Just Finished Reading: Authoritarianism – A Very Short Introduction by James Loxton (FP: 2024) [89pp] 

This certainly seemed to be a timely read – especially with the recent and long hoped for fall of Viktor Orban and the growing threat of authoritarian regimes across the world. Despite its somewhat disappointing length (although to be honest the average VSI book is around 120 pages) this was a very impressive look at the different types of authoritarianism, in the past and today, how they emerge, how they operate once up and running, how they die (and most do die), why some are far more durable than others and what their legacies are once thrown off. It was ALL very interesting especially, as we know, there is a push in some places to transition from more a democratic style to a more authoritarian one.  

Of course, authoritarianism does have its attractions to some – most especially those who struggle with being told NO by people they don’t respect (or indeed anyone). Naturally I suspect that such people have family histories that need looking at. One comment did make me smile/laugh when the author defined democracy – a system where parties loose elections. So, in a country where a party (even if they at least technically have an ‘opposition’) normally wins with 97% of the vote year after year after year, you’re probably NOT looking at a democracy – despite some of the trappings! 

Authoritarians HATE the possibility of legitimate opposition and usually go out of their way to eliminate them – up to and including prison or execution. Of course, pushing any opposition underground – as there’s no other way to oppose the regime and keep your liberty/life - is just sowing the seeds of overthrow or revolution (which all too often brings into existence a different type of authoritarian rule) which is why in some countries their politics cycles through regime after regime with, possible, brief periods of actual democracy. 

Drawing on examples across the world (I’m really looking forward to reading more about Portugal now) and from the last 100 years or so this was a great entry point to an important political philosophy of our time. Definitely recommended reading. 

Just Finished Reading: The Shortest History of Democracy by John Keane (FP: 2022) [201pp] 

Whenever people (including myself here) think of the origins of Democracy they usually point to ancient Athens as its birthplace. According to this interesting and often fascinating book the reason we think this is because Athens had a particularly good PR department and left a plethora of documents to back up their claim (or at the very least the claims of future historians). In fact, assembly democracy is far older than the Athenian version and was far more widely spread across Asia and into the Indian sub-continent. As you might expect from a diverse group of cultures the variety of these democratic states were varied in their rules, their longevity and their ultimate end. 

Although the democratic impulse didn’t die in Athens it took very much a back seat across the world until what we now think of as “Democracy” slowly came together throughout the 18th and 19th centuries most notably in Europe and the newly minted United States. Yet again, for cultural and historical reasons each variety of democracy varied, often significantly, from other versions along lines of who could vote, how people voted, how often they could vote and much else. For most of that time only men of property could cast their ballot but, slowly, the wealth/property restriction was relaxed and, eventually – although surprisingly late in some countries – women were eventually given the same voting rights as men. Other groups, notably racial minorities, took even longer to gain the right. 

The history of democracy has been far from straightforward. It has ebbed and flowed across Europe and the world, emerging here, falling there. There was a flowering following the Great War and the self-asserted right to free determination. It retreated in the 1920’s and 30’s in the face of the rise of fascism and other strains of totalitarianism. It flowered again with the fall of the Soviet Union and was, at least briefly, declared triumphant. That, as we know, didn’t last long and we are, yet again, living through a time when democracy is under stress or even in retreat across the globe. How such a process plays out will have to be seen. 

This was definitely a thought provoking and very well argued look at the democratic urge throughout history. I certainly learnt a lot and reading this showed me, amongst other things, not to take democracy for granted – as many people around the world are finding out. Along with the desire to be directly involved in the running of any particular state (or organisation) there is all too often the countervailing desire to restrict people’s access to this sort of power. Democracy is, by its very nature messy and inefficient but people are, as a rule, also messy and inefficient. Democracy allows voices to be heard, decisions to be made that encompass more ideas and a better, deeper understanding of what people want and what people will accept. But it can’t just be the right to vote for a leadership every 4-5 years and that’s it. Any government, even a democratically elected one, can overstep its powers and having to quietly wait years to address the problem is no longer tenable. Governments need holding to account, they need to be monitored, exposed to publicity, laughed at, and checked by the law, by public protest, by independent investigations, by a free press and by people being aware enough and politically educated enough to know what’s happening. Reading this book will help with that. Definitely recommended in this troubled time. More ‘short’ histories to come especially from this most impressive series.  

Just Finished Reading: Our Own Worst Enemy – The Assault From Within on Modern Democracy by Tom Nichols (FP: 2021) [219pp] 

I was definitely not alone in being surprised by the recent US Presidential election result. One thing it did show me, and no doubt many others, is that I clearly do not understand the American psyche. I’ve been working on my USA:WTF project over the last few years and I’m planning to ramp it up a bit further going forward but I’ll also be reading a sprinkling of books prompted by the US election and this is the first of them. 

To begin with I wasn’t that impressed with the authors analysis of why Donald Trump and his MAGA cronies were elected the first time (what the author would say about a repeat election after a 4 year break I can imagine). He seemed to be saying that we in the West, and not just in the USA, have had it too good for too long and, no doubt like those cheering the outbreak of war in 1914, were eagerly looking forward causing a bit of fun chaos and breaking stuff. This, I thought, was more than a little crass. Firstly, it posited that everyone has ‘never had it so good’ (which to be honest in an absolute historical sense is true, but even so) as if no one out there is suffering – even comparatively – and second that this (relative) comfort was responsible for us “hungering for the Apocalypse”. As I said, crass. 

Thankfully, his arguments improved a great deal after that! Part of the problem, he maintained, is resentment prompted by both disparities in wealth (sometimes considerable if not actually obscene) and the fact that social media in particular can show us – if we feel the need/desire to check – just how much other people have that many are apparently denied. It's not just the yachts and private planes but the ability to peek directly into your neighbours living rooms – via real-estate websites (apparently an addictive ‘hobby’ to many) - to count TVs, bathrooms & parking spaces to say nothing of local house prices! Such things have, again according to the author, severely strained the idea of citizenship and replaced it with envy. What is worse, indeed corrosive, is the idea that Democracy should solve this and has singularly failed to do so. The ‘problem’ isn’t the system that has produced such wide disparities in wealth and comfort but the political failure to respond to it (of course disregarding the fact that we, generally, get the government we ‘deserve’ because we, as voters, put them there. The ‘fault’ of politics is OUR fault). The answer to this ‘conundrum’? Get rid of Democracy and put someone in power to ‘deal’ with the issue and sort it out. Of course, this is where a deep ignorance of history comes in handy. 

Naturally, social media comes in for a LOT of criticism throughout this slim volume. Not only does it allow people to snuggle into their own silo it also allows (indeed encourages) people to marinate in a sea disinformation and misinformation that feeds peoples existing prejudices. Critical thinking is ignored or actively discouraged and conspiracy ‘theories’ are given free rein to damage everything and everyone they touch. In that kind of environment trust, in each other or in government institutions (or indeed in the very idea of government) begins to evaporate and Democracy itself becomes progressively questioned and questionable. Such trends tend not to end well. 

After a rather shaky start I eventually found at least some of the authors arguments somewhere between interesting and persuasive. Although I certainly don’t think he ‘nailed it’ I do think he was on to something and I’ll be following some of his ideas going forward. I do agree that some of the greatest dangers to Democratic government come from inside rather than outside and that these dangers need addressing. Democracy, across the world and not just in the US, is far from perfect and can be improved for the benefit of all. But we need the will and the belief to see it as worth fixing, worth saving. I believe it is. The alternative, however enticing to some, will be far from pleasant. More US election prompted books to come – although not all will be as ‘on the nose’ as this one! Worth a read if only to prompt thought and discussion. 

Just Finished Reading: National Populism – The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin (FP: 2018) [315pp] 

When the Soviet Union fell, and History ‘ended’ (or at least it seemed to according to some observers) it was assumed – by many this time – that Liberal Democracy had ‘won’ and that was it. For a while this rather simplistic view of things seemed to hold true. Democracy did indeed spread, and, for a while at least, it looked like Democracies would dominate the planet. But even the most optimist thought that Authoritarian regimes wouldn’t just vanish overnight. North Korea, China and other places would resist democratisation for years, decades, to come, right? What few saw is that the tide of democracy stopped and then turned back. Slowly at first, the numbers of clearly democratic counties actually REDUCED. What was going on? 

The problem, it would seem, was with Liberal Democracy itself. Much had been promised but little seemed to have been delivered except to the vanishingly few at the top of the tree. What little trickle down that actually existed (rather than simply being talked about and talked up) wasn’t anywhere near enough to satisfy those who felt ‘left behind’ by the pro-globalist forces. Something needed to change. As the so-called ‘peace-dividend’ failed to materialise, the housing bubble burst, the rich and shameless received their bailouts and a Pandemic spread across the globe people simply had had enough. It was time for something different, something new or actually something old – strong leaders who could ‘sought things out’ once and for all. With these reactions – against the ‘liberal elites’ - parties that had traditional stayed in the margins or even the shadows began winning seats in parliaments across the globe, from the UK, Europe, Asia and even the bastion of democracy, the USA itself. 

I did have some problems getting ‘into’ this book because, at least at first, I thought the authors were simply apologists for Authoritarianism. But I persevered and actually found the later part of the work much more interesting and even incisive. It’s clear that the present iteration of western Democracy has a problem – actually a number of problems. Sure, some of them have been exaggerated for effect by the Far Right, but there are the real foundations to their criticisms. The present political systems across the west do not accurately represent everyone they’re supposed to. That’s clear enough. The so-called ‘political classes’ have been for too long receding into the distance away from ‘ordinary people’ (a phrase I personally hate) and their concerns and instead of actually listening to their constituents (rather than merely going through the motions) are giving people what they should want, rather than what they actually want – or at very least taking actual desires into account.  

It shouldn’t have but the reaction against democracy has come as quite a shock both to politicians and political commentators in the media. If both groups had been paying more attention to falling voter turnout, increasing numbers of votes cast for ‘fringe’ candidates, street protests, rising acts of violence and a host of other indicators they might not have been. The ‘solution’ for many centrist parties, or even for those already on the centre-right, has been to try to steal the thunder of the more extreme political forces by moving to the right and adopting some of their policies in watered down versions. This is the ‘easier’ of their options and seems to be working at least in the short term. A much tougher option, at least from their perspective, is to make democracy work for everyone – as it should already be working. If Democracy is broken, or at least in need of some level of TLC, then it needs to be fixed rather than abandoned. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of world history knows exactly where growing Authoritarianism leads and its not to a happy place. If Democracy needs saving, which arguably it does, then we need to improve it, to ask the hard questions and be prepared to fix what needs fixing, to ACTUALLY listen to people's concerns, to involve more people more often in previously ‘elitist’ policy. You know, to be more democratic. That, I think, is the way forward to a happier place.  

This was an interesting, if sometimes depressing or disturbing, read and shows us that authoritarianism is, at least in the short term, here to stay. What I can but hope is that, if the right steps are taken, it will move back to the fringes and the shadows where it belongs. But, for the present it's not going anywhere. To understand why you could do worse than start here. A sobering read. Recommended.  

Just Finished Reading: Weapons of Math Destruction – How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy by Cathy O’Neil (FP: 2016) [218pp] 

Algorithms – it seems to be THE word of technological age we’re living through. They seem (and indeed are) everywhere. Most people see them plainly on Amazon recommendations and other seemingly innocuous, and to be honest sometimes hilariously bad ‘suggestions’ from other websites. But like the vanishing icebergs most of the work of algorithms happen DEEP in the background. Been turned down for bank loan, mortgage or online job application? Watched a convicted criminal get an eyebrow rising super low or super harsh sentence? Heard about ‘blips’ on the Stock market that suddenly buy or sell vast amounts of stock and then almost instantly buy it back again? Started receiving some oddly specific news on your Facebook feed? That’s probably an algorithm (or a few of them) at work doing what they do – making assumptions, making deals and changing (and sometimes destroying) people’s lives based on data, correct or otherwise. The author calls this sort of thing ‘Weapons of Math Destruction’ or WMDs for short. 

Of course, the problem with using math (or as we say over here, maths) to make decisions about people's lives or livelihoods is that human beings are messy. Few of us (fortunately) fit into neat categories and a great deal of what we do, know, believe and act on isn’t exactly easy to quantify. So, what’s a mathematician or statistician to do? Use proxies – in other words something that can (at least theoretically) be measured for something that can’t. Like the chance of defaulting on a loan – how do you measure something like that? Well, you compare the data of the person asking for money with people like him – so where they live, education, criminal record, criminal records of their neighbours, family and friends. In other words, you ‘profile’ them. Rather than treating them as an individual you treat them as a member of a group – be in women, the young, racial minorities and so on. It makes decision making by the bank SO much easier. But if you’re an upstanding  member of a group with a bad rep? - Sucks to be you, right? And in a nutshell, there’s your problem. Unlucky enough to be born in a ‘bad’ area or into a risky demographic, you’re screwed. Born on the right side of the tracks? Your life is going to be a lot easier – especially with a fair winded algorithm at your back. 

Using 99.9% US examples – apart from 2 UK examples (one of which was hilariously from the British ‘city’ of Kent) - covering the whole gamut from school grades, teacher standards, incarceration suggestions, loan applications, and much more this was an often-frightening look at how pervasive algorithms are and how much effect they have on millions of people's lives – often with unthinking and unwarranted approval. Despite being almost entirely US focused and starting to feel rather out of date even after just 7 years, this will be a wake-up call to anyone not already familiar with the implications of algorithm influenced decision making. Many more questions need to be asked about how they work, what assumptions are deeply embedded within them and how we go about correcting badly performing ones. A recommended read (with some caveats) to anyone who has wondered what all the fuss is about.

[Labels Added: 1, Labels Total: 58]

Just Finished Reading: How To Lose A Country - The Seven Steps From Democracy To Dictatorship by Ece Temelkuran (FP: 2019) [280pp]

Its difficult not to be aware of the rightward slide to more authoritarian government and right-leaning politicians across the world, from the obvious examples of Turkey and Hungary to France, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany and, of course, the USA. Living and working as a journalist and author in Turkey the author of this fascinating (and rather disturbing) book knows this all too well and all too personally from her day to day experiences. As Turkey was something of an outlier in this trend the author was able to discern, along with others, these trends in other places but recognised what appeared to be a 'playbook' of would-be authoritarians and wannabe dictators - the Seven Steps of the title. Having such first hand knowledge and a desire to educate those who would be facing similar challenges to democracy and the rule of law that her country did (and still does) the author wrote articles at home and abroad, gave lectures and informal talks and, as here, produced books both non-fiction and fiction to get her thoughts and ideas across and to get people thinking about their own situations as well as ideas of what to do about it.  

Watching the news over the past 5-6 years it's easy to see how the 'playbook' plays out. How 'Movements' can be created from what was disparate groups of disaffected people, how Myths (and especially foundational myths) can be used to both tie the new Movement together, differentiate it from outsiders and then demonise them, how language - especially regarding the Truth [nearly always capitalised] - can be twisted to create a world of 'alternate facts' where the so-called 'reality based community' can be ridiculed for not creating its own reality as required, where the concept of shame or the need to actually apologise or, God forbid, resign after being caught red-handed with fingers in the cash box or other body parts elsewhere is both a thing of the past and is now seen as passé, how judicial and political processes can be dismantled, ignored or so bent out of shape that they become meaningless theatre, how 'real people' (naturally always in the minority) can be created out of whole cloth to compete with and ultimately replace 'others' who, no matter what they say or do, can never become really 'real', how, no matter the depths of the horror, events that would have previously given people serious pause for thought are either dismissed as 'fake news' or 'false flags', viewed as righteous retribution or laughed at. Once these elements are accepted as right, as normal, you can create your own country with the trappings of Democracy but without any of the substance.

I did find myself sadly nodding in agreement throughout this extremely well-written short work. So much so I've recently bought her follow up book and I'm looking out for her novels too. Not only is the author passionate about her work she is a very able communicator. She knows (again from first hand experience) how difficult it is to fight against this sort of anti-democratic force but she also knows that such a fight is possible and that, despite some news to the contrary, all is not lost. This is, be warned, a sobering read but also a hopeful one. Most definitely recommended to anyone who has ever wondered what they can do or how can they cope with the world as it is or seems to be moving. Definitely looking forward to reading her next book.       

Just Finished Reading: The Demon in Democracy – Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies by Ryszard Legutko (FP: 2016) [182pp] 

I seem to be getting good at picking unexpected books these days – or at least books that turned out quite different from my expectations of them. From the title I had presumed that this would be an insightful look at the authoritarian drift in some democracies seen around the world seen from the knowing perspective of someone with experience of the uber-authoritarian Soviet Union. There was ‘something’ in that here but only something. The author had other thoughts in mind and other perspectives to put forward. 

Active in the anti-communist movement in Poland the author was, understandably, delighted both with the collapse of the Soviet Union and his countries entry into the European Union – at least at first. It seems, though, that he was under two misapprehensions – that his country would immediately move significantly to the Right (as it would be difficult to move much further to the Left) and that the EU was far more politically ‘Right’ than it turned out to be. Unfortunately for the author the EU turned out to be very different from both expectations and (probably) Soviet propaganda said it would be. Politically, whilst the US is (from a European perspective anyway) centre Right (Democrat) to further Right (Republican) the EU is largely centre Left with a predominance of Social Democratic voices both across the continent and in the European parliament. Whilst there are Right and indeed far-Right voices in many countries these are, by and large, in the minority. Without reading between the lines too much it appears that the author expected and wanted the US and instead got the EU – and was not happy about it at all. 

Despite the often-annoying background noise of axes being ground into dust, the author did make some interesting and indeed valid points. It is the case that Liberal-democracies use persuasion, propaganda and the law to restrict elements of free speech - ‘hate-speech’ laws and so on. Likewise, they mandate the way minority groups are treated and will step in if they are abused or discriminated against – often overriding people’s contradictory personal or religious views (for example on abortion or Gay marriage). The author repeatedly points to the fact that the Soviet authorities used similar tactics to enforce its own ideology on their populations and tars both regimes with the same brush throughout the book. Seeing both the Soviets and the Liberal-democrats using methods to convince their citizens of the superiority of their belief systems (to the exclusion of all others) thereby gaining their loyalty and convincing them that liberal-democratic nature is simply human nature by another name. Opposition to this liberal viewpoint is then seen as perverse, wrong-headed and out of step with both history and reality itself. In this way liberal-democracies slowly eliminate the very diversity they supposedly hold as a central tenant of their ideology. The author does have a point – if a slight one – and its interesting seeing something I’ve grown up with seen (in effect) from the outside. The problem I had throughout this slim volume was the author’s obvious right-wing bias and the pervasive feeling that he wasn’t being allowed to be as illiberal as he really wanted and expected he would be in the ‘Free West’. Whilst ‘interesting’ in some senses this really didn’t appeal to me and not just because it wasn’t the book I was expecting. 

Translated from the Polish by Teresa Adelson.   

Just Finished Reading: The Woman’s Hour – The Great Fight to Win the Vote by Elaine Weiss (FP: 2018) [340pp] 

 

Just one more State would do it. Ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution was only, so they thought, weeks away. But Tennessee was going to be a hard nut the crack. Most of the prior States had been Northern and the last few States had voted not to ratify. If Tennessee failed to vote in favour of the woman’s vote that could be the end of things for years – if not forever. It was all or nothing. With the stakes being so high the pro-vote camp brought in their biggest hitters. They were opposed, likewise, by the most famous (or infamous) and most dangerous in the anti-vote camp: other women. The site of Nashville, that August 1920, was going to be the location of an epic fight between the irresistible force on one side and an immovable object on the other. Tempers would flare, accusations made of bribery, threats and intimidation, calls to honour, history and God would be made publicly, in the Press and in private. Finally, after years of work in the background, months of preparation and days of haranguing local politicians in all came down to a handful of votes in the Tennessee state house.  

Although I knew something of the women's fight for the right to vote in the UK around World War One, I wasn’t too familiar with the fight in the US. This book certainly filled that hole in my knowledge and then some. Not having much more than a passing knowledge of the American political system (and even more so how it was constituted in the 1920’s) I was unaware at just how difficult it was for women to get the vote – first an Amendment to the US Constitution would need to be arranged through Congress – this took YEARS to even get this far – and then two thirds of the States would need to ratify it before it became Federal law. As you can imagine this was a long drawn out and complex thing to accomplish – and that was without an active and growing opposition to the very idea of women voting which is one thing that actually really confuses me. 

In many ways I am a simple (or simplistic) thinker. To me a democracy is where voters cast their ballot for the person they wish to represent them in whatever flavour of representative government they have decided on. For it to be an actual democracy the vote should be available to everyone who resides in that country over a certain age (18 seems reasonable in most cases) and without any other qualification – with very few and very specific exceptions. Essentially if you’re an adult you get a vote – end of story. The idea that a system can call itself a democracy and, at the same time, restrict the vote to a sub-set of the population seems to me on the face of it nonsensical. To deny the vote to half the adult population calls into question the legitimacy of the entire system. But as ratification crept ever nearer (or so it seemed) arguments against the female vote became ever more strident – especially from women themselves (something I have never, and still do not having read this book, understood). Of course, all of the old arguments were raised in Tennessee – that women were not emotionally or intellectually fitted to political discourse or debate, that politics would in some way ‘sully’ women, that voting would make women barren (I kid you not) and that politically inclined women would leave their husbands and families or never start them in the first place and that ultimately allowing women the vote would inevitably lead to the downfall of civilisation.  

Interestingly (for me at least) was a southern ‘twist’ on the whole debate. It was put forward that allowing women to vote would call into question the honour of southern manhood and result in a petticoat government (hilariously some of the more outrageous proponents for the vote demonstrated that they were no longer wearing petticoats), furthermore there was the explosive issue of ‘States Rights’ and the imposition of unwished for laws and restrictions from the Federal government which carried the unpleasant reminder of imposed Reconstruction after the Civil War (something else that confounds me), finally the argument was put forward by the anti-vote faction that allowing women to vote would, by implication, allow BLACK women to vote and that the inevitable backlash across the South would force Washington to intervene. Better for everyone simply to let the Amendment die and for everyone to forget about it! 

To say that I learnt a lot from this detailed account of the final days to ratification of the 19th Amendment would be an understatement. Although I knew (or at least recognised) a few names – mostly on the pro-vote side and some leading politicians of the age – most of the people presented in this book were new to me as was the lengthy and convoluted process to get anything done. I was struck by the similar, often underhand, methods and tactics used in the fight to the present debacle in American politics we see on our TV screens (or on YouTube in my case) that would not be out of place in either the 1920’s or 2020’s. There’s a LOT pack into these pages and the only slight criticism I would have was that it was a little TOO detailed (or just maybe a little too unfamiliar to a non-American) for a light read, so I did struggle with it at times. But if you want to know how women finally got the vote in the USA this is most definitely a good place to start. Recommended.  

Just Finished Reading: Democracy and Its Crisis by A C Grayling (FP: 2017) [208pp] 

With the double whammy of the pro-Brexit vote and Trump’s presidential victory the so-called intellectual elite kind of lost their minds for a while and talked about the end of Democracy. Although Trump is mentioned here in passing – for context I’m guessing – most of this short book focuses on the Brexit vote. Naturally I talked to ‘the Guys’ seemingly endlessly about Brexit both before, during and after the decision(s) along the way. The author shadows some of those discussions and I agreed with quite a bit of his reasoning and arguments on the subject. He quite rightly stated that the referendum itself (much trumpeted at the time) was supposedly ‘advisory’ only and then, as if by magic, turned into the ‘Will of the People’ overnight. Or, as I liked to state, the will of 52% of the people who actually voted. That was another problem that the author and I could agree on – the fact that a large chunk of the potential voting population didn’t vote. Does that mean they were happy with the Status Quo or did they consider the question too difficult to answer or where they simply uninterested? It’s hard to tell. What I didn’t agree with was the author’s idea of making the vote – at least in this case – compulsory. That's something I’d never likely agree on. NOT voting is as much a right as voting. CHOOSING not to exercise your right is, indeed, your right. He did make an interesting statement which I’m still musing over – the idea that, in the Brexit Referendum at least, that voting should have been allowed to everyone over 16 instead of the usual 18. I can see the argument for this in this instance – as the future repercussions would be mostly felt by the younger citizens going forward – but I’m not wholly convinced. Dropping the voting age to 16 longer term might be an idea to consider but only, I think, if there was a concerted effort at political education in schools (which should already exist to be honest!). 

But does any of this actually constitute a ‘crisis’? Personally, I’d say not. The election of Trump or the ‘No’ vote in the Brexit Referendum does not, in and of themselves, mean that Democracy is in Crisis. Indeed, I do not believe that Democracy is in crisis at all across the globe. It is certainly under renewed scrutiny – in how to protect it from outside interference - and steps to ensure that it is not interfered with should be enhanced but that’s achievable, I think. Other steps, especially with the influence of social media can, likewise, be tweaked to enhance the robustness of democracy. Things can, and should, certainly be learnt from the last 5-6 years in politics which will make democracy in general stronger. But was the Brexit vote anti-democratic? I’d say no. Was it undemocratic? I’d have to say that parts of it could/should have been more democratic. It was pushed through and had to be pulled back from the edge of illegality more than once. It most definitely ruined the political careers of a number of politicians and tarnished the reputation of Parliament for years to come. It was not, overall, a very edifying process. I also don’t think the Trump election itself to be anti-democratic. Of course, the resulting 4 years in office and the subsequent activities of Trump and his supporters are another story. Was it undemocratic? I’d have to say yes on that one. Afterall Trump failed to win the popular vote which is, in my mind anyway, the whole point of democracy. Trump ‘won’ in 2016 and became President because of the Electoral College and not the actual ‘will of the people’. I’m not the only one to find that whole process as passing strange. 

So, where does that leave us? Is democracy in crisis as the author maintains? On balance I would say no. Western democracies are, generally I think, reasonably healthy. They’re certainly messy but democracy IS messy by nature. Politicians across the world’s democracies are too complacent and too ready to assume that we, the electorate, either don’t know or don’t want to know what they do or what they should do but, as they found out recently here with the loss of a Conservative seat for the first time in 200 years with a swing away of 32% people ARE paying attention. About the only place I know of where democracy seems under particular strain is, rather ironically considering the usual boasting on the subject, is the United States. After the Capitol riot (I hesitate to call it an actual insurrection) and Trump’s refusal to concede that he lost the system is being put under a lot of stress. It’s not at crisis point yet but I do think it’s headed in that direction if nothing changes soon. For the first time since the Civil War it’s actually legitimate to ask the question of whether or not the United States will still be a democracy in the next 10 years. The consequences, both in the US and around the world, of the failure of American democracy are difficult to contemplate. About the only thing that most people would agree upon is that generally they won’t be good. Interesting times...    

Just Finished Reading: Democracy Hacked – How Technology is Destabilising Global Politics by Martin Moore (FP: 2018) [272pp] 

Attempting to ‘fix’ or ‘game’ elections is as old as Democracy itself. A fake victory, after all, is just as good as a real one – if you can get away with it. Unfortunately for those who have tried this in the past the result tends to not be worth the effort – at least in actual democracies and not in places that call themselves Democratic Republic of ‘X’ or ‘Y’. Of course, you can try to hack into voting machines where they exist (we don’t have them here) but that’s really not as easy as it seems. Likewise, subverting election officials sounds fairly straightforward but never seems quite subversive enough (or widespread enough). But there is another way, rather than hacking machines, the system or even the officials you go deep – you hack the electorate! Back in the 20th you did this through radio, posters and other forms of rather crude propaganda techniques. We’ve all seen it – political rallies, torchlight parades, ‘leaders’ haranguing their followers etc. All very crude, all very unsophisticated. But this is the modern age, we have something much better, more targeted, more precise, and with far more bang for the buck. Today we have the Internet and social media. 

There’s never been anything quite like it. Back in those heady days before social media hit its stride (or its billionth subscriber) politicians spent a great deal of time crafting and delivering ‘soundbites’ on TV, kissing babies, drinking beers in pubs to provide the common touch and promising everything to everybody. But it was all scattershot and no one knew if it was actually working even after all of the votes were in. Now, Big Data and its analysis can tell you exactly what worked with what demographic and how to have an even greater impact next time. Politicians, political parties and others – both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ now have the tools and the motivation to actively and, more importantly, actually ‘game’ elections to produce the results they desire. With targeted adverts delivered with the data driven precision of a laser-guided bomb they can influence people's micro-decision making to an astonishing degree – so the data shows at least. In many ways, of course, this is what politicians have always done – lied and manipulated their way into power. But technology has now given them a greatly enhanced ability to do that and more. The problem outlined in this interesting and timely book is that our established processes are not designed to easily cope with such an intimately wired world. What it will mean going further into the 21st century as techniques become more sophisticated, algorithms get more powerful and people – especially the young – get even more connected is an open question. After years of Fake News and crude manipulation will people get better at finding the true gold hidden within the gigatons of fool's gold? Maybe. Or will people become more and more pliant as their media and other feeds become more subtle and more invasive so future voters no longer even know why exactly they voted for the candidate they did. Containing much to think about as well as much to be concerned about this is an important read for those navigating their political future – smart device in hand. Recommended.             

Just Finished Reading: The Death of Democracy – Hitler’s Rise to Power by Benjamin Carter Hett (FP: 2018) [235pp]

The German Weimar Republic came into existence following the end of the First World War. It was born during the crisis of Germany’s defeat and continued in crisis throughout much of its short 15 years of existence. As new as the Republic was the democracy that supported it was almost as young. Until the German nation needed to show the victorious Allies – and particularly the Americans – that they were really a Democracy too and should be treated like one (rather than a military supported Monarchy) – most of the poorer German people couldn’t exercise their vote and little that the constituent assembly in the Reichstag decided during the reign of the Kaiser rose above the level of advice. Power, since German unification in 1871, was solidly in the hands of the military, the Kaiser and Prussia. So democratic roots, where they existed at all, had yet to move much beyond the surface.

Into the chaos of a defeated nation the political parties of early Weimar covered the whole gamut from far Left to far Right. But 1919 and 1920 were years of revolution and counter revolution – of attempted coups, assassinations and threats of uprisings and invasions. Democratic politics generally took second place to street fighting and the sound of gunfire. Disorder and confusion was the order of the day and day after day. Slowly though things began to normalise. Coalition governments – as the country had a system of Proportional Representation – existed mostly around the Centre Left of the Social and Christian Democrats. But these governments were generally weak and short lived. The Communists – allied to the new Soviet Union – made up a significant part of the Reichstag but would not co-operate with other Socialistic parties which they held in contempt as ‘class enemies’. On the far Right a handful of parties fought for votes amongst them the newly formed NSDAP – the Nazi Party. At the time no one really took them seriously. Their vote was tiny and their influence insignificant. They could draw crowds – that was certain, especially after Adolf Hitler joined and subsequently led them – but crowds consistently failed to morph into votes. So it continued….

As the 1920’s dragged on, and fights over Reparations continued to define much of the political agenda, further crisis and turmoil unsettled the country. As the centre parties continued to disagree and fail the country the voters turned to alternatives on the Left and Right of the spectrum. The Communists started to win more seats and more support as did the reducing number of larger Right wing parties. It was here that the first of a series of fatal mistakes were made by political forces on the Right and the major Industrialist who supported them against the Communist threat. Sensing an opportunity for advancement of his programme Hitler positioned himself and his still fledgling party – although much larger by now – as the solution to the Communists. Again initially dismissed some in government saw the Nazi’s as a way to manipulate things in their favour until they could be disposed of. They were to be used as a means to an end, nothing more. But Hitler had other ideas and so the dance began. But when the music stopped it was the would-be manipulators that failed to acquire the all-important chairs.

Important though it is and as vital as it is not to be forgotten I do find myself rather uninterested in the ‘Rise of Hitler’ narrative. As a political and historical chronicle is has, with justification, been done to death. However, I did find myself honestly riveted to this almost blow by blow account of how first the political and economic position of Germany between the wars provided fertile ground for the rise of the Nazi’s and, more importantly I think, how self-serving politicians and frankly incompetent power brokers not only allowed Hitler to gain the Chancellorship but actively aided him on the patent misunderstanding that he could be controlled or manipulated for their benefit. At no point did they think that they themselves were the manipulated ones or that they were enabling or facilitating their own dooms. Indeed many of those who died on or soon after the ‘Night of the Long Knives’ were surprised and shocked that the Nazi’s could turn against them so effectively. Despite every piece of evidence to the contrary they apparently never saw it coming!

As with all good history books this reinforced the idea that everything we might think of an inevitable is in fact highly contingent. There were SO many ways Hitler’s rise might have failed. He was injured twice in the war and could have been killed, several of his followers just feet away from him during the ‘Beer Hall Putsch’ were shot and killed and any of those bullets could have hit him, the judge at his subsequent trail could have deported him (as an Austrian) but didn’t….. and so on. The failure of the Weimar Republic was not inevitable – even after the Wall Street Crash. It was the action of individuals, making often self-serving decisions, which put him in power and imperilled the world in the years that followed. That, I think, is the most important message we can take from the events and this excellent book that covers them. Recommended.     

Just Finished Reading: How Democracy Ends by David Runciman (FP: 2018) [224pp]

Thinking about the end of Democracy is almost as difficult as thinking about the end of Capitalism. Although Democracy has a long history, going way back to the ancient Greek city of Athens, in its recognisable modern form it’s only a few hundred years old or, if you take it as only valid under universal franchise, around 100 years old in most western nations. Clearly Democracy wasn’t the normal form of government for most of human history and there will, inevitably, be a time after Democracy just as there was a LONG time before it. But how exactly will Democracy end? That’s what this fascinating little book hopes to answer – or at least meaningfully speculate about.

The author essentially puts forward 4 scenarios where Democracy fails in some fashion. The first is in a Coup. The author considers the odds of any established democracy anywhere in the world falling to a coup to be very low indeed. He even states that “No democracy has reverted to military rule once GDP is greater than $8,000 per person”. I don’t know if that’s true but it wouldn’t hugely surprise me. Coups can only be successful when a population has little or no investment – in all its senses – in their government or the structure of the state. It is difficult indeed even conceiving of anywhere where democracy has set down roots that such a thing could occur. The problem I can think of here is exactly how you define the regimes across the world as democratic – Turkey? Egypt? Chile? – and exactly how deeply the democratic impulse is. How easy is it, for example, to point to a country and say “Well, they’re not really a democracy” or “Well, they haven’t been a democracy LONG enough for it really to take hold”. As always it’s all about where you draw the line. But generally speaking I’d say the author is right. A modern coup in a democratic state is highly unlikely (and the results are probably short lived before democracy comes back).

The second scenario is Catastrophe. When nasty substances hit fans there can be little time or little incentive to vote on the response. But, if history tells us anything is that people still vote in even the direst times. After all we voted in BOTH World Wars, we’ve voted in global recessions and global pandemics and I think it would take a LOT for elections to be postponed or shelved for the length of any emergency. The only way that I think something like that could happen would be after a truly MAJOR catastrophe – like a nuclear war or large asteroid strike – in other words something that was an existential threat. But even in those cases, as long as we survive as a species or functioning society/civilisation, any suspension of the democratic process would most probably be a temporary one. Again if people have any great investment in a state they will inevitably want a say and an influence in how that state is run and how it affects their lives. I doubt if a non-democratic state could last long in these circumstances.

The third scenario is Technological Takeover. By this the author doesn’t mean the advent of Terminator style machines eliminating the electorate on mass but the subversion of electorates by the mega tech companies like Facebook, Google and their cohorts. If people can be convinced to ‘express themselves’ through Likes and re-tweets rather than actually voting for real people who have actual real policies then democracy could be undermined to an extent that people stop caring, stop bothering to vote or taking much interest in politics outside their own particular micro-bubbles online. Flame wars and Twitter storms might be an amusing way to pass time during a boring meeting but democracy it isn’t. Until recently I would’ve said that this was a much more likely outcome than the first two. But events, not just in the present US election but across the world, have made me more confident that people just won’t settle for a quick tweet or an Instagram post and feel like they’ve done ‘their part’ or even achieved anything. People are still willing and able to put their phones down long enough to make some badly written signs and get out there and protest. It’s even likely, I suggest, that technology can actually strengthen and deepen democracies as we move beyond a simple candidate vote every 4-5 years to secure local or national referendums on a whole host of issues that can be tallied almost instantly – and publically – to test the temperature of the larger electorate.

The last scenario is if Something Better comes along. Some, like Nick Land, propose a kind of national corporation where ex-citizens become little more than customers for products, services and anything else that is presently provided for by government. We would, in effect, ‘vote’ by using our choices and purchase power. Of course there is a real alternative to democracy right now on the opposite side of the world – China. Could that be the future just around the corner for the rest of us? Maybe. Pragmatic 21^st century Authoritarianism, like we are beginning to see in some unexpected places, might be what enough people want without the burden of political activity or conflict. Could we instead move towards as Epistocracy – a system based on knowledge rather than citizenship? Or an Aristocracy – in the Greek sense – a society run by ‘the best’ for the rest of us (how you choose ‘the best’ is a whole other issue of course!). Certainly Liberal Democracy isn’t necessarily part of the fabled ‘End of History’.

Overall this was an interesting work, full of interesting ideas to think about. Personally I don’t think Democracy is going anywhere – certainly not to its end point – any time soon. It might possibly be middle-aged but it’s certainly not in its dotage. Is Democracy the final stage of politics? Probably not. It’s possible that Democracy is simply part of an eternal cycle moving to Oligarchy, Tyranny and back to Democracy again. Or maybe we’ll come up with something better, maybe something no one has tried yet. A recommended read for all the political thinkers out there.  

Just Finished Reading: How Democracies Die – What History Reveals About Our Future by Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt (FP: 2018) [231pp]

As usual I picked this book up at least a year or more ago (when it came out in paperback) and it has been languishing in a pile ever since. Now seemed a particularly apposite time to pick it up (along with the following 2 books) and read it.

Despite everything happening on both sides of ‘the pond’ I’m not one of those believers who think that Democracy itself is under any existential threat nor would I even go so far as to say that it is under crisis. This is clear, I think, from the amount of engagement – both appropriate and even inappropriate that’s happening presently with protest marches and much else besides. I felt that Democracy was far more in danger from the seemingly inexorable disengagement of a bored and uninterested electorate. You can say many things about the present state of our Democracies in both the UK and US but you cannot say that they are boring, uninteresting or that people are generally disengaged – quite the opposite in fact!

This book was written as a reaction to the election of Donald Trump that shocked and dismayed so many people on the ‘Left’ of US politics. The authors – both professors at Harvard – wanted to understand how such a thing could happen and what it meant for the future of American democracy. Not only did they look for external examples of failed or failing Democracies – Pinochet’s Chile and Erdogan’s Turkey – but, rather inevitably, Italy in the 1920’s and Germany in the 1930’s. They also looked at the historic examples of both France and Britain in the 1930’s who managed to fight off any drift into authoritarian or totalitarian regimes there. But their main focus was the growing erosion and subsequent failure of the American electoral system to first allow the rise of someone like Trump – and as they point out there had often been someone like Trump on the fringes of the Republican Party in particular (with figures like Coughlin, Long, McCarthy and Wallace regularly winning 30-40% support) – and then actively supporting them within the Party to the necessary exclusion of moderates and the dismantling of any idea of a ‘broad church’ approach. The prevention of previous authoritarian demagogues rising to the top and getting their names on nomination tickets was deeply undemocratic and generally took place during discussions between the Party grandees in smoke filled rooms, in private, away from the Press and the electorate – the Party Machine. As the 1960’s moved into the 1970’s this process became less and less acceptable and less and less palatable to the public. Ironically, the authors observed, an increase in democracy has actually put Democracy in peril.

The authors make it very clear that Trump is not an aberration and is far from unprecedented. What is new is that the Republican Party in general supported him as much as they did to get him elected. Trump could never become President on his own as many Independent candidates have found out to their (dollar) cost. The Party Machine got him elected so even if he leaves office next January the ‘age of Trump’ style politicians – or even Presidents - may not be over.

This was a very good and timely read. I picked up a great deal of how American politics works and, probably more interestingly, was introduced to just how much of the American electorate has ALWAYS supported people like Trump. For at least the last 60 years – and maybe the last 160 years – around 30-40% of Americans seem to WANT an authoritarian leader. That honestly knocked me back on my heels for a while. So much for the ‘Land of the Free’. Most definitely recommended.

Just Finished Reading: Greek and Roman Political Ideas by Melissa Lane (FP: 2014)

Like much else in western culture the Greeks seem to have invented politics which, again with much else, the Romans seem to have adopted, adapted and spread across the known world. With hundreds of individual city states the Greeks could effectively experiment in tiny social laboratories to discover the best types of political form which they categorised into three separate strands – rule by one, by some and by many. From these strands they highlighted both the best and worst versions of each, with the best being Monarchy, Aristocracy (my personal favourite) and Polity, with the worst forms being Tyranny, Oligarchy and (rather oddly to our ears) Democracy. In Roman terms, once they absorbed Greece into their ever expanding sphere of influence, Monarchy became Imperial rule and Democracy became the basis for the Roman Republic.

Of course when we speak of Greek and Roman democracy will are not talking of what passes for democracy in most of the developed world where disengaged ‘citizens’ cast their votes in ever decreasing numbers each 4-5 years. Back in the founding years the electorate had political activity at the heart of their existence – indeed the word idiot derives from the Greek for those who are political disengaged private citizens (so little has changed there I think!). Then of course there are the limits of who gets to vote to take into account. Here and in many other democracies across the world we have universal suffrage – where the only criteria is that you live here and are over 18 (plus a few other caveats). Back in the day not only did you need to be a citizen (with both parents being citizens) but you had to be male, free (not a slave) and to meet the property qualifications. Inevitably many people residing within any particular Greek polis where excluding from the political process.

Both Greece and Rome, no matter their other failings, had some interesting ideas: huge juries (often hundreds strong or even into the thousands for important cases), political office by lottery – at least at the lower levels – with short one year occupancy with reports of how well the incumbent did scrutinised by juries. Some of that might still work today. The high level of commitment however is probably a no-go because, well to be honest, we need to work to earn money to live – so precisely the people prevented from voting back in antiquity! Probably the only way we could have fully participatory democracy is to have slaves (machines no doubt) doing all of our work whilst we politicised our lives away. I suppose that it could be fun if you like that sort of thing.

Anyway, if you think you know where our politics comes from this book might both surprise and delight you. Written in an easily digestible style I learnt a great deal almost without any perceived effort – just the way I like it (sometimes anyway). If you also think that events back at the edge of history have no relevance today this book will certainly disabuse you of that! Recommended.

Just Finished Reading: Political Philosophy – A Beginners’ Guide for Students and Politicians by Adam Swift (FP: 2006)

This is another step in my effort to have a better grounding and better understanding of politics – especially after the recent ‘shock’ of trying, and after great concentration and effort succeeding I hope, to understand a work of contemporary political philosophy.

I actually liked the authors approach very much. He sets out to deconstruct what politicians say on various topics in order to tease out what they actually mean (or could mean) if they were speaking with philosophical clarity – which, for various reasons, they tend not to. He often started with a stance or typical politicians statement about, for example Social Justice, and then took a step back asking what they meant and then proceeded to discuss modern thought on the topic whilst, where required, a bit of historical context. The topics covered are those you’d probably expect from such a work – Social Justice (already alluded to), Liberty, Equality, Community and the biggie, Democracy.

Under Social Justice he discussed the views of Hayek, Rawls and Nozick. Under Liberty he discussed 3 distinctions between conceptions of liberty and different ideas of Freedom. Under Equality he discussed opportunity, relative equalities (are gaps important or not) and positional goods. For a change of emphasis under Community he attempted to answer 7 main objections to the Liberal view of the State. Finally under Democracy he outlined the different types or degrees of Democracy and inquired into its values.

Although a little dry and academic in places, which is not difficult given the subject matter, this was still a very readable volume full of whit, humour and an ability to get to the heart of ideas without the use of too much jargon or assumed knowledge. As introductions go this was a pretty good one. I think I understand some of the underlying foundations of the main topics more than previously so I guess it was certainly a success from my point of view. I didn’t find myself disagreeing with his views too often but that didn’t make his arguments boring in the least. If you do find yourself struggling with what politicians in particular mean, or want you to hear, when they open their mouths this is definitely the book for you. When they use words like Community or Justice or even Democracy itself you’ll be able to form meaningful questions in your mind and more easily analyse exactly what they’re trying to get across to you in order to get your vote. Such knowledge is (or should be) highly valued in a world of sound bites and difficult decisions. Arm yourself with this book and others like it. Knowledge is indeed power!  

Just Finished Reading: An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff (FP: 2006)

Over the past few months I’ve been working up a head of steam to get into reading political books. As I recently discussed elsewhere a mere 6% of my reading is in the field of politics despite having strongly held opinions on the subject (or maybe because of that very reason – why read books on a subject where I’ve largely already made up my mind?).  Taken together with my utter distaste for politicians of all persuasions and my recent decision to stop voting for any of the major political parties my incentive to dive into a politics book has been pretty low. But, partly prompted by a series of books I’ve stumbled across which promises some very interesting political commentary and partially by appreciating that my lack of political depth is a deficiency that needs to be addressed, I’ve decided to bite the bullet and give it a go.

What better place to start, I thought, than a broad introductory work to get me back into the flow of things and bring me up to date with present thinking. Wolff’s book certainly provided that informed and often entertaining entry into the political world albeit from within my comfort zone of philosophy. Well, I had to start somewhere and my comfort zone seemed like a pretty good place to start from. What interested me almost from the beginning was the author’s admission that there are no easy answers to even the simplest of questions. Despite apparently endless discussion and debate down the centuries no one, it would seem, has come up with a cast-iron defence of ideas which many people in the developed west take for granted as being practically self-evident and virtually incontestable – that the State is so completely necessary that it’s non-existence is unthinkable, that Democracy is the best form of government, that Liberty is the virtue par excellence and that all other political virtues spring from this defining principle and that the individual should be the focus of all political discourse as holders of inviolate rights that can never be overturned by a higher authority. Each thought or assumption had a chapter to itself where the author struggled with ideas and defences put up (or torn down) by a host of political philosophers both past and present. The only chapter which appeared to deviate from this format was on the distribution of wealth which concentrated on, indeed seemed to be more of a detailed proposal for, rather than a debate about, the work of John Rawls. I’d come across his ideas before and was rather unconvinced by the whole thing and having to wade through a chapter on the same subject was almost too much for me. But putting one turgid chapter aside this was generally a very good book which, in true philosophic style came to no great conclusion on anything but hopefully stated that at least we understand the problem a bit more now! It did give me much to think about and much to mull over. I had thought that the foundations of western democratic capitalism had been fairly well thought out over the preceding few centuries and that we had a fair idea of what exactly it is we want and how to get it. Apparently not – which I suppose makes the whole thing that much more interesting and important. Much more politics to come. 

Just Finished Reading: Towards the Light – The Story of the struggles for Liberty and Rights that made the modern West by A C Grayling

I was doing my best to resist reading any non-fiction history on top of my recent batch of historical novels but could hardly resist something like this – a long look at the idea of liberty by one of my all-time favourite modern philosophers. Needless to say I was not disappointed.

Set within a chronological narrative Professor Grayling starts with the fight for religious freedom from was, at that time, the only major Western faith – Catholicism. The great schism that produced the Protestant churches (themselves the product of later schisms) was the spark that lit the fuse which blew apart the idea of any kind of unassailable power based on simple authority. From that point there was no going back. After religious liberty was established it, rather inevitably, led to greater and greater freedom of thought – freedom that led to scientific investigation that ultimately began to undermine the idea of religion itself. Once the authority of the church (and even God) had been questioned, challenged and, to varying degrees overthrown, it was not long before these free thinkers began looking at the power and authority (often seen as divine in nature) of those who ruled over us. Questions of their legitimacy soon followed along with calls from greater and greater enfranchisement of the population. Hot on the heels of those questions came the issues of women’s rights, slavery, and the rights of racial minorities. All in all it has been a hard fought and hard won fight for the increasing liberty of individuals within a more just society. Progress indeed!

There were many things I liked about this book – not least of which was the author’s impressive breadth of knowledge and ease of bringing an immense subject down to manageable proportions. He also introduced me to some new men and women who fought for the freedoms that many of us – including me – often take for granted. I have been quoting some of those here over the last few weeks. In the almost 300 page book I only had a single gripe. The author rightly stated that both the French and American revolutions and declaration of rights had a huge influence on liberty in the modern West. Were I disagreed with him was his seemingly blinkered statement that, before 9/11 and the resulting increase in restrictions on freedoms enshrined in the Patriot Acts and other legislation, American was in some way a singular shining paragon of virtue. Now I will be the first to say that my knowledge of American history is rather incomplete and is, in some areas, rather sketchy but just off the top of my head I can think of slavery (which the author considered to be unfortunate in the US), the virtual extinction of its indigenous population, the treatment of African –Americans after slavery was banned, the treatment of Japanese-Americans during WW2, the McCarthy witch hunts, the Salem witch trials, the treatment of women and gays, the treatment of atheists and other ‘minority’ groups, the union busting in the early 20^th century and so on which do not exactly reflect kindly on a country that prides itself of being at the vanguard of liberty. But that small criticism aside, this is still a very readable and very valuable defence of the principle of liberty which is all the more valuable considering the troubled times we live in. If you haven’t read anything by Grayling before I can think of worse places to start. Highly recommended.  

Just Finished Reading: The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby

I impulse bought this a few weeks ago whilst browsing through the 3 for 2 section in Waterstone’s bookstore. I’ve wondered for a while why the US was unique in its disbelief in Evolution for example. I hoped that this book could enlighten me on the subject. In some ways it did – at least partially.

Susan Jacoby attempts to answer this question: What is it about American Society that makes so many people anti-intellectual? Ultimately after a smidge over 300 pages I think she actually fails to answer that question – though she does provide some interesting hints and ideas along the way. The final destination might have been disappointing but the journey was generally worth it. Rather predictably, and somewhat inevitably, Jacoby points one of her fingers at the dumbing effects of television. To an extent I can agree with her. It is not unusual for me to cycle through every channel – however many there are – and discover that there is simply nothing worth watching and even less that is in any way challenging, mind expanding or remotely educational. Such things are, however, not particular to either side of the Atlantic Ocean. Her other major hobby horses are the decline in book readership and a similar decline in good conversation (sapped by the fact that everyone is watching the boob tube). Again I can agree with her up to a point. We seem to talk a lot these days – on mobile phones and on-line – but we don’t seem to be saying very much. I enjoy chatting as much as the next person but find that most conversations are ephemeral at best. The Art of Conversation is, I’m afraid, pretty much extinct. Regarding books and reading, I know several people who proudly boast that they have never read a book since school and wear such a declaration as a badge of honour. The average person – I read somewhere – reads on average three books a year. But I also see people reading books everywhere and I nearly always have to stand in line at bookshops. I can’t say for certain what it’s like in the US but books are far from dead over here.

Throughout her book Jacoby does point out some unique features of American society – as contrasted with European examples – that might point to the reason (she contends) that Americans are much more likely to be anti-intellectual (and by implication dumb) than other Western style countries. She mentions a lack of national educational standards and national agreed upon curricula. She, interestingly I thought, puts forward the idea that the lack of a State religion allows people who dissent to simply form one more to their liking rather than rebel against something thereby forcing themselves to think outside the box. She points to the Right’s ability to label the Left as Intellectuals and elitists who cannot be trusted because of the previous association with Communism. She lays a fair amount of blame at the door of the 60’s Counter-Culture and the Right-wing backlash both of which damaged the application of reasoned discourse. She blames the decline of serious magazines and the widespread dumbing down of culture to what people can absorb during the average visit to the toilet and, of course, she lays a great deal of blame at the feet of fundamentalists and the apparent growing number of people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, an idea which is anathema to the very concept of critical thinking.

Despite all of this I don’t think she makes a strong enough case for American exceptionalism. Many of the things she points to happened in Europe too – though maybe not to the same extent. Yet intellectuals are still held up as heroes especially in Continental Europe and even here in the UK. I suppose that the obvious difference between both cultures is that of religion. Europe appears to be divesting itself of its love affair with ancient myths whist the US is unique in the West by not only retaining its religious beliefs but seemingly strengthening them. This in itself is very odd and needs to be explained. However, I don’t think that this phenomenon in itself can explain American unreason. So, although the book was interesting, informative and well argued I think that Susan Jacoby failed to make her case. Despite this I think that she gave it a good run for its money and made some very good points. I certainly know much more about the reasons behind American culture than I did before reading this book and I’m glad that I did so. Jacoby’s book is well written and will give readers much to think about. Recommended.

Just Finished Reading: The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

This is yet another book that has been sitting on my shelves for quite some time. I bought it as a part of the collection of 20 Great Ideas books that changed the World sort of thing. Of the 20 I’m afraid that this is only the 2nd volume I’ve read to date – shame on me.

Anyway, I finally had to read this for my university course and polished it off in only a few days. Written in 1762 this classic of political philosophy is both surprisingly modern and easy to read. Rousseau puts forward the then revolutionary idea that the people, rather than the absolute monarch or aristocratic elite, and the sovereign entity in any state and that they – and they alone – can determine the type of government they will allow to govern them. This was incendiary stuff in the later 18th Century and copies of this work were actually publically burnt in his home city of Geneva (which personally I would count as quite an accolade).

Famous for his championing of the noble savage, Rousseau considered that the invention of society had been a basic error of judgement that, unfortunately, could not easily be undone so attempted to devise the best form of governments in the circumstances. He suggested that Monarchy was the best form of government for large countries or empires, that aristocracy (in the Ancient Greek sense of the best) for medium sized countries and democracy was only fit for small poor countries. He was also – despite being a devout Calvinist – dead set against the involvement of religion (in particular Catholicism) in the running or influencing of the State.

Despite being very much of its time The Social Contract (and its predecessor – of which more later) is a surprisingly modern sounding book. His analysis of political power and its abuses could easily be written today. His warnings about the corrupting effect of money could, likewise, be taken from the pages of today’s newspapers. Rousseau is definitely still worth reading and is, I think, more than capable of shining a light on modern political events. Highly recommended.

Just Finished Reading: Political Philosophy – A Very Short Introduction by David Miller.

Yes, another VSI book. I’m certainly working my way through them at quite a pace. I just hope that as well as being interesting they’re going to turn out to be useful too.

Anyway…. As with most of these books the title is pretty self-explanatory. Professor Miller outlines the major themes of Political philosophy as well as giving his own opinions on the subjects he covers. These subjects are – The need for political philosophy which was nicely illustrated by the Allegory of Good and Bad Government by Ambrogio Lorenzetti, the roots of political Authority, the various meanings of Democracy, the idea of Freedoms and the limits of Government because of them, the idea of Justice and the modern idea of Social justice, the impact of feminism and multiculturalism and finally a section on how States interact with each other on the global stage and the ideal of Global justice.

All in all quite a fast romp through just about every subject in the political philosophy handbook. Unlike the previous VSI book on Foucault I did manage to keep up with this one without bending my mind too much. It all seemed to be pretty straight forward (which was comforting). Like all of my previous VSI book this managed to expand my knowledge of the subject and prompt me to read further on the subject too, so they have all performed exactly as promised. A highly recommended series of books.