Lisbon!

With Czech ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the European Union has ended a nearly decade long journey of negotiations, ratifications, referenda, and more negotiations, ratifications and referenda. Intense politicking has taken place across 27 EU members to get to this point (BBC).

Now the hard work begins.

The logic of the EU is simple. This set of nations has much to gain from pooling sovereignty. Separately, various European nations are middling or minor powers; together Europe is a superpower (at least economically on par with the United States). Additionally, binding European nations together tightly promotes peace and prevents future cataclysmic conflagrations (WWI, WWII). European officials promoting Lisbon repeatedly invoke Europe on a world stage, if Europe does not come together Beijing and Washington will run the world. An additional benefit, which I don’t think other international organizations have leveraged, the EU allows European nations an extra opportunity to influence global affairs. In addition to serving as an anteroom for forming European consensus in other forums (e.g. the World Bank), the EU is itself recognized as an actor, the EU is a member of the G20.

For me, this argument in favor the EU is compelling. The argument for the EU is especially compelling to many European political elites. But the pesky public keeps getting in the way of grand designs. No less than three no votes in the path to Lisbon (France, Holland, and Ireland) even though Lisbon falls far short of the federalists’ grandest design for a United States of Europe. Instead, Lisbon aims for the less lofty goal of making a 27-member EU function more coherently. Streamline here, eliminate duplication there, and remove some national vetoes. Euro-enthusiasts, like me, were onboard from the start. What to do about that pesky public though? That is, short of following Bertolt Brecht’s wry suggestion, “dissolve the people and elect another.”

I say “pesky public” to tweak the euro-enthusiasts. Treating the public like unwelcome guests at the state formation party is unsustainable. Europe does not belong to the eurocrats, it belongs to the 400 million European citizens. Surefire, quick-fix methods for conjuring a European polity being in short supply, I can only offer the following two suggestions.

First, don’t be afraid of the heavy hitters, big beasts, the best and the brightest, or goats (governments of all the talents). A mélange of American and British ways of saying, big important people should take big important posts. Not an endorsement of Tony Blair to be president of the European Council, but he definitely has world standing in his favor. A euroskeptic MEP remarked that everyone’s third choice usually gets these jobs, resulting in low profile, non-entities in major posts. I would suggest this is not the way forward. With a presidency whose term is two and a half years (renewable once, five years max), the EU has the opportunity to make its case to the European public. “Credit claiming” is the fairly dry term political scientists ascribe to the practice of crowing about accomplishments. Someone in Europe needs to say proudly, “I did that!” Otherwise national politicians take all the credit for the good things Europe does, while pinning all the painful or difficult decisions on the EU (conveniently omitting their own responsibility in creating European laws). This imbalance of credit claiming means the EU’s image gets affixed to a hodgepodge of unpopular policies – with a number of untruths about European directives floating about as well. Euromyths like the ban on crooked bananas, the renaming of a snack food Bombay Mix (Mumbai Mix), the renaming of sausages (emulsified high-fat offal tube), or the renaming of yoghurt (mild, alternate-culture, heat-treated fermented milk) (BBC).

Second, pursue multilingualism. Mother tongue plus two additional languages (M+2) is the official policy of the EU (EurActiv). Those countries with the most monolingual citizens need to work to catch up to the multilingual nations. Language education from an early age could make a difference. In September Charlemagne’s Notebook commented,

But what jumps out at me is the grim statistic about language learning in Britain. One column reports on upper secondary students in EU countries who do not study foreign languages at all. This line in the table shows a line of tiny numbers: lots of zeroes, a couple of low percentages (eg, 3.9% of Spanish teenagers learn no foreign languages at school, a blip for Ireland (18.8% without language lessons) and then comes Britain, where more than half of all schoolchildren in upper secondary education (51.4%) learn no foreign languages at all. This is, of course, the result of a deliberate government policy. In 2003, foreign languages became voluntary for pupils in England and Wales over 14. And there you have the results. Europe is becoming bilingual, except for Britons, who are becoming monolingual.

Yes, Europe is incredibly rich to have so many languages so close together. But it means educators have to redouble efforts to create a European citizenry that can communicate with each other. Europeans need to have the realistic prospect of moving elsewhere to work or study. A more multilingual Europe opens those possibilities up beyond Erasmus students (formally European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students).

Altogether, the pro-EU elites scorn the masses at their peril. Short term victories could be endangered by backlash and retrenchment. One can only call for do-overs of referenda so many times. The trick of turning the EU Constitution into the Lisbon Treaty also seems like a stunt that can only be pulled the once. Far better to engage the public with an eye toward creating a durable European polity.

Interrogate income inequality

Cato Unbound tackles the meaning and consequences of income inequality this month. Will Wilkinson opens with a further development of his paper, “Thinking Clearly about Economic Inequality” (pdf). Wilkinson presents his three core points as,

1. The level of real economic inequality is lower than popular treatments of the issue have led many of us to think.
2. The level of economic inequality is an unreliable indicator of a society’s justice or injustice.
3. Inequality distracts us from real injustices that are given too little attention.

I think he is wrong on all three counts.*

In order to argue that real economic inequality is lower than the income inequality figures suggest, Wilkinson urges us to shift from a measure of economic inequality based on income to a measure of inequality based on consumption,

Suppose you made a million dollars last year and put all but $50,000 of it in a shoebox Now imagine you lose the box. What good did that $950,000 do you? Maybe it purchased some temporary peace of mind. It’s certainly reassuring to know that you have resources at your disposal. But it likely did rather less for your well-being than did the $50,000 you spent on housing, food, entertainment, health care, transportation, gadgets, toys, and so on. (p. 4)

Wilkinson has gently glossed over the difference in exposure to risk when he remarks, maybe the extra $950,000 has bought you some temporary peace of mind (after all, who goes bankrupt due to health costs?) The difference between fifty thousand and a million is vulnerability. You are exposed to exogenous shocks, like global economic downturns, poor health, natural disasters, etc. It’s difficult to quantify the cost of exposure, but the (multi-billion dollar) insurance industry exists precisely to hedge against these kinds of dangers – that is, if you can afford insurance. Hedging against risk is a valuable thing indeed. (A good lens through which to view this discussion, the Australian Treasury’s Well-being Framework here)

Additionally, the extra income buys opt-outs. Unsatisfactory local schools, you can opt-out of that – move to a better school district or send your kids to private school. Medical care in your city not up to par, you can opt-out – travel to a medical facility that specializes in your illness. Local authorities considering building something loud, smelly, inconvenient, or unsightly near your manicured McMansion or penthouse, lo and behold, money helps with that too; there’s a pretty strong case to be made that NIMBY and income inequality intersect in ways that don’t redound the benefit of the less equitable scenarios. “In Longstanding Plan for Met Expansion, Battle Line is Fifth Avenue” (NYT), or Googling this will bring up a good deal of relevant environmental equity literature: “Commission for Racial Justice United Church of Christ. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States; A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites”. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to propose that extensive opt-outs for certain sections of society have invidious consequences for everyone else (witness America’s experience with segregation).

Wilkinson continues, the consumption optic for measuring inequality makes sense because more people have access to more and better stuff, like refrigerators and cars; in the early 20th century, only the rich had access to this quality of life. He adds, the quality of the goods we have access to is pretty high, or at least good enough to get the job done,

The Sub-Zero PRO 48, which the manufacturer calls “a monument to food preservation,” costs about $11,000, compared with a paltry $350 for the IKEA Energisk B18 W. The lived difference, however, is rather smaller than that between having fresh meat and milk and having none. The IKEA model will keep your beer just as cold as the Sub-Zero model. (p. 6)

Here, Wilkinson makes a good point, as far as it goes. When talking about a certain fixed set of material goods that make day-to-day life easier, yes, the serf and the lord of the manor may possess neat stuff; and yes, the distinction between no-frills and all bells and whistles means less. However, there is a class of goods, hinted at in the discussion of opt-outs, that is obscured by focusing on cars and fridges. Here, I’m going to steer clear of a discussion of Rawls’ primary goods and head towards addressing Wilkinson’s second claim, “The level of economic inequality is an unreliable indicator of a society’s justice or injustice.” Next post.

* Some disclosures (read, admissions of ignorance): First, I’m not an economist; the dismal science and I only share passing acquaintance. Second, perhaps relatedly, where I am as a pseudo-possibly future academic/researcher I do a whole lot more qualitative research than quantitative research. Finally, possibly unrelatedly, I’m looking forward to the follow-up discussion at Cato Unbound, hopefully the respondents will present the uncluttered version of what is here cluttered.

Congratulations President Obama

The dignified response to news that Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Imagine if Bush and Blair won the Nobel Peace Prize. The Weekly Standard wouldn’t stop crowing about it, well, ever; there would certainly be at least as many cheers in their office as for Chicago’s 2016 Olympics bid failing. I’m sure commentators at the Wall Street Journal wouldn’t refer to awarding the accolade as “completely bizarre”. I doubt there would be calls for Bush and Blair to return the prize.

As Demond Tutu said, “It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.” (BBC). Personally, I’m looking forward to Obama’s Nobel Lecture. Looking over some past Nobel acceptances, Obama will have some tough competition,

Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.

After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity….

I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “is-ness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “ought-ness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction.
– Nobel Acceptance Speech, Martin Luther King Jr.

The G20 Needs a Home

With the London and Pittsburgh summits the G20 has come of age. The management of the global economic system at the head of state/government level has decisively shifted from the G7/G8 grouping to the more inclusive G20. But like its predecessors, the G20 does not have a secretariat – no headquarters, no secretary general, and no dedicated bureaucratic apparatus to support its work. Instead the G20 is to be managed by rotating the chair’s responsibilities among the members (Guardian). Placing responsibility with this system of rotating leadership is a mistake. Instead the G20 should establish a secretariat.

Rotating G20 leadership suffers from the same competence and coordination problems as the rotating European Union presidency. In terms of competence, rotation means the institutional leadership is exposed to sheer luck of the draw. Every member nation does not have the depth and breadth of expertise and diplomatic skill to successfully lead the G20 for a year. For instance compare the EU’s rotating presidency system’s results. The recent Czech presidency of the European Union was not exactly covered in glory. The Czech prime minister remarked that Obama’s stimulus package was “a way to hell” that will “undermine the stability of the global financial market.” The Times reported that, “The comments were greeted with embarrassment by many Europeans who believe that the Czech leader does not represent a European consensus.” The head of the Socialist group in the European Parliament remarked that the Czech prime minister had “not understood what the task of the E.U. presidency is”. The Lisbon Treaty plans to replace the EU’s rotating presidency to resolve these competence and coordination issues. Another example of rotating chairs gone wrong, Italy’s preparations for the G8 summit this year were strongly criticized as chaotic, with the US intervening in the final weeks before the summit to organize the agenda (Guardian, Independent). Rotating leadership needlessly exposes an institution to instability.

A secretariat places responsibility in a reliable home, secretariats are better able to coordinate because that is their domain of expertise. Furthermore, a secretariat would have longer time horizons. In 2010 South Korea is set to coordinate the G20, in 2011 France will take up the task. One year is not enough time to get a coherent agenda organized and implemented, let alone successfully monitoring or reporting on whether participating nations have lived up to their commitments. Even a weak secretariat is capable of acting as the conscience of the institution. Nations sometimes get into a habit of mutual disarmament with regard to leveling criticism – even a weak secretariat could help nudge G20 members towards implementing the grand gestures of the communiqués. The fact of monitoring by an expert figure alone means agreements have a higher likelihood of being implemented. For instance, guarding against protectionist measures and meeting past foreign aid commitments are two areas ripe for secretariat level nudging. What expert figure could criticize Italy for falling woefully behind its Gleneagles G8 commitments when Italy was hosting the G8 this year? A chair is fairly unlikely to criticize itself, certainly not in the terms Italy deserves for delivering a paltry 3% of aid pledged in at Gleneagles (Guardian, Independent).

A G20 secretariat would also serve a crucial mediating role. Similar to the UN’s role in situations where there is skepticism as to motives, the G20 secretariat can say and propose things individual states cannot say or propose. For instance, South Korea proposing an agenda item on North Korea is different from a G20 Secretary General proposing a discussion of North Korea. With the prospect of the G20 taking up any pressing global issue from the environment to trade, a secretariat could contribute to meeting global problems with global solutions (Brookings).

Finally, a G20 secretariat creates another prestige post in international politics. Basically, there are not enough top jobs to go around. The nationality of the heads of major international institutions is a petty matter, once a post becomes vacant however it’s a big deal. Witness the wrangling over the UN Secretary General post (NPR, VOA). In the economic sphere, the problem was solved by dividing two top posts between Americans and Europeans, with the managing director of the IMF being a European and the president of the World Bank being an American. The G20 has purportedly ended the European-American compromise, with future heads of the IMF being selected without regard to nationality (Reuters). I do not think prestige and symbolic fights such as these are so easily resolved – the rotating G20 chair itself is an attempt to resolve this type of conflict. Unfortunately, too much is sacrificed by way of coordination and stability using the rotating resolution.

Greed is good.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.

Gordon Gekko’s encomium to greed undergirded James Murdoch’s MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh International TV Festival. James Murdoch strongly criticized the British media regulator (Ofcom) and the BBC. The son of Rupert Murdoch and heir apparent to leadership of News Corporation concluded his lecture by remarking,

If we are to have that state sponsorship [of the media] at all, then it is fundamental to the health of the creative industries, independent production, and professional journalism that it exists on a far, far smaller scale.

Above all we must have genuine independence in news media. Genuine independence is a rare thing. No amount of governance in the form of committees, regulators, trusts or advisory bodies is truly sufficient as a guarantor of independence. In fact, they curb speech.

On the contrary, independence is characterised by the absence of the apparatus of supervision and dependency.

Independence of faction, industrial or political.

Independence of subsidy, gift and patronage.

Independence is sustained by true accountability – the accountability owed to customers. People who buy the newspapers, open the application, decide to take out the television subscription – people who deliberately and willingly choose a service which they value.

And people value honest, fearless, and above all independent news coverage that challenges the consensus.

There is an inescapable conclusion that we must reach if we are to have a better society.

The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.

How is profit working out as a guarantor of independence in the media industry?

In April 2009 the heads of News Corporation and GE decided the longstanding Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann bust up had gone far enough (NYT). Olbermann repeatedly named O’Reilly in the “Worst Person in the World” segment. O’Reilly wouldn’t refer directly to Olbermann, but had strongly criticized GE for its business dealings in Iran, remarking, “If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of [GE Chair] Jeffrey Immelt.” The Times reports the owners of MSNBC and Fox News, “…G.E. and the News Corporation concluded that the fighting ‘wasn’t good for either parent,’ said an NBC employee with direct knowledge of the situation.” Not only was the O’Reilly-Olbermann conflict to quieten, the back and forth criticisms across both cable networks was to quieten.

Shortly after [a meeting between Jeffrey Immelt and Rupert Murdoch], Phil Griffin, the MSNBC president, told producers that he wanted the channel’s other programs to follow Mr. Olbermann’s lead and restrain from criticizing Fox directly, according to two employees. At Fox News, some staff members were told to “be fair” to G.E. The executives at both companies, it appears, were relieved. “For this war to stop, it meant fewer headaches on the corporate side,” one employee said.

Two media conglomerate CEOs essentially dictating where criticism can be directed, doesn’t speak to highly of profit-focused media conglomerates’ independence from each other. (Glenn Greenwald has excellent posts critiquing this Immelt-Murdoch deal, here and here.)

What about media independence from governments? James Murdoch’s lecture frets over the potential for Orwellian mischief due to state sponsorship of a major media player – suggesting profit is the bulwark against such interventions.

In 1998 a News Corporation publisher dropped a book by the last governor of Hong Kong concerned that the book would be critical of China, reportedly Rupert Murdoch personally intervened in the decision to drop the book (BBC). The publisher later apologized to the author for claiming the book was dropped because it was boring (BBC).

In 1995 various media organizations were pressured by China over a Martin Scorsese film. China strongly objected to Kundun, an official remarked “We are resolutely opposed to the making of this movie,” continuing, “It is intended to glorify the Dalai Lama, so is an interference in China’s internal affairs.” China first tried to to stop the filming and then to stop distribution of the film (NYT, Time). Universal Pictures caved to China, which also tried to get other TV studios to not distribute Kundun. Disney ultimately didn’t give in – but reportedly did engage “the employment of the services of arch-diplomat Henry Kissinger to soothe relations” (Independent).

In early 1994 News Corporation dropped the BBC World Service from satellite broadcaster Star TV due to Chinese concerns – the Chinese government concerned over the BBC’s coverage and News Corporation concerned over the loss of potential profits in the Chinese market. Jack Shafer at Slate writes about the Star TV affair and presents clippings from various sources. From the Economist,

Seldom has [Rupert Murdoch] let ideology stand in the way of profits; nor is he especially fond of the BBC. Recently he told The Economist that the BBC caused him “lots of headaches” with a number of Asian governments—especially the one in Beijing—because of its critical news coverage. (March 26, 1994)

Profit as a “reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence” – in the face of peer media conglomerates or the Chinese government profit hardly stands up as a profile in courage.

Echoing Gordon Gekko’s reference to the evolutionary spirit, James Murdoch has high praise for an evolution-like rough and tumble in the media landscape. In Murdoch’s vision, this landscape goes untrammeled by obtrusive dictates from Ofcom, the European Commission, or an anti-competitive, state-sponsored BBC. Murdoch remarks,

intervention only on the evidence of actual and serious harm to the interests of consumers: not merely because a regulator armed with a set of prejudices and a spreadsheet believes that a bit of tinkering here and there could make the world a better place.

James Murdoch urges us to allow the consumer (and profits) to decide. Foxes and hen houses come to mind. Sure, the BBC is imperfect – but these imperfections are equaled (if not surpassed) in the for-profit media world. James Murdoch’s hope for public broadcasting on “far, far smaller scale” would do violence to the media landscape. Evolution has no conscience. We can do better. The public interest is better served by a large, resilient, high quality public broadcaster that retains a rich normative mix of inputs, as opposed to merely profit-driven corporations willing to adapt to the worlds many geopolitical pressures.

Lost in translation?

A BBC anchor posed this question to the Tripoli correspondent regarding the airport “celebration” upon Megrahi’s return to Libya. The correspondent highlighted the point (made to him by a counselor to Megrahi, so a grain of salt here) that we need to make the comparison in a Libyan context, saying that a state occasion would have had more government officials. The attendants at the airport were mostly extended family and members of Megrahi’s tribe. So what to UK and US eyes appeared like a welcome for a returning hero was in Libyan terms relatively low key. The correspondent added that journalists are essentially being given the runaround with respect to access to Megrahi – with his villa saying go to the media office and the media office saying go to the villa; the implication being, if Libya were really in celebration mode, there would be more interviews, access to Megrahi, and crowing about success. Also, whether Megrahi has any role in the upcoming state commemorations of Gaddafi would reveal more as to whether the Libyan government is feting Megrahi.

I think the mistranslation analogy can be further extended to the Scottish justice system’s practice of compassionate release. Several points became clearer in watching Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill answer questions in the Scottish Parliament today. All applications for compassionate release that met the criteria since 2000 have been granted – a point demonstrated by the 23 out of 30 approvals of compassionate release since 2000, including, MacAskill said, a murderer of a child. Furthermore, MacAskill believed himself to be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, dealing with an application requiring impartial consideration. As such he was engaged in a prescribed process – if not written, then in terms of norms – where every relevant public authority advised proceeding with compassionate release (if I recall correctly, these public authorities are the parole board, prison authorities, and prison medical service).

In terms of how this translated in the US, the statements of the FBI Director and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff demonstrate they have a differing understanding of what compassionate release means. Joint Chiefs Chair Mike Mullen commented this was “obviously a political decision.” Robert Mueller’s letter to Scottish Justice Secretary MacAskill led the news yesterday. Mueller makes a number of statements about his reading of the situation,

I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of “compassion.”

Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.

Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man’s exercise of “compassion.”

Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.

Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy…

But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988…

You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand.

You have given Megrahi a “jubilant welcome” in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?

In their totality, the accusations Mueller makes against MacAskill seem to read compassionate release as a kind of pardon in the US system – as though MacAskill had a range of discretion in making the decision. MacAskill presents the decision as a norm – had he interfered and not granted compassionate release that course of action would be improperly injecting politics into a quasi-judicial, impartial process.

All of this about mistranslation is not to say there is not an underlying, genuine disagreement. What are the legitimate aims of a justice system, vengeance, deterrence, safety, compassion? Those questions were also in evidence during MacAskill’s response to MSPs today – with members pointing out the mace at the Scottish Parliament is inscribed with the words: wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity. The differing readings feed into why the sides are so far apart, and yet convey such moral certitude. For my part, MacAskill’s answering questions at the Scottish Parliament reaffirmed my sense that he had made the right decision.

When mercy seasons justice

The Justice Secretary of the Scottish government, Kenny MacAskill, released the Libyan bomber held responsible for Lockerbie today. Frankly, his explanation at the press conference wasn’t very well constructed or well delivered.

“Mr al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days,” he said.

“But that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.”

Mr MacAskill continued: “Our justice system demands that judgement be imposed, but compassion be available.

“For these reasons and these reasons alone, it is my decision that Mr Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and be allowed to return to Libya to die.” (BBC)

Following the press conference, it seemed like 5000 years was not enough for al-Megrahi, let alone 10; al-Megrahi was convicted of murdering 270 people. In interviews I think MacAskill delivered a slightly more expansive explanation, justice must be tempered by mercy. When others, the PM show on BBC Radio 4, explained more about the process in context MacAskill’s decision made more sense. The gist, those terminally ill with less than three months to live are released from Scottish prisons in the name of mercy and compassion. That is my understanding of how the law and regulations of Scottish prisons work. Since 2000, there have been 30 applications for release under these grounds and 23 have been approved. Three or four of those released were convicted for murder and unlawful killing. I haven’t heard an explanation of the 7 rejections, but one interviewee offered that the medical evidence may not have shown the late stage of terminal illness in those cases.

Al-Megrahi has prostate cancer and his prognosis meets the guidelines for compassionate release. I’ve heard several victims families’ interviews today, some approving of the decision others disapproving. Part of what complicated the picture is some victims’ family members think Al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted, but I have no idea as to the merits of his appeal. While I appreciate the profoundly heartfelt feelings of those victims’ families who disapprove, I do not think MacAskill made a mistake. Vengeance, and even bloodlust, are really nasty features too much in evidence in the American justice system. I could just be overcompensating for my disapproval of those in making judgements about the Scottish system. But both the process and the principles operating in the Scottish system seem sound to me. I would rather live in a world that errs towards the side of compassion – even if I’m wrong and foolhardy.

Throughout the day, really difficult questions have been posed: Does compassion even count if it “easy” to be compassionate? Do we have a duty to forgive? In what circumstances, if ever, is forgiveness owed? An interviewee mentioned the first line of this and it seems appropriate,

The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.
- Portia, the Merchant of Venice

Shaking the foundations. Meta-questions & ice axes

Questions first. I’ve been interested recently in the underlying assumptions that inform the US healthcare debate. An attempt to get to questions that reveal the assumptions that shape opinion on US healthcare, free market s or socialized medicine:

• Identifying and defining social problems, particularly with respect to the universe of what can be fixed by the state. Can the state intervene and (successfully) resolve a fairly wide or fairly narrow set of problems?

• The relation between deserts and property; what is ascribed to individual effort and what to community contributions? The extent of arbitrariness in distribution: what part of wealth distribution is down to luck?

• The salience of past injustice and inequality in present social arrangements; are past injustices something to be recognized and remedied or something to be overcome by pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps?

• Constructing identity broadly or narrowly? Who is us? Are international boundaries fairly consequential or inconsequential – how consequential should they be?

I was prompted in part by this passage from a 1999 profile of John Rawls.

Rawls appears to have given only one interview in the course of his career, and that to a small Harvard-based magazine. The only other significant source for information on his life is the first chapter of Thomas Pogge’s book John Rawls, which was published in German in 1994. Rawls described to Pogge the formative experience of his early life: the deaths of two of his younger brothers, one from diphtheria, the other from pneumonia, both illnesses they contracted from Rawls himself. Joshua Cohen, a former student, says that these anguishing events are reflected in A Theory of Justice in discussions of the “arbitrariness of fortune” and the “unmerited contingencies” of life. It was at about this time that Rawls developed his stutter, which he associates with his brothers’ deaths.

Questions – all very well and good. I have a fairly good idea where I stand on those and why. Meta-questions, however, that’s where I’ve recently run into some difficulty. It is pretty rare that I’ll run into a single blog post, or well, a specific passage really, that makes me say, “Uh-oh, I’ll have to reevaluate the way I think about quite a few things in light of this.” Usually, I’m prepared to stand firmly with my preexisting views, John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum, human rights, human dignity, rinse, repeat. I’d even run into an OECD report that had me feeling pretty sanctimonious recently (PDF), confirming my views on the need for government intervention to allow for social mobility. Four years of undergrad in the making, so far, five years in the execution and I’d say things were going pretty well. The last time I had to reevaluate things this much was Iraq in light of Errol Morris’s the Fog of War.

So much for the buildup. The post is John Holbo’s discussion of George Scialabba’s book “What Are Intellectuals Good For?” at Crooked Timber (worth reading the whole post). Basically, Holbo discusses Scialabba’s comments on the intellectual ecology of the center-left and far-left, commenting that Scialabba is so fair and sensible that’s its frustrating. Frustrating to me – someone who’s been happily not given Marxism or the far-left serious consideration in some time; “I might be a Marxist,” just hasn’t crossed my mind recently. I’ve been satisfied with my awkward amalgamation of neoliberal economics and center-left, soft social democratic leanings. Scialabba’s distressingly intelligent observation,

Concerned not to cut himself off from his fellow-citizens, the internal critic will be tempted to moderate, if not his indignation, then at least the expression of it: his rhetoric. And sometimes — usually — he will be right to do so, to set political effectiveness above literary effect.

But indignation is not always manageable. And however conscientiously the critic tries to reiterate, to reconstruct the moral history of those in other communities, it will always be difficult for him to give their suffering due weight. We are properly skeptical of the habitually enraged critic; but we are also disappointed on occasion — and they may be the most important occasions — by the invariably judicious one. Perhaps this is why, though I largely share Walzer’s political positions, I have seldom been profoundly moved by his own social criticism — enlightened, yes, but rarely inspired. The young Kafka wrote: “If the book we are reading does not wake us, as with a fist hammering on our skull, why then do we read it?” Walzer is, alas, far too polite ever to have hammered on anyone’s skull. Other connected critics have done so, it is true, including same of those Walzer discusses. But if the connection is not to be endangered, the tact required is extraordinary and the critic’s inhibitions will therefore be considerable.

Kafka went on: “What we must have are books that come upon us like ill-fortune and distress us deeply. . . . A book must be an ice-axe to break the sea frozen inside us.” I have often exclaimed with pleasure while reading Walzer’s graceful prose, but never with distress. Inside every citizen of a state responsible for so much misery in the rest of the world there is, one must assume, a frozen sea. In normal times, for ordinary purposes, the temperate, scrupulously nuanced, moderately forceful criticism of the typical connected critic — of Walzer himself— is appropriate. But sometimes maximum intensity — an axe, a charge of verbal explosives, a burst of white heat — is required, whether for immediate effect or in helpless, furious witness. A sense of the simultaneous urgency and futility of much social criticism — i.e., the tragic sense — is a necessary part of the critical temperament. To resist this sense is the critic’s everyday responsibility. To give in to it, to risk excess, loss of dignity, disconnection, may also, on occasion, be his duty.

Perhaps more later. But I’ll close with another quote from Scialabba, similarly destabilizing:

The fervent gratitude he inspires is, in a way, the most remarkable thing about Berlin’s career. He has written comparatively little; it obviously strikes exactly the right chord. “People are pleased,” observes Russell Jacoby (“Isaiah Berlin: With the Current,” Salmagundi, Winter 1982), “to find a man of learning who does not accuse them or their society of unspeakable crimes. … Berlin reassures his readers in a prose studded with the great names of Western culture that complexity is inevitable, solutions, impossible; the threat is from the utopians and artists who imagine a better world.”

An American reform wish list

Matthew Yglesias has a pretty sound list of political process reforms: a House and Senate that have elections for committee chairs instead of seniority, ending the filibuster, ending the electoral college, state experimentation with proportional representation for House delegations, DC statehood, and acknowledgement of the unfair/anachronistic character of the Senate.

I’d have a few points to add, a wish list of the possible and the near impossible. What does my wish list say about my preferences? I’m not averse to consensual steps that soften federalism, presidency as weak legislator. I favor more diversity in national offices, several VPs and bigger Supreme Court. I have impulses in both elitist and democratic directions, an appointed amending house, and a more representative House. I’m in favor of more oversight, the Ombudsman, and fewer veto points, end filibusters.

My wish list of the possible would include,

• A larger house, adding about 200 members to make the representativeness more even across the country. Under this system California’s House delegation would be more comparable to Wyoming’s representativeness levels. While 1 Rep for the 500,000 people in Wyoming compared to 1 Rep per 690,000 people in California might seem a small discrepancy, altogether it adds up to underrepresentation of large states in the House. Consequences follow for committee slots and chairs, as well as in agenda-setting.

• A larger Supreme Court, maybe 15 to 21 justices altogether – hopefully allowing for a more diverse court in terms of geography, professional background, age, race, religion, gender, etc. To avoid the whole court-packing accusation, perhaps one new justice every ten years starting from 2020.

• Biennial budgets for the United States. Allowing for longer term planning. Also allowing for more defined periods for budgeting, oversight, and everything else. More here, and here.

Top of my wish list of the near impossible would be,

• A mandatory constitutional convention every 20, 25, 30, or 50 years. The US Constitution needs to be reviewed and renewed from time to time. Regular national discussion about amendments, and rights, could be at least, educational opportunities – as opposed to Supreme Court vacancies which are ritualistic performances (WSJ). Roe v. Wade? A right to bear arms? Affirmative action? Honestly Senator I haven’t given it much thought. Also, the Supreme Court can’t be the only branch with regular access to the Constitution’s provisions.

• An independently elected National Ombudsman Office, a kind of cross between the Swedish Ombudsman and perhaps bits of the current inspector-general system. Someone besides the president who is nationally elected and can respond to citizen complaints through inspections, investigations, consultations, and reports. A kind of balance to the imperial presidency that Congress wavers in providing.

• Broad formal legislative proposal powers for the presidency. The ability of the president to make formal proposals in the House and Senate and in any State House or State Senate. The president as a limited super-legislator allows the opportunity for proposing more coordinated national policy. It permits federalism to cohere more, but with the assent of the relevant state governments, as the president merely gets the power to formally propose. Slightly more powers than a delegate in the House, but less than a voting, full member in the respective legislatures. I wouldn’t mind if this role was carved out into a second vice presidency, or split amongst two or more vice presidents. An added bonus would be a longer line of nationally elected presidential succession – an heir and a spare (as I’ve heard in UK parlance.) The presidential ticket could also be more diverse with a president and two or three vice presidents running together. If this seems over powerful, it could be limited to a certain number of formal proposals during a four year period, maybe 2-16.

• An entirely appointed amending house akin to the House of Lords. Not because America needs a conservative, hereditary, landed gentry – even the House of Lords does not work that way, at least for the past ten years. I favor the peoples’ peers process – especially the practice of appointing “crossbenchers” who have no party. Given the high quality of Lords’ debates, the expertise of members, and the freedom from electoral accountability – an appointed amending house could make a valuable contribution to the legislative process. So it’s fair to say I reject William F. Buckley Jr.’s quip, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” I’d probably put a time limit on dispensing with legislation in this house though. Another veto point in the legislative process isn’t the aim; it would be an amending house only.

• A variety of human rights, human dignity guarantees in the Constitution and/or treaty ratifications – essentially akin to the UK’s incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into its domestic law via the 1998 Human Rights Act. The whole, a majority can vote a minority’s rights away thing in California is just one lacuna in rights protection in the US.

The social context of profits

Democracy in America ever so gently critiques Stephen L. Carter’s Washington Post op-ed celebrating profits. Carter writes,

High profits are excellent news. When corporate earnings reach record levels, we should be celebrating. The only way a firm can make money is to sell people what they want at a price they are willing to pay. If a firm makes lots of money, lots of people are getting what they want.

Democracy in America offers,

The question is what high profits mean. If they flow from innovation or arbitrage, they are likely to be socially useful. If they are symptoms of monopoly or information asymmetry, they are probably a sign that something else is amiss.

Profits may also have altogether more sinister sources. Two recent cases I saw on Newsnight, one just plain bad and one extraordinarily bad. The plain bad. Newsnight reports that a London hotel cleaning company has been paying employees below minimum wage. Reportedly, instead of calculating hours worked and paying at least the UK minimum wage (£5.73 an hour), the company used its own mechanism to take into account the number of rooms cleaned; the company’s formula happened to consistently underpay cleaners by a third or half what they should be earning under law given the minimum wage. By underpaying employees the company could win more contracts, and profit.

The extraordinarily bad. Newsnight reports that instead of disposing of toxic waste properly, a firm shipped the dangerous material to the Ivory Coast where it was dumped making tens of thousands of people ill and causing at least a dozen deaths. The motivation of improperly disposing of toxic waste, lower costs and more profit. Even if Newsnight has the particulars wrong (despite the documents, interviews, and videotapes) – I’m not sure the cases have been proven in court, yet – the scenarios are familiar enough. For instances abound, the tobacco industry behaving badly, pharmaceutical companies’ ignoring troubling information about profitable medications. These cases exemplify the caveats that should accompany Carter’s rosy analysis profits. Carter writes,

To the country, profit is a benefit. Record profit means record taxes paid. But put that aside. When profits are high, firms are able to reinvest, expand and hire. And profits accrue to the benefit of those who own stocks: overwhelmingly, pension funds and mutual funds. In other words, high corporate profits today signal better retirements tomorrow.

As Democracy in America notes, the circumstances of profits need be examined in the round. Carter pays glancing attention to potential externalities, writing,

The search for profit has dangers. There are few legal ways to enhance profits other than cost-cutting, improving efficiency or innovating. This can lead to wondrous inventions — the iPod, say — but it can also create serious dislocations, as when companies close plants and lay off workers.

Profits may signal the great things Carter indicates. But profits may also signal monopolitistic behavior, criminal malfeasance, public subsidy and rent seeking, or unsustainable exploitation of a resource for short-term gain. The high profits equals excellent news perspective Carter presents leaves unexamined the social context of profits.