John Heatly Responds to Carol
(December 2010)
Carol's query: How did you become so interested in these topics?
I first fell in love America, both geography and people, when I spent
several months back-packing around the States between leaving school and
going to university at the end of the 60s (yes I am that old....) and
Greyhounding in the early 70s. The vibrancy, optimism and can-do
attitude of Americans at that time, despite all the societal dislocation
of Vietnam protest/Kent State/Chicago Convention/Civil Rights battles
etc, stood in sharp contrast to the dreary, class-ridden, mean-spirited
and defeatist society of Britain in the 70s (is better now) and, as a
young man, I wanted to see what made it "tick."
I believe that, to understand a
society you have also to understand how it came to be the way it is -
i.e. its history and the history of the societies that influenced it.
So I set out to study it. Luckily, despite being "separated by a common
language," that language is English (sorta) - and it is accessible
through culture and history in a way Chinese, for instance, isn't (to
me.) So I got immersed and have stayed that way. I'm actually less
interested in politics than the forces that mold societies and cultures -
my way in is to try to understand the historical roots and converse
with people living in the society (thank you Tim Berners-Lee). Hence my
interest in this debate......
It's also axiomatic that, to
understand the world we live, in you have to understand the viewpoints
of the major movers and shakers - and how they came to be what they
are. Understanding the 18th/19th Century world is not possible without
understanding the British Empire and European philosophy and conflicts,
understanding that of the 20th/21st is not possible without at least
trying to understand America, postwar Europe and, now, China and the
BRICS. Thankfully information is now more accessible than it's ever
been (no, I don't mean Wikileaks!) So that's my excuse.
Re Carol's comments on "Military etc":
I draw a sharp distinction between the military itself and the uses to
which is too often put. My school was founded in honour of Britain's
most successful soldier, Wellington, and my nephew has served in Iraq
and is currently on his 2nd tour of duty in Afghanistan - so I have
nothing but admiration for those who serve in the military. Indeed, in
most Western Societies, the (non-conscript) professional military
represents some the finer values of civic society - responsibility,
duty, honour and selflessness. The Roman Legionary continued to uphold
the values of the Roman Republic long after the Republic itself had
been corrupted by the Punic wars, Sulla, Caesar and the rottenness of
the Imperium.
Likewise the Wermacht were one of
the few elements of German Society that tried to resist the Nazification
of Germany (indeed it was largely Wermacht officers who tried to
assassinate Hitler in 1944) although ultimately the horrors of the
Eastern Front, SS purges and the Nazification of the officer corps
resulted in the destruction of its values.
My beef is more with the uses to
which the military is put by its political masters (and their
paymasters), the subverting of civic values which often results and the
damaging effects on society as a whole of military adventurism -
particularly abroad. Vietnam was pretty disastrous for American Society
in the 70s - runaway inflation and inter-generational conflict - and,
even though the first Iraq war was, by most people's definition, a
"just" war, one consequence was to attract the hatred of Bin Laden et al
(infidel troops on sacred Muslim soil - worse female infidels.....)
away from his primary focus - Saudi Arabia - to the USA (and the UK) -
with all the consequences that have followed for a free society.
And they haven't been good. In
the US, to the proliferation of a mutually competing alphabet soup of
intelligence agencies (16 at the last count?) and the inevitable loss of
civil liberties (The Patriot Act compared to the Bill of Rights would
have old John Adams spinning in his grave) must be added the greatly
increased government "oversight" of all Americans (kinda where we came
in.) Each move may be necessary of itself but the law of unintended
consequences is at work..... your professor is right. In the UK it was
Tony Blair - from a party that supposedly believes in civil liberties -
(he's much more popular in the USA than he is here.....) who oversaw the
most dramatic expansion in government surveillance and restrictions on
civil liberties ever seen in peacetime.....
Britain had a very romantic view
of its military and gloried in its achievements in the 19th Century -
when, crucially, we only read about the exploits in the press as wars
happened "over there" and didn't directly impinge on home society. That
changed markedly in the 20th century when the full horrors of
industrialised warfare were visited on the citizens as well as the
soldiery via conscription, the Somme, Atlantic convoys, Blitz,
destruction of Coventry etc.
Continental Europeans have had a
much more direct experience of war being fought on their home soil -
which might explain why they are so antagonistic to it. One can't
really understand the psyche of the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"
unless one is aware of what the French citizenry suffered at
Passchendale, Ypres, the Somme and between 1940-45.
The US has been fortunate that, since the Civil War, warfare has been
mostly abroad; the two classic exceptions being Pearl Harbour and 9/11
and (not in any way to diminish them) both were single-item atrocities,
not sustained military warfare conducted on USA soil. It is when the
effects of warfare are felt directly by citizens (e.g. in Vietnam by
conscripts coming home in body bags on instant TV news) that romanticism
tends to wither. After all, no one understands the true horror of war
better than a soldier - which is why most modern wars aren't started by
soldiers but by politicians......
Re Carol's comments on Healthcare:
This is probably one of the areas where USA and "old" Europe differ
most in philosophy. In Europe it is axiomatic that access to healthcare
is a universal human right and should not be dependent on wealth -
something the state has a duty to ensure. In the USA personal
responsibility (and freedom) extends to healthcare and, as recent
battles have shown, many Americans feel that, for the state to be
involved, freedoms must be sacrificed. In Europe it is felt that the
profit motive should play no part in the health of citizens; in America
it is axiomatic that the profit motive is essential to ensure
efficiency, quality, innovation and delivery.
Given that demand for healthcare
is, essentially, infinite (particularly with medical scientific
advances) but affordable supply is limited (however much you spend,) at
bottom the two philosophies represent different ways of controlling
access to scarce resources. In America by price/affordability: in
Europe by queues/allocation...... The advantage of the American system
is that price does act to restrict demand. If you pay you're less likely
to misuse the system and, in theory at least, may be more willing to
look after your health better (but, given the obesity epidemic I'm less
sure practice meets theory.....) In Europe "free at the point of
delivery" means little incentive for citizens to practice healthy
lifestyles - and the system runs the very real risk of getting clogged
up with the trivial and irresponsible as well as bureaucracy. And, of
course, in America it results in lower taxation (but not necessarily
lower costs of healthcare) - which is good for taxpayers.
The result is that, measured by
inputs, America spends a higher proportion of its GDP on healthcare than
any European country and, measured by outputs, USA healthcare can be
the best in the world. It is also the most expensive which leads to
millions of citizens unable to access proper care unless they have
either job or wealth. Conversely, measured by inputs, Europeans spend
less and, measured by outputs, European healthcare is probably not as
high quality at the top end but is more uniform in delivery to all. If
you can afford it the service element of the USA system (waiting times
etc) is far better - if you can afford it. However, if your insurance
company decides to drop you, the results can be dire - as a friend of
mine living in the States knows all too well.
All healthcare is ultimately paid
by insurance. In Europe that mostly means state insurance - i.e. higher
taxes. This has the advantage of divorcing need from ability to pay
(not least pay for Insurance Company profits) but has the disadvantage
of leading often to inefficiencies (The British NHS is the third largest
single organisation in the world after the Chinese army and Indian
Railways - how do you manage that efficiently...?) It also,
necessarily, means the State has to decide what treatments are covered
and what are not - i.e. bureaucracy and what can be construed as
arbitrariness. In the States Insurance is private which (so long as you
or your employer can pay the premiums) means treatment can,
theoretically, be limitless. But it can be just as arbitrary (if you
are poor, unlucky or the insurance companies cancel you as not
profitable....)
Both systems have their advantages
and disadvantages - and both are equally susceptible to parody. To the
European eye the USA system leads to well-padded corporate profits and
cosmetic surgery as conspicuous consumption alongside the poor and
unfortunate suffering for lack of a basic human right. To Americans the
European system leads to more state/bureaucratic control (higher
taxes/state control of medical care,) longer waiting times and more
overcrowding. To right wing Americans European Grannies die because an
uncaring state decides they're not "useful" (not true actually) whereas
to Europeans American Grannies die because they're not "profitable" (not
true of course since, err, state-funded Medicare...) Both positions
are overstated, but both have enough of a grain of truth to be
recognisable.
As with most things the optimum
probably lies somewhere in the middle. To my eye it's just as
ridiculous that no one, however wealthy, has to pay anything for
healthcare (UK) as it is that if you can't afford it you're denied it
(USA). In my world everyone would have equal access, everyone would pay
(so they'd use the system responsibly and have a vested interest in
driving costs down/promoting efficiency) and the poor/unlucky/those with
congenital illness would receive rebates through the social security
system. And, yes, I'd have government run insurance to run alongside
(not instead of) the private system simply to drive costs down by acting
as competition to what is now a cartel. Un-American I know but......
Both systems have to change at some point as society simply can't afford
the costs for much longer (healthcare cost inflation in all Western
countries consistently runs far ahead of general inflation and is
exceeded only by defence inflation......)
At some point societies have to
take preventative/holistic/lifestyle healthcare more seriously than they
do now - but to do that the systems must change to encourage it - and
that means taking on vested interests. Currently in Europe the
"encouragement" can only come from the State (i.e. more Nanny State,
more "control" etc. - the system has its own built in vested interests)
and there is there a natural resistance from ordinary people to be
"told" what's "best for them" by bureaucrats. Conversely in the States
there are enormous private vested interests in play who do jolly well
out the current system of expensive curative care - so why would they
want to reduce demand?
If you're covered by your employer's insurance why should you care anyway? Or if the state will pay and it's free for you why should you care anyway?
Sorry for verbosity, blame it on
my training which taught me that assertion without argument/evidence is
prejudice. (I'm currently re-reading Mark Twain's essays - someone
equally argumentative......)
John Continues in January 2011
On Carol's "comments on comments," John adds a few "thoughts from abroad" on the her very valid points:
"Democracy/Constitutional Republic etc."
One of the reasons I have long been fascinated with the American
"experiment" is that it is one of the few times in history (only time?)
that men (was, of course, only men) have successfully planned a
governmental system based on a set of principles unencumbered by too
much "baggage" of existing infrastructures.
And they did a damn fine job - the
written constitution, separation of powers, Bill of Rights etc. are
shining examples of how things could be arranged in a rational society
rather than one trammelled by the burden of existing privilege, power
and superstition. Much of the thinking mirrored and was drawn from the
Enlightenment philosophers of Europe - but in Europe the "men of reason"
(Tom Paine etc.) failed because they couldn't achieve their purpose
without overthrowing existing structures; those structures were in place
and weren't going to go without a fight to the death. So the "rational
enlightenment," in e.g.18th century France and later in Russia, failed
as it dissolved into bloody mutual murder (first Kings and Aristos, then
anyone who disagreed or might disagree etc.), the inevitable outcome
being the emergence of "Big Men" (Napoleon, Lenin/Stalin.)
In America the existing power
structures were "over there" - weeks or even months away and, once their
forces had been defeated, the way was clear for a rational
construction. The outcome was not inevitable, still needed greatness to
achieve it, but more possible - the existing power structure wasn't
going to fight to the death for remote colonies as the real base of its
power was in the UK. So it was necessary to defeat the Power's army but
it wasn't necessary (or possible) to embark on a pogrom of the
privileged with the all the potential for descent into anarchy that
involved.
Absolutely agree that the
intention was not democracy as we understand it - these men were, at the
end of the day, 18th Century Whigs and it was axiomatic to them that
Freedom and the rule of Law was the right only of men of property.
Excluded were, especially, women, Native Americans and slaves. In this
sense their world view was absolutely consonant with their 18th Century
European Whig counterparts where both women and slaves were, legally,
"Property." Not until the late 19th/early 20th Century did "democracy"
in the sense of universal rights of citizenship with equal voting rights
become the received wisdom in either America (14/15/19th Amendments) or
(some parts of) Europe.
The Separation of Powers (SoP) was
a brilliant construct designed to counter the absolutism of the Royal
Executive. The Rule of Law was far from new - many of the
Revolutionaries claimed their aim was to recover the rule of Law
(grounded in Anglo-Saxon principles of Common Law and Roman principles
of a written Legal Code) which had been subverted, as it had, by
arbitrary Royal and Colonial vested interests.
The inbuilt potential for
paralysis (if the Powers could or would not co-operate) was regarded as
less important than to place constraints on an over-mighty executive
(the purpose of the whole enterprise.) It could only work, as you say,
with an informed and vigilant citizenry. But what if the citizenry is
neither vigilant (pre-occupied with other things such as material wealth
- Roman Bread and Circuses come to mind) nor informed (or their sources
of information are, themselves, captured by vested interests?) Or
simply feels dis-enfranchised and powerless? Viewed from abroad US
politics seems to be becoming increasingly shrill and tribal in nature
with neither side's activists prepared to co-operate with the other in
anything and eager to ascribe the basest of motives to "them". At this
point the system's "checks and balances" become paralysis - it will be
interesting to see how the new Congress plays out - controlling the
executive is not quite the same thing as ensuring nothing can be done at
all.
Re Carol's comments on the military:
My point on the "military" has clearly touched a nerve, for which I
apologise - up to a point. Viewed from abroad the certainties about the
purity of intentions or actual achievements of US military power are
perhaps less rosy than the way things look to Americans..... That's
altogether a different debate and one I'm not going into here - the
purpose of this is not, after all, to cause offence!
But what is undeniable is the
point you make in your last para. All Empires ultimately fall because
of 2 interlinked things - Imperial overstretch leading to more and more
resources being devoted to military necessities (together with the
special interests that creates) and the "hollowing out" of society at
home that results. As you say Rome fell because it could no longer
afford to defend its empire - and the increasingly desperate attempts to
do so led to crushing taxation, its own military-industrial complex
controlled by Emperors and (very rich) Senators together with its own
internal dynamic - the Emperor relied on the soldiery and to pay them he
had to conquer (loot/tax) more territory - which then had to be
defended. And ultimately they ran out of Romans prepared to fight and
had to co-opt increasingly unreliable "allies" (sound familiar?)
Something similar happened to the
British Empire. Unlike Rome the British version was, in its early days,
created by private enterprise - whether plantations in Virginia or the
West Indies, trading interests in India or mining moguls in Africa. The
State was not directly involved at first, just very happy to collect
the levies and duties. But when private enterprise felt threatened it
cried for State military protection. This (and the European wars it was
fighting at the same time) had to be paid for through more taxation
(initially of colonies, hence the American revolution.) Then the revenue
the State got from taxation become a drug which funded more military
might the better to open up new markets and the taxes they generated
(e.g. Opium Wars, one of the blacker moments of my country's history)
etc etc. And, the military (in this case the Navy) was a source of
immense national pride as well as being a massive consumer of resources
and creator of special interests and corruption.
And other powers saw the
opportunities for loot and wanted some too. Hence the need for yet more
military resources, more taxation (by now of home citizens) and
ultimately war between the powers. This ramped up the need for military
and the taxes to pay for them yet further etc etc. The whole
enterprise collapsed in 20th century industrialised warfare and
bankruptcy. (Interestingly, although the Nation went broke some very
rich individuals and companies somehow managed to......)
One sees eerie echoes of this process in the drug wars round the world
where the potential for incalculable riches leads to subversion of civil
authority, collapse of society, gang warfare, bloodshed and vast
enrichment of a very few.
Likewise the Soviet Empire.
Reagan was absolutely correct that the rickety Russian economy couldn't
afford an arms race with the USA at the same time as trying to fight
wars of suppression on its borders (against Chechens, Afghans, Czechs
etc.) and it collapsed in ruins - enriching a few people spectacularly
and beggaring the rest.
The American empire is a bit
different in form but I wonder whether we are seeing signs of similar
forces at work. American imperialism is less territorial (once the
continental USA had been conquered/bought), more cultural and economic.
But, for whatever reason, the political classes feel the need to defend
"American Interests" by sending in the troops to far-flung places.
Whatever the individual rights and wrongs of Korea, Vietnam, Grenada,
Afghanistan, Iraq etc one wonders whether the projection of power abroad
by military means is ultimately going to be as self-defeating as it has
for others necessitating, as it does, ever-increasing need for
resources (and accompanying boondoggles), the enrichment and influence
of special interests and, even when successful, the breeding of
resentment, envy and hatreds - which in turn means yet more resources
for both internal and external defence, more government "control" of its
citizens and restrictions on their liberty (with the best of intentions
of course) etc.
Another reason societies collapse
is that they get hollowed out and the many feel increasingly powerless
and exploited by the few. This is definitely happening in the "Western"
world. Once the majority feel they have little stake in the existing
system things can turn nasty. In America (and in the UK although not,
interestingly, in Germany or Scandinavia) real wages have risen much
more slowly than GDP for the last 30 years (household income has
increased mainly by households having more wage-earners) whereas the
share of national wealth going to the top 5% has exploded. One can view
this as fine - simply market forces at work in a free society - or one
can view it as potentially dangerous (No I'm not a socialist, just a
pragmatist.......)
Across the Western world there is
genuine anger that the latest economic crisis, caused by a relatively
few spectacularly well-rewarded folk and a complete failure
(connivance?) of government regulatory oversight, seems to have resulted
in the few being bailed out (with no signs of changing their ways) by
the taxes of the many (who are then rewarded by losing their
jobs/homes/pensions.) In Europe this is taking the form of riots on the
streets (UK, France, Greece, Ireland.) In the USA it's so far taking a
(healthier) political form as an outburst of anti-government populism.
But when political structures lose their perceived moral legitimacy
trouble follows.
Another pernicious effect of
growing income inequalities is the decline of competence in public
administration. The best people will naturally gravitate to the
best-rewarded careers. Even if you have a public service ethos and may
be prepared to take a bit less for working for the common good where's
your breaking point? 100%, 500%, 1000% less? So you have less able
people with less drive, initiative etc. delivering public services
which, in turn, means stifling, jobsworth, unimaginative, uncaring
bureaucracy - the machine gets gummed up in ways the public can
experience directly and get angry about.
In America (and many European
countries such as Italy and Greece) there's another factor - the
political nature of the Civil Service. The American Civil Service in
some ways resembles the 19th century British Civil Service before the
Trevelyan reforms. At the top level appointments are political - and
change with political changes in the Executive. Not only does this
mitigate against a genuine public service ethos, it means those at the
top are both less interested in and less able at the boring bits of
doing the right thing well for society (rather than their tribe). If
the Civil Service is politicised it can't act as a check on the
Executive, it's simply a mechanism for the Executive to execute its
wishes. And why strive for efficiencies if you're not going to be in
the job long anyway and promotion depends more on political contacts
than achievement?
Yes, but we have the SoP to check
the Executive don't we? Theoretically yes in legislative and budget
terms - but much of modern government functions at the administrative
level - and if that's politicised and under the control of "them" why
should I (who didn't vote for "them") have any respect for it? And then
I see that, at the top, it's a revolving door where Wall Street
insiders get to be in charge of finance, oil/coal men get to be in
charge of environmental regulation, pharma/insurance men move seamlessly
in and out of "regulatory" posts, etc. etc. What they all have in
common is that they're very rich, they've backed whoever has won
Executive power with money and organisation and they know that, when the
wheel turns, they'll go back from whence they came with a bulging
contacts book. Is this how best to control "special interests?"
My hope is that, 200+ years after
the wise men wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the current
crisis will force societies who believe in the principles they so
stunningly encapsulated to re-examine a number of things in the world of
the 21st century. Much as we might like to believe Liberal Democracy
and the Free Market are so obviously the best way to organise society
(where are you now, Fukuyama?) our view is very much a minority. It
certainly isn't held by many of the emerging powers. China? No.
Russia? No. Islamic world? No. Africa? No (the traditional "Big Man"
philosophy rules), India/Indonesia? yes and no (superficially yes but
politics means advancing your caste and family/friends' wealth.) If we
can't re-invent our political systems to be fit for purpose in today's
world we might find our populations willing to listen to the siren call
of the Big Man - "let me show you a better way - I can make the trains
run on time....." Amongst other things I believe we all need to look at:
• Electoral systems. How best to ensure that our democracies are
genuinely representative of all the people (giving them a vested
interest in it) rather than mechanisms by which one group has absolute
power for a few years over all others. Most existing systems were
designed when communication was poor, information and education
restricted and the world was a very different place. As you say the
American system wasn't designed for a democracy and, while the
principles are as valid as they ever were, are the practices in need of
some pretty substantial reform? While Congress was designed to be a
check on the Executive, what if both are controlled by the same Party
Machine? (The modern party machine would be wholly alien and abhorrent
to the rational, independently minded men who wrote the Constitution.)
In Europe likewise the hodge-podge of systems needs looking at in the
context of a wired, globally interconnected world of universal
suffrage. 'cos if we don't there are other models out there.......
• How do we ensure Government, and its necessary right arm,
bureaucracy, function in the interests of society rather than as the
tool of special interests? War (and fear) is good for the military
industrial complex (of all countries) which is why I'm so leery even of
"just" foreign wars. Freeing financial markets has turned out mainly to
benefit some obscenely wealthy bankers (where were the regulators? -
Oh, of course, on secondment from Wall Street/City of London.....) In
many countries I believe this will involve root and branch reform of
outmoded, 19th century bureaucratic structures. I can hear the cries of
pain from the bureaucrats now - they are, after all, another vested
interest...... But perhaps a reformed bureaucracy, efficiently serving
society rather than vested interests and recruited on the basis of
ability rather than connections is worthy of being paid properly?
(Chuck Prince's salary and bonus package alone exceeded the combined
salaries of the office charged with regulating his bank........)
• How do we ensure money doesn't capture politics - in terms not
just of Executive but also Legislative and Judicial arms (e.g. British
Libel laws, recent US Supreme Campaign Finance rulings.) This might
mean thinking the unthinkable in terms of campaign finance, use of
technology to promote more democratic involvement in politics, public
sector pay, pork barrels etc.
• What are the optimum units of government and for what? It is
arguable that in all counties centralised government has simply got too
big. But does government on a big scale have to do everything it does
now? i.e. many things could possibly be done better at a township level
where citizens can be directly involved, others (in a USA context) at a
state level - but some simply have to be done at a national level
(defence, environmental protection, regulation of "big" business and
finance etc.) Others again should perhaps be done at a regional or
global level (anathema this I know to many Americans who see "UN World
Government" conspiracies everywhere......)
But in a Globally
interconnected, wired world can any government regulate international
Bond markets? Or cross-border water supplies (the next great world
flashpoint?) Or international terrorism? Or global pollution? Or
species extinction? Rather than a "one-size fits all" approach where
power inevitably migrates upward to the Nation State perhaps a "horses
for courses" approach based on a more involved citizenry ('cos they can
see the benefits and 'cos technology facilitates greater interaction)
allied to a greater open-mindedness about supra national institutions
(if they work and are more accountable than now) just might.......
• The inevitable concomitant of this of course is what's
government for? Aside from defence and upholding the rule of law should
it have any role in promoting equality of opportunity? Is healthcare for
all citizens an inalienable right? Education? Gender or racial
equality? Protecting the vulnerable from exploitation by the powerful?
Protecting the minority from the dictatorship of the majority? etc etc
etc. Each society must decide its own answer but I, personally, don't
think the answer lies either in "regulating society in all its aspects"
(some of the Social Welfare Nanny State Europeans) or "the market will
always decide better than any politician" (some of the more extreme
libertarian Americans.)
At the end of the day, unless we reform our political and administrative
mechanisms to be in the interests of, and affordable to, enough people
to be worth sustaining I fear that the "Western" democratic model, as
we understand it, is on a rocky road. After all it's only been around
for about 250 years - there are alternatives that have survived the test
of time for much longer - and if people stop believing they have a
stake in it there's always a "Big Man" round the corner only too happy,
with his friends, to take it off our hands......
Which, of course, is why this is such a valuable debate to be having.
|