there would be two sets of laws that would further divide society. As the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out, sharia law goes against the grain of the land and its democratic institutions. Lord Carey said, “There can be no exception to the laws of our land, which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights”. In that light sheria law doesn’t make common sense for a secular culture like that of Britain's.

Sharia law makes perfect sense to some. But it doesn’t make secular sense, the sense Democracy depends on.

Progress and innovation

I was wondering what to write about next and then came upon this question: "Is progress and invention natural or cultural phenomena?"

Well, in many ways it is a cultural phenomenon. Most of the progress and innovation in the last 500 years has occurred in Western culture. Jarad Diamond speculated in his book "Guns, Germs and Steel" why this is so, because of the openness and flexibility of the West, especially during pre-Columbus Europe. Europe, the cradle of Western civilization, has been the fermentation of this cultural phenomenon. The culture of democracy and capitalism, which the West instigated, has also been a hot bed for progress and innovation, which is today's chief hot bed for progress and innovation.

In comparison, other cultures have been 'closed' and not receptive to the new ideas that have sparked progress and innovation. Take a look at the Islamic world in recent years where not even a handful of new books have been published. Furthermore, what sustains the Arab and Islamic world economically is the progress and innovation that was mostly formulated in the West. Now, Communism as a culture was innovative but it didn't progress because it lacked the open society that is essential to achieve progress and sustain technological innovations.

What make progress and innovation 'natural' is that sooner or later it is going to happen. And generally it has been the West that has been receptive to this natural process. The West has embraced this natural process more readily and enthusiastically than any other culture. This is why the rest of the world is more and more resembling Western culture, because it has the progress and innovations to best sustain and maintain all civilization.

The inevitability of the Cold War

The other day I read a book review about the Cold War. The book was entitled “For The Soul Of Mankind” by Melvyn P. Leffler. I’ll comment on what I learned from the review.

Leffler’s premise is that the Cold War, which existed between the Soviet Union and the United States for over forty years, didn't necessarily have to happen or last as long as it did. It ended in 1989 with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. He argues that it was not inevitable, “that it could have been avoided at the outset and stopped on at least three occasions before Mikhail Gorbachev.” Nevertheless, I think history made it inevitable and necessary.

As the book reviewer noted, two themes underline the Cold War, the fear of a reunified Germany, especially among the Soviet leaders, and the mission that the leaders of both the Soviets and Americans felt they had, “to save mankind through the triumph of [their] ideology, whether that was liberal democracy or Communism”.

The book has an appropriate title for an event that propelled the world to a more peaceful and secure placed. Prior to the Cold War and for much of its duration the world was a tense and divided place. But the book's title, “For the souls of Mankind”, suggests this was a period of progress and healing, with the conversion of souls working to defuse a potential dangerous global situation. During the Cold War souls and attitudes were changed, making the world a more harmonious and peaceful place. However, the way Leffler writes it, about it not necessarily being an inevitability or that it might have ended sooner, shows a lack of appreciate for this event and its duration. For instance, if it hadn't lasted as long as it did it couldn't have converted and won over as many souls as it did to make the world a more peaceful place. Winning souls is a time-consuming endeavor and the Cold War, by not being hot, afforded the time for leveler heads and reason to eventually prevail.

Leffler mentions the fear of a reunified Germany as one big reason for the Cold War. Well, Germany eventually did reunify but only after the collapse of communism and when it was clear that Germany no longer posed a threat to the rest of the world as it once did. Accepting the reunification of Germany was certainly a soul-converting event that couldn't have happened if the Cold War had not afforded the years needed to digest and convince people that a unified Germany was no longer a threat.

I think there was another reason why the Cold War was inevitable and lasted as long as it did. It had an important mission to accomplish, if you will, that of defining the political and economic system that would run the world in the future. The Cold war, in other words, was necessary in order to fashion out what governing system would eventually govern all of humankind, whether it be liberal democracy or communism. A unified, standard system of human governance and organization was essential because, as history observed, humankind was becoming more homogenous and interdependent. Under such circumstance two compete forms of governance would have been inefficient and self-defeating. Also, this period was a time for the world to work out still outstanding issues that plagued the world, such as the illusiveness of world peace. WWII had not completely eliminated the desire for wars between nations. The Cold War was a necessary event and a stopgap period in which the world could learn to divest itself of its still war like instincts. The standoff, tense but ostensibly peaceful, that existed between the two nuclear power, the Soviets and Americans, gave the world the opportunity and breathing space to develop and entrench mutually peaceful agencies like the United Nations.

The Cold War kept a world war from becoming hot. After the Second World War there were those in America, staunch anti communists, who thought that America should militarily engage the Soviet Union because they saw its newfound power a threat to democracy and America’s influence in the world. Fortunately, there were those in the administration who were more pragmatic and realized that this stance would inevitably lead to another great world war, this time with the prospects of having no world left. The pragmatists won and instead developed a policy of containment that would contain the Soviet Union’s expansionist ambitions around the world. This policy did contribute to the length of the Cold War because the Soviet Union was just as determined to carry on and wasn’t going to be put off in their expansion efforts by U.S. policy. Another thing that made the Cold War a cold war is that both sides were basically matched in their nuclear capability and their going to war would have been a no win situation for everybody.

During the Cold War liberal democracy developed into the preeminent governing system it is today. The competition it got from communism during those years only strengthened it while showing communism to be the fraudulent and incapable system it was. During those years America tried harder to resolve its racist problems because of the antagonism it got from the Soviets in showing the U.S. as a racist nation, as inferior and undemocratic in its human relations. Liberal democracy in turn, through the economic development that was occurring in Western Europe, was really contrasting itself against the much lower living standards of Eastern Europe that communism offered. During this time it became quite clear that the Soviet Empire had to use force to keep its citizens in line whereas the liberal democracy gained in stature and support by being an open society, which required no force to keep it so. During the Cold War the West made it abundantly clear to skeptics around the world that liberal democracy was the superior system. It had sustainability, whereas the communist economic system, it became obvious, was inherently fraught with waste, inefficiencies, ineptitude, corrupt and unsustainiblity.

Alexandre Kojeve, a Hegelian philosopher, speculated that communism and liberal democracy rivaled each other to determine the nature of the system of governance that would eventually govern all humankind. He may have imagined a homogeneous human race somewhat the globalism we see today, in need of a standard, unifying governance. Moreover, in a complex, tightly woven world like was emerging two competing and feuding forms of governance would have complicated things and hindered progress. The Cold War afforded liberal democracy the stage for convincing the world it was the right system, which could also do things communism promised to deliver but couldn’t. Communism couldn’t address people’s needs and aspiration. Liberal democracy not only proved that it could, and provide economic sustainability for the modern world, but it also could deliver on the freedom and recognition that all people of world desired and wanted.

Political freedom

Political freedom has certainly developed from economic liberalization. This is how it came about in America, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Political freedom is also slowly emerging in China due to growing economic freedom. In Russia and China, after the fall of communism, people are allowed to travel and move around freely. This mobility adds to people's political freedom because they become more conscious of things, gaining an awareness that later translates into thinking and the deliberative process that democracy so much depends on.

Ironically, blacks in America got their freedom mostly from economic development. Blacks on plantations were slowly replaced with farm machinery because it cost less to maintain than slave labor. Blacks then moved to the factories in the north that were booming and needed labor. This contributed to their emancipation because they were now making real money and buying property. With property in hand blacks gained recognition and respect in the community, thus in time acquiring a political voice, because, for one thing, they paid taxes.

In China economic development has improved communications and thus individual involvement in political affairs. The growth of cell phone use has challenged the party line and held governments there accountable. One instance occurred with the outbreak of SARS. The government's line to world health organizations was that SARS was not a problem in China. But individuals saw things differently, that SARS was a growing health problem, and were able to communicate this message to the outside world, thus forcing the Chinese authorities to seriously address the problem. This event and the response to it be the government has chipped away a little more at China's political authoritarianism.

This is why I say humankind develops and progress through perverse means. Logic and reason dictates that freedom and respect should come to people without question. It should be sacrosanct. But as we know things are backwards, people have to fight for it and use material means, like property and wealth to achieve it. This emancipation of people was once labeled "dialectical materialism".

Don't believe it when people say economics is irrelevant. Not only does this discipline put food in our mouths, roofs over our heads and cloths on our backs, but it also has the power to politically emancipate.

The economic axiom

Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post questioned, in an article, the old axiom that economic liberalization leads to democracy. I think it eventually does.

The idea that economic freedom leads to democracy first found life in the U.S., before it was the U.S. The axiom started in New Amsterdam, which is now New York. It was the governor of the then Dutch colony, Peter Stuyvesant, who, in the early 17th century, made economic activity the institution of freedom it is today. He made economic activity the religion of America, as a way to neutralize the religious divisions that existed in those days. Up to that point religious differences were constraining people’s freedoms, mainly because of the imposition of the founding religion, the Quakers, on the other religions. The removal of such a barrier unleashed economic activity and gave people a freedom they never had before. This newfound freedom gave people a voice, which later translated into political freedom. This too was the birth of religious freedom and the secular state America is today. And as most of us know, without secularism real democracy is not possible.

It is not so much that Stuyvesant was aware that religion and religious feuding was constraining economic development in the New World. Perhaps at the time it wasn’t. Nevertheless, in his wisdom, and that of his employer, the Dutch East Indies Company, he used economics activity to muzzle religious fervor. Religious tolerance is something he had learned in the old country, the Netherlands, which at the time was the most advanced and tolerant nation in Europe. He picked economics to be the religion of the New World, as the common denominator all could subscribe to. There was no alternative.

Krauthammer questions this axiom because economic liberalization has not helped in democratizing China and Russian, two countries which otherwise have pretty healthy economic activity. People in those two countries are essentially free to own property, consume what they want and be mobile. However, the problem is that other institutions, which help turn economic freedom into political freedom, have either not developed or have not kept pace. For instance, the freedom of the press that holds governments accountable and at arms length has not developed sufficiently enough. Neither have the laws that protect individual rights; people there have little or no recourse if treated unfairly economically or politically. Also, there still isn't the feeling of freedom among the people of those nations. They have to learn how to feel free because it is something they are not used to, because they have been denied it for a long time.

Krauthammer mentioned that America and its allies were successful in instilling democracy in Germany, Japan and South Korea. He is making a comparison here, to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where U.S. influence has had little impact in encouraging the development of democracy. But he doesn't stop to think that democracy took hold in those countries precisely because they were first industrial nations. Workers in those nations had a stake in the industrialization of those nations and participated directly in it. They developed unions and similar institution that counterbalance and challenged governments. In time the citizens of those countries leveraged that participation into more individual rights. Industrialization in those countries gave people a voice and the leverage because without them industrialization could not have continued. Industrialization also created wealth for these workers which in tern they invested in property, further enhancing their stake in their countries and their prospects for more democracy.

It is interesting, though, how capitalism and the freedom of individual economic activity have taken hold in Russia and China in comparison to the Muslim world. The economic dynamics are totally different. I think the difference has to do with what happen under communism in those two countries. Communism discouraged and band religion. When communism collapsed religion did not exist as a hindrance to individual economic activity as it has done in the Muslim world. In Russian and China men and women equally participate in economics. In creating secular states communism readied countries for individual economic participation, which one day will lead to political emancipate.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. made this cleaver observation: "Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom."

I think that observation, with what occurred in Germany, Japan and South Korea provides ample evidence to the axiom that economic liberalization eventually leads to democracy. Democratization is slowly occurring in Russia and China because people there are becoming wealthier and individual property owners.

Liberal Democracy

I am always interested in articles that evoke Francis Fukuyama. I still believe in his theory that liberal democracy is the final form of human governance and it's here to stay. If this is true, some ask, why haven’t China and Russia adopted it?

The reason liberal democracy hasn't become everybody's cup of tea yet is another matter, a matter of it being too high octane or sophisticated for some people and nations to handle. Russian and China have not yet become sufficiently sophisticated enough to fully deal with and appreciate liberal democracy or its consequences, because it is an extremely sophisticated, esoteric enterprise. Why, it took the West centuries to achieve it and here we expect novices like Russia and China to pick it up just like that. However, both Russian and China are dabbling in it, inching towards participating more in it. I thing those countries have little choice but to embrace it sooner or later.

The one thing that Fukuyama said that convinces me that liberal democracy is it is that if the modern world and its scientific advances are to continue liberal democracy is the only way to go. He believes, like I do, that, in the long run, it is the only system the can sustain the modern world and its technological demands. He also sees it as the only system that can truly fulfill people's needs and aspiration. Liberal democracy is the only alternative for giving people and developed nations the open and flexible society they need in order to deliver on the demands of the modern world. Liberal democracy and its open society is the only alternative that can generate the financial and human capital, initiatives and innovations, needed to sustain the modern world. Governing systems to remain legitimate and relevant must have the ability to renew themselves and liberal democracy is the only one that has proven it can, because it remains flexible and open.

In both Russia and China we see more and more of the fundamentals of an open society emerging, the right to consume and the freedom of mobility. These fundamentals are essential if these countries are going to continue to relate to and do business with the West. They have to accept and comply with rules and regulations that were developed in the liberal democratic world, where their biggest customers reside. China, for instance, has recently adopted product safety standards and copy right laws that liberal democracies live by. China has also recently changed its constitution and laws to allow for the ownership of private property, the beginnings and bedrock of liberal democracies.

At the beginning, after the Cold War ended, Russia was pushed and rushed, too quickly, into adopting liberal democracy. It wasn't ready. (In comparison China has taken a slower approach.) It was like the Wild West in Russia because it wasn't prepared or sophisticated enough to handle it. And economists who pushed liberal democracy on Russia weren't understanding or prepared for its 'backwardness' or lack of skills. Russia's initial attempt at liberal democracy was a disaster and its people were disillusioned by it. So it's quite understandable that there was a backlash to it and a return to some of the old ways. Nevertheless, Russia got a taste for it and hung on to some of its ways, like consumerism and freedom of mobility. Moreover, I believe that if Russia and China want to continue developing and profit from the West they will have to become more and more like the West and adopt more of its governing practices.

In addition, if these countries ever want to deal with their growing pollution problems they will have to rely and engage their populations. This can only be done in an open society, where people can discuss and debate openly. And for that to happen a more liberal social policy will have to be adopted.

"Philosophy saves the world?"

That question was posed in light of UNECO's World Philosophy Day Event that just occurred last month. UNESCO is the intellectual organization of the United Nations.

UNESCO made the following statement about the reason for this event, which first occurred in November 2002 (I think this event was prompted by the repercussions of 9/11, to help ameliorate things around the world): "The objective of this Day is to encourage the peoples of the world to share between them their philosophical heritage and to open their daily reflections to new ideas, as well as to inspire a public debate between intellectuals and civil society on the challenges to which our societies are confronted today". Philosophical discussions have include “the role women philosophers could play in shaping the future of humanity” and “what can philosophy contribute to a more human governance of the world?” This year the event occurred in Istanbul.

Since Plato one of philosophy's biggest questions has been about best way humans should govern themselves, individually and collectively. This question reached a high point during the Enlightenment, a period of great philosophical contemplation and discussion, when Democracy, the most influential form of governance in the world, began to emerge. One of Democracy's greatest exponents and supporters was Kant, even though it was still a fledging idea in the realm of human governance. Kant’s idea of Democracy was more expansive and a more sophisticated concept of governance than existed during the Greeks, its supposed inventors. Kant correctly speculated that democratic nations would not go to war with each other. In creating Democracy, the most tolerant and accommodating form of governance the world has ever seen - of the people, for the people and by the people, philosophy has certainly helped to save the world.

Philosophy has also saved the world by perpetuating expanding its role of discussion and debate. One of the biggest philosophical forums, which was set up to save the world after two devastating world wars, is the United Nations. Its philosophy is to prevent war between nations and to keep the peace through its many agencies. Philosophy, the exchange of ideas, opinions and differences, is the activity that happens between its members to preserve peace and expand it. The philosophizing that occurs within this forum has transcended and tempered the hostilities of the world. Essential to saving the world is cooperation among nation and the U.N. has greatly enhanced this cooperation and the necessary dialogue between nations.

The U.N. has worked to promote democracy and human rights throughout the world. One could say that the U.N. is an extension of Kant's speculative philosophy that democratic nations don't go to war with each other. The philosophy of the U.N. is to help nurture and facilitate peace. The U.N.'s philosophy is also a secular philosophy, of tolerance and accommodation, one espoused by Spinoza, another philosopher during the same Enlightenment that gave birth to Democracy.

Again, one of philosophies most profound question has been ' how ought we to govern ourselves'. This is a persistent question that is opined and philosophized over and over, a question that the philosophy of democracy is constantly asking. Philosophy has developed the laws and constructs that govern and organize us.

The world is always changing and so are its circumstances. The world is always a work in progress. New circumstances, which are always arising, like 9/11 and other moral issues, require new operational techniques and philosophies. New management skills and ways of thinking are constantly needed to facilitate and mediate changing circumstances and acclimatize people to them so they can cope. Philosophizing amongst each other, trading ideas, like asking ‘what if’ or ‘why don’t we try it this way’, has given us those new skills.

Philosophy saves the world by making people more understanding and accommodating. It’s also therapeutic and gives counsel. It takes people outside of themselves so they can have a better view of reality and the rest of world around them.

Philosophy has also given us the ability to nuance, an ability that has given us diplomacy. Without nuance you don’t have diplomacy or compromise. Diplomacy has saved the world many times from possible conflicts. In contrast, one person who said with pride that he doesn’t nuance is George Bush. Thus he has never philosophizes in a meaningful and progressive way. In many respects he has made the world a more dangers places because he has not engaged in diplomacy so as to defuse dangerous situations, so as to help saved the world.

Democracy, a catch-22

In a recent article in the Washington Post Robert Kagan exposed a catch-22, a paradox, involving Democracy, especially when it comes to nations that have never practiced it before.

First I would like to say that I found it somewhat ironic that Kagan was writing about this, a neoconservative who thought that democracy should and could be imposed on undemocratic nations by external fiat, mainly that of the United States. As a neoconservative he believed that the U.S. should use its extensive powers to influence those parts of the world that remained undemocratic. He, like the present administration, believed that the U.S. should use strong-arm tactics on those nations that are reluctant to change. This doctrine found its first test with the American occupation of Iraq. However, the disastrous consequence of the Iraqi war has since tempered his enthusiasm for this idealistic doctrine.

I‘ve always been amazed how supposedly knowledgeable people have so little understanding of Democracy, in what is essential for its function and sustainability. These people should have known that you can’t exported Democracy and impose it on people who have never practiced it before. They should known that Democracy is a customized, cultural activity that has taken a long time and many generations to develop in those societies that practice it. In democratic societies Democracy is in the blood, a way of life and part of our DNA. So I think it should have been obvious to people like Kagan and other neoconservatives who were all gungho for establishing Democracy in Iraq that insinuating it on an people from above would be a tremendous undertaking if not impossible. Nevertheless, knowledgeable people, including one professor of Democracy that went to Iraq, believed the U.S. could smoothly establish Democracy there and the people would accept it willingly.

Iraq has been a learning experience for Kagan and his fellow necons about Democracy. Sadly it took a war in Iraq for people like him to understand what Democracy really entails. Consequently, intellectuals, scholars and politicians are now beginning to realize that Democracy is contingent on many things for it to function well and be successful. Iraq has been a test case and field experiment for Democracy, where things have been exposed about it that wouldn't necessarily show up in the classroom. The American professor who was so anxious to spearhead its introduction in Iraq soon grew weary about its prospects there. A year into the war he realized that due to the shortcomings and incompetence of the war’s organizers Iraq instead was becoming extremely insecure. That is when the professor realized that security and order are extremely fundamental to Democracy. Nothing much else is possible without it. Under these circumstances, he realized, Democracy is impossible. I wonder why this wasn't understood or learned before hand, in class, before getting into this misadventure in Iraq. That’s probably because it wasn't clearly understood that Democracy is a very esoteric enterprise and a lot of patience is needed with people who have never done it before.

One thing The U.S. could have done to achieve security in Iraq for the purpose of establishing Democracy was to secure all those institutions that made Iraqis feel secure prior to the war, such as government institutions, medical and educational institutions and cultural museums. The security of those vital institutions would have gone a long way to maintain order and civility. Instead the U.S. allowed those institutions to be ransacked and looted due to incompetence and the lack of resources to secure them. (I think the U.S. was ill prepared in establishing Democracy because that was not the original intention. The original intention for war was to find weapons of mass destruction but when they didn't materialized they changed the mission to establishing Democracy, in order to save face.)

One thing Kagan alluded to in his article is that Democracy is contingent on a number of things. One important aspect is the rule of law. Basically the rule of law is a set of principles that are intended to be a "safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule”. Thus, the rule of law must also include secular and pluralist functions, two contingencies that. by the way, are greatly lacking in Iraq. Elections and the right to vote are also essential components. which did take place in Iraq. But the lack of the rule of law in Iraq makes election and voting results essentially non-starts because the rule of law - the courts, the division of powers, is not there as a mechanism to uphold the results of the election and the will of the people who voted in them.

Democracy is contingent on many things. And that is what gives it this aura of a catch-22, because if certain things in combination, like the rule of law and elections, don't happen simultaneously there is little or no chance for Democracy taking hold. But how does the combination of contingencies Democracy require, such as a stable environment, secularism, free speech, freedom of choice, elections, human rights, happen in a society that has never acknowledged them before?

Globalism

Globalism is about the world coming together multiculturally. It is also about the world's civilization becoming interconnected, woven together and relying on each other for survival and continuance. Globalism over the years has removed barriers between civilizations and generated more tolerance among them.

One good thing Globalism brought about last week was the meeting between King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, the first such meeting between the main leader of Islam and the main leader of Christianity. International world events brought them together. Such a meeting would have been unthinkable, a non-started or unnecessary post 9/11.

Globalism has shrunken the world. In the past, when the world was a bigger place, world leaders could ignore each other and go about their business without having to address each other or explain themselves to the rest of world. But things have change since Globalism has made the world a more interdependent place. Leaders now feel pressured that they have to explain and defend their policies to the rest of the world. They feel this pressure because their action can be so destabilizing for the rest of world. The integration of the world politically and economically has force them to change and rethink their positions for the better. This is an incremental change but nonetheless a positive one.

What Globalism has done by shrinking the world and making it more interdependent and interconnected is made world leaders and their nations more accountable. Things in the world have become so interwoven that one nations actions can have great consequences for others. Thus nations around the world have become more conscious and concerned about doing the right thing by each other.

Globalism has contained and defused a lot of abusive power in the world from becoming more dangerous. For example, Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan has had to respond to world criticism and anger about invoking marshal law, which he didn't feel necessary to do eight years ago when he first took power by force. This time he has been stopped in his tracks and has had more opposition, internally and externally. This time Musharraf felt pressure and obliged, by Globalism's forces, to extend an olive branch to defuse tension and world anxiety as King Abdullah felt he had to last week at the Vatican.

Worth

For some reason I became interest in the word 'worth'. I think it started with my curiosity about it being used as a suffix on the end of surnames, like in Moneysworth, Woolworth, Wordsworth, and Shuttleworth.

My first instinct was to look the word up in the dictionary. One origin of the word given is Goth, dating before 900AD. Goth is the language of the Teutonic people who in the 3rd to 5th centuries invaded and settled in parts of the Roman Empire. I presume the town of Gotha in Thuringia, Germany was named for the Goth people.

The names I mentioned above I believe originated in northwestern England, in Lancashire and Cumbria. I guess some Goth people settled there, since it was once part of the Roman Empire. Who knows when worth got its meanings of value, merit and quality? I think it is save to say, though, that it was affixed to surnames to denote and convey the sense of wealth or the trustworthiness of the person so named.

As I examined the word more closely I discovered the Goth word for worth is wairths. I found this fascinating because of its similarity to my surname Airth. I always understood Airth to be a Scottish name, but now I believe it may have originated from the Goth, who may have also settled in Scotland. The name Airth, though, was thought to have originated from the word 'air' or 'earth'. However, nobody really knows for sure. But as I have discovered, there may be another explanation for its origin, the Goth word for worth.

The Old English pronunciation of worth is weorth, which sounds and looks a lot like earth. The Goth pronunciation of worth is wairths, which sounds very much like the Scots would pronounce worth. (As the Gershwin song goes, “You say worth, I say wairths…”) From this I am inclined to thing that Airth came from the Old English weorth and the Goth wairths, meaning that Airth means both earth and worth. And there is a connection there. Earth, in the form of land, is worth something. Being an Airth I would sooner take as one of its origins ‘earth’ rather than ‘air’ because earth conveys more worth.

Perhaps the first Airth was a wealthy landowner, hence the name. Why, there’s even a castle in Scotland named Airth, started by Fergus de Erth. I imagine a Scotsman once having said, “Your name should be airth because your wairths something”.

And what has all this to do with democracy, as it shows in my masthead? Perhaps nothing. But it was a Scotsman with another name, Smith, who helped the development of democracy by persuading governments to let people be free to purse their own self-interests and worth.

Why Democracy?

The BBC recently participated in a series called Why Democracy? It seemed like an apt question considering Democracy is the only legitimate form of governance left in the world and getting stronger. I think the series was also trying to understand what it is about Democracy, as Francis Fukuyama opined in his book "The End of History", that makes it the end point in human governance.

One interesting question asked was, “Can democracy solve climate change?” I think that if any form of government can, Democracy can, better than the alternatives of totalitarian regimes or other forms of closed societies. With the open societies Democracy has fostered it has encouraged the entrepreneurial spirit that can develop the needed technology to tackle such a problem. I am certain that under governments like communism such technology could not have developed because of their inherent lack of free markets and entrepreneurial skills that would invent such technologies.

There are examples where totalitarian governments have developed advanced technologies. The single mindedness of the communist regime in the Soviet Union did invent the technology that started the space race. But as one may have notices the democratic system of America soon surpassed that initial winning streak and won the race. That is because America had a free citizenry that voluntarily helped in the effort whereas communism did not have such a resource. Without that human resource which America had - the free market and the free exchange of ideas - the Soviet Union soon ran out of steam and could no longer compete. Similarly the Soviet Union failed in providing food for its citizens because it couldn’t develop the necessary technologies or management systems that an open society can. Why Democracy? Because in the long run it is a more sustainable system, because of its openness and freedom.

I'm also think that under dictatorships like communism the subject of climate change could never be discussed openly and freely because that would tantamount to criticizing the state and its rulers, a no-no. Also, under communism there was no such thing as freedom of the press that could expose the degradation of the environment. Thus, under a totalitarian regime the subject of climate change would certainly be hidden from the general public. My feeling is that one reason communism had to collapse is because it was covering-up what it was doing to the environment. The level of its industrial pollution had to be exposed. Under Democracy such a cover-up would amount to a criminal act.

Another good reason for Democracy is that it is the only form of government for peace loving people of all over the world. As Kant rightly speculated more than 200 years ago, democracies don’t go to war with each other. Democracy, too, is the only truly accommodating form of government, which tries hard to accommodate and balance the diverse needs and aspirations of all peoples, whether religious or political.

Why Democracy? Democracy is government of the people, for the people and by the people. Democracy’s chief aim is to keep tyranny at bay, and those who would subjugate us. On that score I think Democracy is doing an admirable job.

As a sort of afterthought the question "What is the biggest threat to Democracy?" was posed. Many said terrorism. Can terrorism destroy Democracy? My feeling is that the only way terrorism can destroy Democracy is if it resorts to terrorism tactics to fight it.

This is what I have noticed Democracy does to ward off threats to it existence, it looks inwardly and wonders what about itself it can change to defuse the threat and ameliorate things. Democracy mostly wins if it plays defensively rather that offensively, with soft powers rather than hard ones, with diplomacy and politics rather than violent conflict. This is how it eventually defeated communism.

People who think we don’t live in a Democracy, like democracies in the US or Canada, are people who live in bubbles. They just think of their own circumstances rather than the circumstances of the whole population. They aren't thinking of Democracy as mutually beneficial system but just one tailored for individual needs. Their expectations of democracy are generally ridiculous and selfish. What also bothers people is that Democracy is not perfect because that is how they heard it advertised. Democracy is not perfect because the people it serves are not perfect. Nevertheless, it is the only system that can come close to a perfection.

People who say we do not live in a democracy say so because they see others trying to undermine it and do not go to jail for it. I say to those people, grow up. There is always a group of people out there that will try and take advantage of a good thing for their own purpose. And Democracy being the open system it is is naturally susceptible to opportunists. In the long run, though, a mature Democracy is strong enough to fend of those unscrupulous individuals who take advantage of it to serve their own agenda.

One thing the BBC series did not point out as to Why Democracy? is that in comparison to all other governing systems it is the only system capable of renewing itself, because it is flexible, open and always coming up with new ideas on how to govern people. And in order to remain legitimate and vital a governing system must always reinvent itself so that is can adapt to the constantly changing circumstances of the modern world.