Bad Policy Kills

It’s estimated that Soviet Russia’s government killed at least 20 million of its own citizens. Higher estimates are triple that around 60 million, lower estimates are around 7 million. 6 million Jews are thought to have died in the holocaust, and yet holocaust victims are given infinitely more memorials and museums than Soviet Russia’s. Part of this is in response to the sheer idea of the planned genocide of a whole race – no doubt one of the ugliest marks on Western civilization. Post World War II saw dramatic improvements but only in some areas: US and England experienced one of their largest growth eras. And yet in the decade after the war, Russia saw around a quarter to a third of those mass Russian deaths.




We tuck away in history the bits and pieces that we want to ignore while other bits and pieces continue to have meaning today. Modern-day Nazi’s are despised as murderous racists while communists are simply considered harmless liberal extremes. But “it works in theory” I hear from some of my friends. Yet so does Nazism, which is as steeped in its own ideas as any other ideology. Any theory works in theory; if it didn't it would cease to be a theory and then it would be something else. To advocate communism without addressing areas in which its lead to widespread starvation and death - Russia being just one example - is like advocating Nazism without addressing the holocaust.

The extremes of where an idea have gone wrong are often most telling, but you have to look within extremes as well: Extremist ideas, many have argued, aren't always categorically different from their watered down counterparts. Consider

• Communism in the extreme has led to mass starvation, but in the less extreme it's bad health care.
• Nazism in the extreme was the holocaust, but in the less extreme it was Kristallnacht.
• Discrimination in the extreme led to lynchings, while in the less extreme it led to segregation.
  
• Religious fanaticism in the extreme is seen as terrorism, while in the less extreme it's evangelical Christianity.

Moderate ideas from one culture sound radical to another. While the outcomes of such extremist movements are alarming, we are doing ourselves a disservice by separating ourselves from them, rather than trying to discern historically where they came from. The holocaust was terrible, but Nazi's are people too. What part of human nature - the very same human nature that yes we all share - had gone wrong? Looking at the roots of many extremist movements in the world, we can see many of our own commonly held moderate ideas, and their drawn out implications.

Not to sound polarizing, it’s just surprising how we cling so readily to some atrocities while completely disregarding others. Europe circa WWII is a very concrete example, as both Nazi and Soviet atrocities occurred in the same era and in the same part of the world. And this is by no means a mere abstract question, we’re dealing with two independent events responsible each for over 6 million deaths. Yet how often do you hear, "Remember the Soviet Union and its millions of victims"? My suspicion is that we’re less likely to recall the deaths in Soviet Russia because communism, moreso than Nazism, is somewhat accepted in America, particularly among liberals.

People cling to their opinions as their personal identity. As Tocqueville pointed out, this is a natural byproduct of democracy and freedom of speech. Ideas suddenly separate people, and they have concrete manifestations. Opinionated as I may seem, I really try to hold them at an arm’s length from my mind.

Sometimes I’ll go to social events with “intellectual conversations” where people will say things like “I believe that all people should earn equal incomes” or “I think education is important”, note with the emphasis more on the first person than on the opinion itself. It’s indeed correct that the first person, I, deserves emphasis, it is more important than the opinion itself. But unfortunately the manifest content of the discussion is inevitably on the issue being discussed not the person talking. And in this context, something like “I think education is important” is one of the the weakest arguments. What people fail to realize – I think sometimes to a fault – is that opinions are easy. They’re cheap. And granted this is just my opinion as well, but they’re often fairly meaningless.

Opinions again can be very personal while the real world is anything but. To get the one confused for the other is a very confusing state indeed. Should I ever come across such concrete evidence as to truly undermine my own opinions about the world, then I hope that I have the strength and peace of mind to change how I view the world.

Some people say that the best politics is always personal. But I just don’t buy it. Because the personal is referring to you - how you feel - and the politics is reflected in reality. It's like saying that physics should always be personal - a colossal confusion between the subjective and objective. And no it's not that politics deals with things that are more personal than physics, as I'm sure some physicists would tell you that physics is more personal. It's that reality abides by laws - such as economics laws - much sooner than it abides by our personal preferences. Contrary to the notion of personal politics, passion and fury when it's coming from a politician is ultimately no more persuasive than when it's coming from a crazy scientist. Distinguishment for the most passionate and fiery politician might very well go to Hitler with his unmatched ability to rile crowds and to gather a whole nation behind him. Personal politics isn’t necessarily opposite of good politics, but they are often placed at odds. The disconnect between personal politics and good politics is like that between the short-term solution and the long-term solution; between the irrational and the rational; between a rash emotional decision and a carefully thought out one. Which isn’t to say that good politics can’t be personal – ultimately all these distinctions are artificial – but it is to say that that which is personal isn’t categorically better. Often it’s worse.

When reality doesn’t match people’s opinions, they often think that it’s the world that has to change. Anything but.

-KJ

_______________
Media (in order of appearance)

Photo: (1) CCCP, 04/07/2008, by MrOmega; (2) At the Temple, 02/05/2007, by Pete4Ducks; (3) She's made up her mind, 10/12/2008, by bobster1985; (4) Del Martin, 1966, 10/20/2008, also by bobster1985; (5) Hong Kong in Motion, 09/16/2006, by Steve Webel.

Video: (1) Tv Theme World At War, 10/05/2008, tvtestcard's channel from the 1973/1974 documentary series World at War. Sphere: Related Content

Chameleon

Freedom is a cornerstone of Church doctrine. When left “in his own counsel,” the argument goes, man “might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection.” It’s fitting that America welcomed religion with open arms.

Tocqueville ascribed it partly to the power of free choice. Freedom strengthens conviction. People are more dedicated to those things that they choose. Conversely, restricting people tends to yield lackluster results. Consider the fall of communism. Or the uniquely secular populace in modern-day Israel, a country originally formed out of devotion to one religion.

It frames men, but religion is also framed by men. History has revealed a constant give-and-take; at times man bends to suit religion, at times religion bends to suit man. It changes with the scenery, like a chameleon.



It’s no surprise then that Christianity was different in America. Noted Tocqueville, it became more practical. Clergy tended to highlight the importance of rewards in the present life rather than in the afterlife. It changed some.

In some sense, it adopted scare tactics, ranging from fire-and-brimstone speeches of the 18th century to Hell Houses of today (haunted houses depicting the consequences of sins like abortion and suicide on the afterlife).

Hell House - Trailer | Movies & TV | SPIKE.com

In some sense, it became subliminal. %92 of people believe in God, but visions of him vary, ranging from all-powerful to impersonal to not quite sure.

In some sense, it became more tolerable. Theoretically religions are mutually exclusive of each other, but this breaks down when surrounded by neighbors and friends of different faith.

In another way, it became more divisive, a part of personal identity to separate one from others.

Most of all though, it mirrored politics. Wrote Tocqueville, “religion itself holds sway [in America] much less as a doctrine of revelation than as a commonly received opinion.” This underlies the maxim of never discussing politics and religion at the dinner table – it speaks to an interesting similarity between religion and politics in a democracy.

Although separated legally, religion and politics share cores of beliefs, values, and opinions held intimate by many.

Original sin. Faith. Guilt and redemption. Ritual. Community. The apocalypse.

These all extend beyond aspects Christianity, they stir the soul on some level.

Today, they’ve arisen as cornerstones of environmentalism, a movement that relies more heavily on Christian-like dogma than science. Conservatives have Catholicism and liberal’s have environmentalism.

Per environmentalism, areas of Alaska are considered holy and untouchable; while industrial actions previously taken by America are deemed unfit for third world economic development. Its plethora of apocalyptic visions far preceded the current global warming frenzy, covering food availability, population growth, and even water.



Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore stand out as pure modern-day fire
and brimstone visionaries. In 1969, Ehrlich predicted that:
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." Two decades later he revealed his true unscientific feelings: "We've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." Al Gore's current rhetoric needs to be interpreted as part of the same tradition - not so much a scientific prediction as scare tactics, similar to worrying little kids about hell, and a dislike of economic growth.

Environmentalism's more superficial parallels to Catholicism include Earth Day, its day of worship, and a heavy reliance on symbols. Yet at their cores, both are fueled by an essential distrust of human nature and ego.

The chameleon – dragging on belly through its habitat – is a an apt analogy. And religion, or whatever my underlie it, is strongly present in America.

-KJ



"Changing-Color Chameleon"


_______________
Media (in order of appearance)

Photo (1) Toppledominos; (2) Creation of the Sun and Moon, face detail of God, by Michelangelo, completed on the Sistine Chapel cieling, 1512; (3) Portrait of John Edwards, famous for his fire & brimstone speech, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, delivered 07/08/1741; (4) Photo of Paul Ehrlich;(5) Photo of Al Gore , 2007; (6) Recycle by Nick Palmer, 7/27/2006; (7) Eath Day symbol of greek letter theta, commonly believed to represent death.

Video (1) Power of color change - Chameleon, by Chuihx, 10/26/2007; (2) Trailer for Hell House, documentary, 2001 ; (3) Trailer for An Inconvenient Truth, documentary about global warming, 2006; (4) Colour-changing Chameleon, 05/23/06, by Daydreamer123

_______________
Upcoming ideas:

• Democracy's reflection of man
• The government, the economy, & Mr. Market
• Opinions are easy
  

Sphere: Related Content

Existentialism (nowhere to be found) in America

Democracy, freedom of speech, protected privacy…what next? Revolution’s won. Freedom. Independence. What do you do now? Oddly enough, these questions formed the core of Tocqueville’s fascination with America.



His treatise, Democracy in America, is not so much a well-documented historical work as it’s an essay about the changing face of humanity - about an era which may later be seen as a tipping point, so to speak, when more than a handful of people started leading themselves, rather than being fed noble lies. But after those wishes are granted, then what? What do you do with your free time when it’s finally yours?

This question fascinated – and irritated – Europe to no end. It was all quite new. Wrote Tocqueville, “Individualism is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth.” What do you do when you’re not being told what to do? In America this was just daily life. But in Europe it was a mindfuck.

Europe’s attempt to answer this seemingly simple question gave birth to existentialism, to completely new notions of the truth (now with a lowercase t); it underscored the French notion of ennui.


For obvious reasons these philosophical insights fell deaf on American ears. It’s no mystery to us, it’s just the life we lead. Yet even in modern times Europe seems at times blindsided by America's embodiment of progress and change. Ironically, France - the biggest ally in our fight for independence - most embodies the continent’s old spirit. Their government even obsesses over keeping their language authentic – or, at least, by the government’s interpretation of authentic.

Keeping with such policy, in 2003 the French government tried to ban the word "email" from their language. It seems silly - at least to an American mind, who’s immediate response is:

"Isn’t language determined by the majority of people who speak it? Doesn’t it change with the times? Doesn’t it change with technology?"

To these questions the French government emphatically answers, no.

To which the American would reply, “That’s just ridiculous.”

Well, in a sense it is and in a sense it’s not. Certainly there was a time when that type of authority was widely accepted. The French just still feel that way. However the absurdity of the whole situation - the government’s obviously futile efforts to keep their language pure - shines favorably upon the American argument: yes, language is determined by the majority of people who speak it; yes, it is changing with the times; and more broadly, yes, the masses don’t all have to be told what to do.

New terms and emerging slang - these are the sorts of things that we take for granted, a natural byproduct of democracy in America. But they're surely not universal. Even an ally as close to us as France looks down upon such social change as pedestrian, degrading, dirty.

Underlying these subtle differences, Tocqueville saw shades of America that were industrious, practical, superficial, passionate. He observed our apathy towards purely theoretical questions in life. We had our Mark Twain while Europe had its Immanuel Kant - two authors who are actually quite similar - that is, if any American could ever understand Kant, whose sentences today would surely qualify for the worst sentence contest…or, for that matter, if any European ever really got Twain.

Every day, the question - what is one to do when obeying his own will? - is answered through daily action.

What do you do everyday?

Watch TV? Read paperbacks? Check out blogs? Go hiking? Follow football?



America's restaurants and its movies tell all about us - they're two industries with a distinct American twist. I enjoy all these things to no end.

But I still do wonder what a more controlled life would feel like - a simpler one, with less choices, perhaps a more "pure" language. Would it feel less hollow? Our neon lights and entertainment and technology - are these just distracting us from life's real meaning?

The answer seems to come from existentialist literature.

The answer is no.

-KJ

_______________

Media (in order of appearance)

Photo: (1) Photograph of Alberto Giacometti (used) by Henri artier-Bresson; fair use rationale: An artistic depiction of the nature of European philosophy in the 20th century; (2) "Femme aux Bras Croises", by Pablo Picasso, 1902, fair use rationale: An artistic depiction of the nature of European philosophy in the 20th century; (3) official logo of the French government; (4) Mark Twain; (5) Immanuel Kant

Video: (1) Sigur Ros, "Njosnavelin", live in Paris; (2) Ratatat, "Seventeen Years", from Ratatat, 2004

_______________

Upcoming ideas:

• Freedom through the eyes of Pascal
• "Distractions"
  
• Concept of flow

Sphere: Related Content

The Internet, conceptually

Ever wonder what it’d be like to view the world for the first time, as a complete stranger? So did Tocqueville view America.

He saw it through the eyes of a skeptic. Yet he was immensely drawn to it – the “experiment of democracy”, its citizens’ buzzing political fervor, freedom at a level that the world had not yet known. America somehow reflected the good, the bad, and the ugly of humanity, all at the same time, and to a new extreme. But Tocqueville knew for sure that the rest of the world was to follow its trend with an unrelenting inevitability.

It wasn’t just “democracy”. It was freedom of the press. It was the rising of masses over the few and powerful. It was liberation. The world was getting bigger. It was becoming impossible to contain it all. In America was a group of people who had broken through their shackles to lead themselves. It was a new world to say the least – filled with exotic differences from the old world, equal parts raw potential and unbridled danger.

By all means the experiment now appears to be a success. But Tocqueville’s observations – a, perhaps giddy, excitement strung along a sliver of dark foreshadows – remains acutely relevant today.

It wasn’t just America. The whole world was changing, it can’t be stopped. Like evolution. Capitalism. Like the image of Coke bottles being passed through the Berlin wall – which goes beyond smart PR, it speaks to the inevitability of progress.

It’s no accident that the world's first democracy also guaranteed freedom of the press. To Tocqueville Americans appeared hungry for knowledge. The newspapers seemed to bring out the best and worst in them. Unlike the pristine press in France, American newspapers were littered with advertisements, gossip, and scandal. But sprinkled in were also small journalistic gems – brought, hand-in-hand with all the noise and dirt, through pure public demand.

For the first time, newspapers were controlled by readers – their interests, desires, curiosities – rather than by authorities. Just as ruling authority was spread thin across the people and through additional checks and balances, an authority of intellect was also spread thin over thought. Independence became virtue. All of which you can see reflected in their newspapers. The whole country was littered with them. And they weren’t the same one or two or three publications, they were all different – cities all had at least one local paper, many had more.

Communication of information has driven America ever since. The progression of its history can be measured in related technological advances, from railroad and Morse-code to the telephone, radio, television, and cable television, movies, new methods of transportation – and finally to the world wide web. Parallel to such advances is an exponential increase in man's capacity. If measured by the number of significant world events, time is certainly speeding up, hurdling us through the boundaries of the unkown.

But at the same time, the internet is just the next step in this forward march. Like the first American newspapers, it offers a reflection of mankind that's sometimes flattering and sometimes wretched. This blog, I hope, will portray the former, as if it were through the eyes of a stranger.

-KJ

________________

Media (in order of appearance)

Photo: (1) Alexis de Tocqueville; (2) Coke Bottle; (3) newspaper vendor; (4) Internet Map by Matt Britt, created 11/2006 based on interconnecting IP Addresses using data depicting the internet on 01/15/2005

Video: (1) Underworld, "Born Slippy", 1995, featured in the 1996 movie Trainspotting

________________

Upcoming ideas:

• How Americans handle freedom
• Differences between democracy in America & attitudes in Europe, particularly France
• European existentialism/ennui vs. American practicality
  

Sphere: Related Content