Author Archives: Guy La Roche

About Guy La Roche

Dutch translator and subtitler living in Brittany with his three cats. Has also lived in the Flemish part of Belgium. Speaks English rather fluently and in a former life used to have a decent command of Spanish. Knows swear words in German and Russian. Not quite francophone yet, but slowly getting there. Vaguely centrist observer of the world around him, extremely naive and, sometimes, rather proud of it. Writes Venale Pecus.

Staying aware of the dynamics behind public discourse: Sunday morning musings

Posted on by

It is Summer, the silly season. So, let me chase some chirping crickets here at AFOE with some silly thoughts on public discourse before my more interesting AFOE colleagues spring into action again. And they will, so stay tuned even if my little essay here should turn out to be a bit tedious.

Public discourse, or vox populi, is largely based on perception. People cannot be expected to do investigative journalism for each and every news item. We are dependent on what authorities tell us, be it journalists, scientists, politicians, etcetera.

For me taking part in a democracy means informing myself as much as possible, but simply watching the news is not enough. Yet, like most people I simply do not have the time, knowledge or energy to delve deeper, even when there exists a whole myriad of books, films, documentaries etcetera that pierce through perception to get at some sort of truth. Everything the critical mind needs is out there, in abundance. And with this abundance comes a second, related, problem. How to choose between all those experts and authorities? The process of finding the most objective sources possible can itself be a tremendously time-consuming investment with no guarantee for success. More often than not you have to read a book first, for example, before you can judge its merits. And considering the complexity of many real-life events reading one book will not suffice. Before you know it you can be totally engrossed in just one, tiny little aspect of “reality” without ever coming close to something like an objective truth. There is a reason why good scientists spend so much time on research alone. And even though science may very well be the best instrument we have at our disposal for obtaining a modicum of objective truth, most scientists will also acknowledge that it remains a ‘process’. The truth is never final. Something is only true until proven otherwise. However, scientific progress has proven that the process works. At least in the world of academics.

But for those of us who are not academics investment in the search for truth is a constant trade-off between engagement and the exigencies of our daily lives. In short, how much are we willing or able, both practically and empirically, to invest in a personal quest for objective information? We can never beat an academic who spends his or her entire life studying a particular subject and we shall never be able to fully know what goes on behind the closed doors of much policy-making. We shall never have at our disposal all the information necessary to make an informed choice on so many things that transcend our individual lives. In other words, the challenge is enormous.

I am not saying anything new here, but sometimes it can be good just to become aware again of our limits and, most of all, of the sobering fact that we are in a large way dependent on perception, if only for practical reasons.

Still, we do have to make choices even when we do not know the complete truth. And we are making those choices, every day. And every day people are trying to influence us in the process. Pundits, marketing gurus, politicians, corporate lobby groups, think tanks, special interest groups etcetera are all, consciously or not, promoting their brand of the truth. We do this ourselves as well. No one in their right mind will present themselves objectively on, say, a first date. We all tend to show only our good sides. Hiding, or even distorting, the truth temporarily is common sense. And who has not succumbed to peer pressure at least once in their lives? Who has not closed an eye to the truth in order to please someone or just “to belong”?

Simply put, when it comes to the truth there is always ample room for manoeuvring since there are so many “unknowns”. Those unknowns provide a margin of error where illusions, lies, distortions, manipulations and dreams alike can thrive. In a best case scenario what we do not know cannot hurt us. There is this famous saying in Dutch “liefde maakt blind” or “love makes people blind”. Sometimes this is definitely a good thing, since it can lower the threshold to a possibly enduring relationship. But let’s leave aside social interaction and let’s talk about the room for manoeuvring in public discourse.

In a worst case scenario our inability to verify everything can ultimately threaten our well-being. The best known and most dramatic example is that of political propaganda ultimately leading to massacres of minorities and to oppression. All it takes is one self-appointed authority who can, thanks to, among many other things, personal charisma, rhetoric skills and the echo chamber effect provided by a hardcore group of devoted followers, suspend critical disbelief in enough people to elevate his personal ideas to the status of a general truth that everybody can follow blindly. In extreme cases, like cults for instance, a whole group of people will deftly bridge the gap between truth and all those bothersome unknowns by declaring one authority the undisputable source of truth. They will not only suspend disbelief, they will suspend thinking altogether. It goes without saying that authorities can also force through positive developments in society, but since those are not really problematic I have chosen negative examples to illustrate my conceptual point.

The gap between truth and unverifiable unknowns creates an area of doubt, as it were, where mere opinions can become authoritative, where rhetoric skills flourish, where charism wins the day, where applied psychology rules supreme and where, cherry picked, “facts” are being instrumentalised not to come closer to a truth but to control and to dominate others mentally.

Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels understood these dynamics, Oliviero Toscani, the man behind the famous Benetton campaigns understands them and explains them well in his 1995 book La pub est une charogne qui nous sourit – advertising is a seducing corpse** -, politicians understand them and hire pr and media consultants to try and take advantage of them, media pundits understand them and use them to build up a large group of dedicated readers. In weblog discussions you will find commenters asking an opponent to “prove your point” in the safe knowledge that the opponent will inevitably fail unless he offers a multiple page in-depth analysis with loads of references and links to a myriad of different sources that will be constantly challenged.

The gap between truth and unverifiable unknowns, on a personal non-academic level, is a realm where perception is king and where authority, real or perceived and accepted or imposed, is the general in the king’s army. That is why, in my opinion, authority on this level should always be challenged and, more importantly, why we should always try to find out who or what is “leading” the vox populi. Is it hard reality or is it misguided perception?

One silly, hugely simplified example, through juxtaposition of two questions, to illustrate the theoretical importance of this concept.

Are people massively buying a certain product, hamburgers for instance, because it is really good or because some clever marketing authority convinced them it is good? Are some people afraid of Islam because Islam is a real threat or because some clever pundits and politicians managed to make them believe that?

In the case of marketing leading to mass consumption of hamburgers, perception brings about real, quantifiable consequences. People are eating hamburgers. And that is fine. But just imagine the same underlying strategy of marketing also works in the case of the perceived muslim threat. Do we really want to be “eating” muslims any time soon merely on the basis of well-marketed perception? Or do we want to know the truth before we decide to act?

Forget about Islam for a moment, it is just a silly example taken from contemporary discourse, and think about it in a more general way. How many of our policies are based on manipulated perception? How independent and reality-based are we, the common people, in our thinking? Are we always aware of the influences, overt and covert, that guide our perception of things?

I’ll give you one more example, less silly this time, from an article by former spin doctor Lance Price in The Guardian (emphasis mine):

It may be that Rupert Murdoch has never once vetoed a government decision, nor tried to do so. I just don’t know. What I do know is that, as the entries in my book show, I spent far too much time trying to stop ministers saying anything positive about the euro. When two prominent Conservatives, furious at Tory policy on gay rights and Section 28, decided to defect to Labour, I made them say that it was over our management of the economy.

Propaganda, or spin doctoring as we call it nowadays, in action. Professionals are working every day on manufacturing and guiding our perception of things. And, finally, a quote from the same article concerning the element of doubt or “manoeuvring room”:

It’s true that Rupert Murdoch doesn’t leave a paper trail that could ever prove his influence over policy, but the trail of politicians beating their way to him and his papers tells a different story.

Rupert Murdoch is arguably hugely influential, regardless of the assumptions, true or not, made in this article and, yet, we cannot “prove” the extent of that influence. Is not that interesting? Lack of objective knowledge on our part provides this man with an enormous amount of virtually unverifiable power to influence public perception and, subsequently, concrete policy. And he is “just” a media mogul. And he is more or less visible. Just imagine what “invisible” lobbyists are ramming down our blissfully ignorant throats. I am afraid imagining is the only thing we can do most of the time. And that leaves a whole lot of people with a whole lot of “manoeuvring room”, or doubt, to work with.

** I could not find the official English title of Toscani’s book. I would be very grateful if one of our readers could provide me with either the title or a more idiomatic and elegant translation. It is raining again in this so-called Summer and I am somewhat uninspired.

Ahi serva Europa di dolori ostello, non donna di province ma bordello!

Posted on by

Mark Mardell, of Mark Mardell’s Euroblog, a BBC blog that seems to get better and better over time, has a rather typical post on Europe called A country called Europe. It is typical in that it centres around the issue of Europe becoming a superstate or not. Nothing new here. Some people dream of a United States of Europe, others cannot even stand the very thought of that idea, and then there are plenty of people who could not care less. Still, the comment thread to Mardell’s post makes for some very interesting reading and provides some wonderful quotes and ideas. Just reading this single thread brings you completely up-to-date with current popular viewpoints on Europe. All sides, pro or con or indifferent, are present and there is a good dose of history lessons and “outsider” views. In short, the very concept of blogging at its best.

What I especially like about this thread is how people talk about Europe and how their opinions reflect European culture(s). I would like to invite AFOE readers to go and read Mark Mardell’s post and the comment thread from this cultural perspective. Culture is not just about the Arts with a capital A, culture is first and foremost, for me at least, how everyday people live and perceive their lives. If only we could have had comment threads like this from, say, the times of the Roman Empire or the Middle Ages. What a wealth of information that would be for scientists, who now have to rely solely on ancient relics and the writings of contemporary elites, to explore and analyse. Very little is known about public discourse in those periods beyond what elitist literature left behind. And even then much must have been lost in translation. Nowadays, with the internet among other things, we are documenting our own era, from all levels of society, without really being aware of it. We are so rich. So here are a few quotes that I particularly like to wet your appetites. All emphasis is mine.

The first quote, wonderfully emphasising some European stereotypes, brought a big smile to my face, as it seems so familiar:

18) At 09:32 AM on 12 Jul 2007, Erik wrote:

I welcome all sentiments on the matter; federalism, confederalism, supranationalism etc. At least it keeps a debate going.

Unlike what has now happened in Holland. People don’t take sides anymore, they no longer care. They feel Europe is irrelevant. The British are waving their arms in panic as ever, the French probably have a secret agenda somewhere, the Germans never really know what they want and the Polish seem to have gone insane.

We have the euro now, and it allows Holland (a traditionally utterly capitalist nation) to do what it wants and needs: trade. The average Dutchman/woman shrugs his/her shoulders at anything else.

In a second quote, from an Italian reader, poor Europa is not just at risk of being kidnapped. No, it is much worse this time, and he does have a theoretical point, she could be turned into a prostitute:

4) At 05:37 AM on 12 Jul 2007, Giacomo Dorigo wrote:

The concept of Nation is a purely rhetorical and emotional one, built on the primitive base of feel of belonging to tribe and projected to a bigger community. Well, if someone starts from the point of view of objectively existing Nations, then you will see any federal project as the construction of a bigger Nation. (…) …this is precisely what happened during the construction of all the so called Nations! United Kingdom… United… what has been united? If it has always exist a nation called United Kingdom, why there was a need to unite it? The same with France, the north kingdom army made a kind of crusade in order to destroy the south culture and language! And what about the kingdom of Spain? It was the result of elite engineering as well as UK! And what about Germany and Italy built on military effort by Bismark or Garibaldi… (…) Now USA are the rulers of the world, tomorrow maybe Chinese will be, we don’t know. (…) Anyway they did, they merged their territorial diversities in giant so called National States. We, Europeans did it before, but our products were smaller, and now we are in this half-river-crossed situation. I don’t know. What we now call Italy has been in a similar situation for many centuries, many kingdoms, the Pope state, some city-republics, in the meanwhile Spain, Britain, France were built… but Italy not. Dante in the 13th century was already complaining at that, saying that Italy was more or less like a bitch (“Ahi serva Italia di dolori ostello, non donna di province ma bordello”). And now we are here the process seems very like that one…

Or: If Europe does not “really unite” pretty soon, it will be owned and abused in a who’s-your-daddy kind of way by greater world powers. And what to think of the next quote, comparing expanding EU powers to colonialism:

12) At 08:15 AM on 12 Jul 2007, John wrote:

President Barosso this week described the EU as an empire. In my opinion this word captures what the EU would become if the federalist dream was fulfilled because multi-national federalism is empire. It always involves centralised authority over its constituent nations who must live under this authority’s decisions whether they like them or not. Empires need not be tyrannical but they are always despotic. The enlightened despotism of the British Empire imagined (or deceived itself) that it was doing more good than harm in bringing civilisation to remote parts of the world. But to the people of Boston or Bombay it was still a despotism to be despised because so long as it lasted the governed could not replace their masters or even significantly influence their decisions.

There is a lot more, go and have a read if only to see what contemporary vox populi culture is like. Regardless of their content several arguments are posited quite elegantly and eloquently and are interwoven with cultural references. And, lest we should forget, Europa is supposed to be quite an elegant, sophisticated lady. Now that I come to think of it, to what extent is this actually true? Here is an idea for a debate on AFOE:

How elegant do you think Europa is? Culturally speaking and compared to, say, the US or China or Russia or whatever important world power you can think of. Does she still have some of the refinement of, for instance, the Renaissance, or has she turned permanently into a cheap and vulgar fishwife – as evidenced by, for example, public “talk” in soccer stadiums? Not to mention the recent exploits of the Polish twins and the reactions to their, alas not so unique, kind of discourse…

Vox populi versus “erudition”

Posted on by

Below you’ll find a reaction I posted to an excellent rant by Ape Man on what he believes are some shortcomings in the news coverage of The Economist. His rant ties into what Edward posted below in his post Bad Journalism at The Economist and raises some, in my opinion, hugely important issues. Please go and read what he and Edward have written. I reproduce my own comment here, slightly altered, because… well, I am simply excited about this and, like Nokia, blogs are also about connecting people and ideas.

My own comment is only rudimentary, think stream of consciousness, since the covered subject is immensely complex and vast, but I would like to throw the basic idea out there for all to think about. Please focus on the two quotes from Ape Man’s rant and think about the implications of it.

Ape Man: “Outside of those who read this blog and know me personally, I don’t think anyone really has much contact with the type of people that I work with.”

There are more than Ape Man thinks. I come from a blue collar background myself. But he raises a very, very important issue in this excellent rant:

Ape Man: “The Economist comes by its opinions the same way any hillbilly does. They go by their emotions and what they want to be true. Any fact that contradicts what they want to be true, they ignore.”

I am afraid this is going to be one of my hobby horses in the coming time: the role of psychology in society. It ties in neatly with demography and with something that has frustrated me personally in news coverage/analysis: too little focus on what real people actually think and feel and how this can influence, or not, events.

In Belgium a recent survey revealed that bloggers, of all people, had been more correct in predicting the outcome of the recent June elections in Belgium than established pollsters. The survey measured “talk”, the number of times certain politicians were talked about on weblogs. For me weblogs in general represent more or less the vox populi, the voice of the people even though bloggers tend to be more educated or curious than the average population. It would be great if more blue collar people got into the business of blogging and/or commenting on blogs. That way we would get a more accurate picture of what voters think and how they think. After all, they represent the largest potential voting block in any given country.

Secondly, the importance of emotions. I too, like Ape Man, come across people who vote or pontificate rather on the basis of their emotions than on actual facts. And I myself fall into the same trap sometimes, I am a human being after all, but at least I am aware of it. And I too was shocked, years ago, to find out that people who should know better do exactly the same thing. Sometimes even for a living. Media trends seem to reflect this. What is all this crap, for instance, about “breaking” news followed immediately by analysis? How can you judge the importance of an event at the very moment it takes place? Very often it is hindsight, and only hindsight, that makes the picture clear because single events are more often than not the consequences of very subtle and very complex trends (like demography).

But breaking news attracts readers/viewers and is commercially interesting. The media cater to consumers and are in a way defined by them. Who are these consumers for mass media, those with the most impact? Right, common people. Do many pundits or even politicians know what really goes on among the common people? Rarely. Or their knowledge is fragmented or based on distant memories or geared towards populism/manipulation and whatever.

Has anyone questioned, since Ape Man mentioned the name, the psychology behind a guy like Mark Steyn? It would go a long way in understanding his motives and way of thinking. And it might explain his appeal to many. In short, we should have a multi-disciplinary approach to the coverage and analysis of events. And we should always remain humble considering the complexity of it all. Human beings and their interactions are complex, it is almost impossible to create stable models for them that predict everything, or even anything. And I am not even mentioning the element of “chance”.

People and societies move, and change, all the time to the rhythm of their daily experiences, perceived or real, and their emotions/needs/desires. I could go on and on about this, even when I realize that the complexity of it all is almost overwhelming, but we should definitely put humans back into the equation, be it through demographics and/or psychology and/or sociology. No matter how tricky interpretations in that area are.

Kaczynski tempting Godwin?

Posted on by

As you all know EU member states are preparing for an important EU summit to discuss a new treaty replacing the failed constitution project. For a summary of what’s at stake, you can have a look at this BBC News page. I do not have the time to discuss the summit at length, but there is one interesting tidbit that I would like to highlight, if only for its “entertainment” value.

It seems Poland will come up with anything to strengthen its voting power within the EU. First they suggested a country’s voting weight should be tied to the square root of its population and now, get this, Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski has started using World War II as an argument for trying to get a larger share of the votes.

He suggested, in a radio interview, that without WWII Poland would have had 66 million inhabitants by now, instead of the current 38.5 million. And since the voting strength of a country is based upon the size of its population Poland would therefore deserve a larger share of the votes… Morally, I suppose. Interesting detail: of the 6.5 million Polish people that were killed in WWII 3.5 million were Jewish. (source: an unlinkable page -currently number 123- at NOS Teletekst)

I am sure AFOE readers will find plenty to discuss here. Beware Godwin, though. Also, if you find another source for this, please mention it in comments.

Instant update

I just love the internet. At ArcaMax Publishing I found another, even more provocative, account of what Kaczynski said:

Poland is challenging population-based voting rights in the European Union by saying it would have more people if Germany hadn’t slaughtered Poles.

French Parliamentary elections update

Posted on by

The final results of the French Parliamentary elections 2007 are in. The UMP (Union pour un mouvement populaire) gets 324 seats as opposed to 359 in 2002, the Socialist Party & its allies together have 207 as against 149 in 2002, François Bayrou’s centrist Mouvement démocrate (MoDem, ex UDF) gets 4, the Communist Party gets 15 seats and Le Nouveau Centre (ex UDF) gets 22.

Le Pen’s Front National has been annihilated and reduced to its hardcore grassroots. According to today’s Le Figaro 54% of FN voters stayed home, 27% voted for the Right and 19% voted for the Left.

The Left’s surprisingly strong showing in the second round has been able to stem the blue tidal wave, even though the UMP maintains a strong majority. As Alex already noted earlier one reason for this is MoDem voters swinging their way. Another reason could very well be Sarkozy’s recent talk about “the social VAT”. The idea was to raise VAT to contain outsourcing and improve competitiveness by making consumers carry a part of the social security burden.

It is also interesting to note that the share of female representatives rose from 12.2% in 2002 to 18.5% in 2007 and that the median age of representatives is now 55 (source: paper version of Le Figaro) . The Assemblée overall got a bit younger.

In the meantime the new government has also been announced. The complete list of secretaries can be found here at Le Figaro or here at the BBC News Site. One interesting newcomer: Rachida Dati (video), Minister of Justice. Could she, her parents being of North African descent, become a symbolic figurehead for a French equivalent of the American Dream? She herself plays down the importance of her ethnic background, but just imagine what the very concept of a Rêve Française could do to integration and the overall image of immigrants. Those readers of AFOE who still remember me after my hiatus already know the drill: discuss in comments. If you need some inspiration, compare:

From this article in The Independent on US presidential candidate Barack Obama:

This family history, coupled with a gentle manner and a political message of reconciliation and healing, make Mr Obama one of a select group of blacks – Tiger Woods and Colin Powell are two others that come to mind – who transcend race. Whites do not feel threatened by them. Rather they make Americans feel good about themselves and a society in which this sort of ascent is possible.

And from the BBC News profile on Rachida Dati:

Lawyer Rachida Dati, named as French justice minister by President Sarkozy, is the first person of North African origin to hold a top government post in Paris. She was born in 1965 to an Moroccan mason father and an Algerian mother, one of 12 children raised in humble circumstances. At the age of 16, she started working as a carer in a private clinic. The premature death of her mother forced her to look after her younger sisters and brothers.

Not just in America?

Late night addendum

Tonight on French television news I heard a nice summary of Fillon’s diverse second cabinet, which includes several young people: “Everything the Left dreamt of has now been realised by the Right”. Sarkozy & Co have managed to rejuvenate, diversify and somehow emancipate French high office. And they have reached out to the Left and Centre. Is this truly the beginning of a nouvelle vague in French politics? We’ll see.

Regarding the emancipation, women that are now holding high offices, there is Justice Minister Rachida Dati, of course, but we now also have Christine Lagarde, the first female Finance and Economy Minister of a G7 country. See also this article in the Financial Times. I saw Lagarde, the fifth most successful business woman in Europe in 2002, profiled on tv and was immediately struck by her posture and her impeccable English. Classy lady and no doubt very competent. Will she be popular? We’ll have to wait and see how she will handle the hot irons of the “social VAT” and the envisioned relaxation of the 35-hour week law.

And then there are also junior ministers Fadela Amara and Rama Yade. Fadela Amara is the founder of the egalitarian women’s right organisation Ni putes ni soumises. Their main slogan is “Egalité, Laïcité, Mixité”, roughly translated as “Equal, Secular, Mixed”. She has been appointed junior minister in charge of towns.

Rama Yade is, in her own words, “everything that politicians are not: female, young, black and muslim”. This young politician of Senegalese descent is now junior foreign office minister with a responsibility for human rights.

I do not think a Left majority could have done a much better job in forming a government. At least not until they reform their party, throw out some heavy weights that are blocking progress and sort out a few internal issues that are really not that interesting to voters.

‘Dutch philosophy’ at work in Uruzgan

Posted on by

The Canadian Globe and Mail has an article about the Dutch troops in Uruzgan (hat tip Sargasso) that really made my day. One quote, emphasis mine:

The Dutch went into Uruzgan expecting the same kind of bloody welcome that Canadians have found in Kandahar. (…) But the bloodbath never happened. This past week, the first four-month rotation of Dutch troops started to leave Uruzgan after having completed 400 patrols, established two forward bases and started the slow work of building roads, bridges, schools, and clinics — all without a single soldier killed in action, and just two injuries from hostile forces. (…) The success is fragile, Dutch commanders caution, and might be partly the result of luck, insurgents focusing on battles elsewhere or the cautious pace of their arrival. But the early results in Uruzgan also suggest that something these commanders call the “Dutch philosophy” is worth a hard look. It’s a strategy focused on supporting the local government rather than killing its supposed enemies, talking with the Taliban instead of fighting them, and treading carefully with an understanding of how little any foreigner knows about this untamed country.

Isn’t it beautiful, the simple concept of honestly trying to understand the country that you are supposed to reconstruct, the honesty of army commanders acknowledging that their success may simply be luck, the very idea that somewhere competent people are actually achieving something positive in an ocean of negative forces? Wow.

I was first planning to play down the information in this post with lots of caveats and links to all sorts of nasty things, like this one, and with references to Srebrenica etcetera, so as not to appear too naïve. And I am also sure our esteemed commenters will set me straight right away and add the necessary nuance. Today, however, I would like to ditch my personal cynicism for a moment and enjoy this bit of positive news “as is”.

Dutch elections: preliminary round-up/impressions

Posted on by

The 2006 parliamentary elections in The Netherlands have produced some interesting results. Another centre-right coalition of CDA, VVD and D66 (before the latter blew up that very same coalition, see comments) seems to be off the table and the formation of a new coalition will prove to be very difficult what with the votes spread out more evenly over the main parties. There are now four major contenders instead of three. Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende, who will probably continue to be Prime Minister, will now have to consider forming either a left-leaning coalition or risk an unworkable monster coalition. From The Guardian:

The Netherlands is facing political deadlock after the governing Christian Democrats scraped an unconvincing win in yesterday’s election and parties on the hard left and right performed well enough to impede their ability to form a government. As political leaders braced themselves for weeks of horse-trading to form a coalition, the outgoing finance minister delivered a blunt assessment of the result.

“It’s chaos,” Gerrit Zalm, a member of the Liberal (VVD) party was quoted by Reuters as saying. “The real winner is the only party that actually did not participate, which is the party of the anarchists.”

A summary round-up of the results can be found below the fold.
Continue reading →

Dutch troops tortured prisoners in Iraq

Posted on by

In November 2003 Dutch Military Intelligence tortured dozens of prisoners in the Iraq province of Al Muthanna. Al Muthanna was under British command at the time. The Dutch did not have an official mandate to interrogate prisoners. Torture consisted of keeping prisoners awake by throwing cold water on them and the use of high-frequency noise and bright light. The venue was a complex of the Coalition Provisional Authority in As Samawah.

Later more. For the time being there is still a lot of denial and obfuscation. Dutch newspaper article here.

Illiterate voters

Posted on by

I should know better than to visit Arts & Letters Daily when I am up to my ears in work. The wealth of reading material found there provides the ideal excuse for procrastination. “Hey, I am doing something intellectual here”. Nevertheless, after having resisted the temptation to go there for a while, I finally succumbed and discovered an interesting blog and an essay on the illiteracy of voters when it comes to basic economic principles. The blog is Cato Unbound and the essay, written by economics professor Bryan Caplan, is called Straight Talk about Economic Illiteracy (pdf, via Mercatus Center). My high school major in economics notwithstanding, please do not laugh, I consider myself to be an economic illiterate and therefore had to read the essay. It was a good call. One quote to wet your appetites as well:

Admittedly, economic illiteracy does not automatically translate into foolish policies. We could imagine that the errors of half the electorate balance out the errors of the other half. In the real world though, we shall see that such coincidences are rare. The public tends to cluster around the same errors – like blaming foreigners for all their woes. Another conceivable way to contain the damage of economic illiteracy would be for citizens to swallow their pride, ignore their own policy views, defer to specialists, and vote based on concrete results. Once again, though, this is rare in the real world. Politicians plainly spend a lot of energy trying to find out what policies voters want, and comparatively little investigating whether voters’ expectations are in error. Indeed, even when politicians brag about their “results”, they usually mean that their proposals became policies, and sidestep the difficult issue of whether those policies worked as advertised.

I do have to add one caveat concerning Bryan Caplan, at least for economic illiterates like myself. Caplan, according to wikipedia, “has been heavily influenced by Ayn Rand, Thomas Szasz, and Thomas Reid”. This influence is notable in the essay, just look for his take on the word “greed”. There may be an ‘agenda’ here. I especially like the before-I-saw-the-light style he adopts. In any case, I am mainly interested in his ideas about voter illiteracy and how he defines that illiteracy in terms of his own economic belief system. Is Caplan right, in general, in saying that voters are economically illiterate? Or is he simply using that angle as a trick to ‘convince’ true illiterates to see his light as well? This is an important, albeit naive, question, since illiterates like me are dependent on information from ‘specialists’, and Caplan ‘is’ an economics professor… To be filed under “forest and trees” and “caveat emptor”?

Alliance of Civilizations

Posted on by

This small post serves as an addendum to my previous posts on religion. Yesterday a group of prominent world figures met in Istanbul to discuss tensions between Muslims and Western Societies. The group, The Alliance of Civilizations, including Desmond Tutu and Mohammed Khatami, concluded that:

The chief causes of the rift are not religion or history, they say, but recent political developments, notably the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The group issued a report that details the problems leading to the growing divide between the West and Muslims, in which they reject the notion that a clash of civilizations is inevitable. I suppose these findings will provide much food for thought and even more fodder for debate, but the report is truly interesting, if only as a sign of the times. The report (pdf) can be downloaded right here. One quote:

3.8 The exploitation of religion by ideologues intent on swaying people to their causes has led to the misguided perception that religion itself is a root cause of intercultural conflict. It is therefore essential to dispel misapprehensions and to give an objective and formal appraisal of the role of religion in modern day politics. Indeed, a symbiotic relationship may be emerging between religion and politics in our time, each influencing the other. As an example from the past, the seemingly secular colonial enterprise of the ‘civilizing mission’ or the nineteenth century conviction of ‘manifest destiny’ in reality has deep religious roots. Conversely, the overtly religious platforms of some contemporary movements conceal political ambitions that appropriate religion for ideological ends.