INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

This first section was written Sunday 15 December 2024. I would ask you to bear in mind that I include paragraphs from university websites for the sake of clarity.

 

We went last night to a 21^st birthday party given by cousin Rebecca for her son, currently enrolled at the University of Glasgow. Also attending were some university friends and his flatmates. One of the young men was studying International Relations. I asked him whether he thought of a PPE degree instead, but he indicated that the PPE programme was in fact oversubscribed and therefore more difficult to get into. Rather than wait he opted for International Relations. In effect not a too distant course of study.

 

The Programme Structure at Glasgow states:

Like all disciplines in the social sciences, International Relations is a subject that is open to interpretation and debate. Our methods of teaching are based largely on classroom dialogue and debate. You will attend lectures that identify important themes in international relations and then explore these themes in depth during seminars.

You will think about ethical questions such as the role and limits of state power, conflict and political violence, and the obligations that one state has to another. You will also consider empirical questions such as: What are the causes of war? Under what conditions do states cooperate to address common problems such as climate change, human rights violations and development? And how influential are non-state actors?

YEAR 1-

Introduction to politics introduces the fundamentals of politics from core concepts and theories to the key components of political institutions and their relationship to individuals.

Introduction to international relations introduces you to key approaches to explaining and understanding key aspects of international order.

YEAR 2 -

History of political thought examines political thought from the ancients, primarily Aristotle, through Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke to Rousseau and Karl Marx.

Introduction to comparative politics explores and compares different countries to introduces you to the variety of political regimes that exist in the contemporary international system.

YEARS 3 AND 4-

If you progress to Honours (years 3 and 4), in year 3 you will take a core course on international relations concepts which will include analysing, criticising, and applying concepts and theories of international relations to real-world cases in order to better understand the complexities of historical and contemporary global politics. Topics may include the Coronavirus pandemic, Britain’s changing world role, immigration, the role of gender in global politics and ideas of national belonging.

During both of your Honour’s years (3 and 4) you can select from around 45 courses, including Politics of the EU, Politics of migration, Politics of terror, Postcolonial international relations theory, Global environmental politics, War and international security and Visual global politics.

SPECIAL GLASGOW FEATURE

Glasgow Q-Step Degrees

Studying International Relations at Glasgow can be taken in partnership with the Glasgow Q-Step programme to give you more opportunities to develop your quantitative research skills

The University of Glasgow's Q-Step Centre offers programmes which develop your quantitative skills, or in other words, your ability to handle data and use numerical evidence.

Developing quantitative skills and your confidence in using them, will really enhance your insight and understanding of the key issues you encounter in your chosen field of study.

The University of Glasgow Q-Step Centre offers five degree programmes that integrate quantitative skills training within the School of Social and Political Sciences. All of these programmes aim to engage you with meaningful ways of understanding the social world.

We will teach you how to understand and analyse quantitative results, as well as how to present your own, and how to discuss their substantive implications. These are essential skills for understanding quantitative evidence presented in academic literature, but also for interrogating data in public media and government reports.

Around one quarter of your study time will be devoted to quantitative methods. And our degrees also offer you the possibility to gain valuable experience by participating in internships with selected high-profile employers.    

 

I have highlighted in red a couple of sentences that indicate the desired outcome for students from this course of study. Ethics and the limits of state power, conflict and political violence. There appears to be quite a lot of that going around at the moment.

 

The young man I was speaking to was in his second year. He seemed very clear and committed to his course of study. Before starting University he had taken a gap year, not to go travelling, nor indeed volunteering at some worthy cause locally or abroad, but had taken a job in an office earning some £30,000 a year. Not too terrible for a young man of 20. His experience however was very clear. He worked the hours which he felt was not so much a learning experience for him as it was the for making of profits for his employer.  The sole function for him and his fellow employees was to provide money for the boss. An interesting take on his first experience in the commercial world. He was by no means left wing, although there was no doubt a leaning in that direction. Also I did not get the impression that he would remain an academic and he was paying his own way through university. There was something behind it all that led me to believe he had some political ambition in mind. Just what, how or where that would manifest itself in the future will be interesting to see.

 

So long as he keeps in mind the ethical questions and develops those essential skills for understanding quantitative evidence presented in writing and for interrogating data in public media and government reports, he night do rather well.  I could not really begin to guess just what end of the political spectrum he will end up supporting, but there was a hint that the motive behind it all was some form of public service.

 

There was something about him that put me in mind of Peter Buttigieg who is the current United States Secretary of Transportation under President Biden, and previously the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Buttigieg is a graduate of Harvard and Pembroke College, Oxford. Buttigieg also served in the United States Navy for 8 years in Naval Intelligence between 2009 and 2017. You might check him out on YouTube.

 

Monday 16^th December 2024 - Continuing the thread on International Relations:

 

Looking at the current state of affairs in the Middle East, ethics and the limits of state powers seem to have gone astray. The Israeli Prime Minister is on trial for corruption and tries to deflect any and all accusations by presenting himself as the defender of the Nation. He shows no sign of letting up on his oppression in Gaza, takes full advantage of the collapse of the Syrian State by encroaching further into the Golan Heights and bombing Syrian naval installations under the guise of protection. I know there are some who would say such expediency, owing to the circumstances, is ethical and is well within the limits of State power. That the actions are completely illegal in accordance with United Nations directives would open that to question.

 

As to Assad, the fact of his flight from governing in Damascus to exile in Russia, was clearly something that must have been foreseen by the various rebel forces. Some intelligence must have given the insurgents the information that the Russian Air Force, or military, would no longer interfere, and that the Syrian Army were more that disinclined to put up much resistance. In consequence the speed with which the Assad overthrow took place, from the moment Aleppo was overrun,  was a foregone conclusion. The dominos began to fall.

 

This has left us with a very confused state of affairs not only in Syria but in Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, Ukraine and Russia. Where and when does the rest of the world weigh in. Recognition of a Palestinian State of some description is apparently on the cards, and which of the various factions now celebrating in Syria will actually form a lasting government capable of negotiating and making treaties that will hold.

 

I have no doubt that the leadership of the various states, their spokespersons and envoys would benefit from this course at Glasgow University. Indeed, some may have already had some formal education in International Relations, but I would strongly advise them to take a refresher course. I would equally advise representatives for Syria, Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Russia and the Ukraine to at least peruse the reading list for Year 1 as described above.

 

None of this has anything to do with political systems, but with ethics and the obligations that one state has to another. We all want the same thing, recognition and respect. Why is that problematic? On the whole, political parties within individual nation states tolerate and accept differences of opinion, despite some rather severe criticism and accusations made against each other.  It is even possible on an international scale if one takes into account the various sporting events which take place around the world. Where the Olympic games is being held has been problematic but usually takes place without serious difficulties. There is the odd exception. Saudi Arabia as a choice for the 2034 World Cup has attracted criticism, but will probably go ahead without incident. So what can be done about Middle Europe and the Middle East?

 

Getting all the parties back to school might just shake things up. A little higher education could perhaps promote the kind of thinking required to bring about ethical considerations concerning the limits of state power, conflict and political violence as well as obligations of one state towards another.

 

The tools are there, in every university across the world that holds seminars and lectures on Ethics, Politics, Philosophy, Economics and International Relations. Everybody can be smart, so why is it not working?

CONTINUING THE DISCUSSION

I received the following response from Sam in respect of my request for argument over the possibility of exploring a PPE degree on one’s own, or at least looking at the matter of political systems in the current climate.  What is of course of greatest concern now is what will happen in Syria and the Middle East. The Putin Regime, because of its concerns elsewhere, have abandoned support for the Assad Regime, although they feel, clearly, the need to support him personally, and give him some measure of safety and respite in Russia.

The various factions now in control of certain sections of the country, will have to come up with some sort of interim government and provide stability and adherence to the rule of law. Just what law will rule is another matter. The indications given by the most prominent group is that a form of democratic and inclusive system of government will emerge under Shia law.  This, in my view, does not bode well. Strict adherence to Shia is not a good look. Indeed, mixing religion and modern secular digital politics is not a good idea and will lead to certain sections of society being discriminated against. I refer in particular to Islam’s usual subjugation of women. Likewise any religion that requires anyone criticising its most sacred beliefs should be put to death is not something that should form any part of government. So just how strict the application of religion will be in a future Syrian democracy is still up in the air. The current Israeli government has indicated quite forcefully it will not wait for the dust to settle and has consequently bombed and extended its perimeters to provide a buffer zone between it and what they believe is coming next. Tension and violence are still ever present.

The advent of Trump in the coming months is equally disturbing. His idiotic, infantile and poorly educated view of world affairs is hardly likely to benefit anyone save hard-line influencers and leaders.  Much to contemplate in the New Year.

In the meantime, if you can take the time, have a read of Sam’s view of the PPE question. All and any comments welcome.

Beatrice and Sidney Webb - Founders of the LSE in 1895

The similarities between religious and mythological themes throughout the worlds varied civilizations and attitudes to behaviour are not the only things that Jung posited about ‘The Collective Unconscious’; in ‘Memories Dreams and Reflections’, I remember him discussing the character of nation states reflected in their collective unconscious; especially in relation to the likely coming world war (2nd) and different countries fear and reactions to it.

I suspect that you’re implying that it doesn’t have anything to do with my reasons for the illogical voting of the American public, but I still think it has a place in relation to Jung’s theory of the characterization of populations of nation states and their collective opinions, relevant to voting patterns.

If the archetypes are present in the subconscious then probably so is everything else and although not directly provable in a theory; most of the theories of dualities in science show that when combined, most things show signs of duality; things like wave particle duality for instance. Maybe a bit far-fetched for a proof of the unconscious, but interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

I don’t think one needs to even go this far, and moving off topic.

If we think of American Culture, what is it; how do their opinions of their own culture reflect back on their own identity, then this already gives credence to a collective unconscious in culture, which like most things of the mind can be manipulated, think of hypnosis and other subconscious manipulation techniques as defined by Alfred C. Kinsey’s’ reports, the sections relative to advertising.

The American tech giants are known to use subconscious manipulation techniques, this is only really just coming out in the press’ awareness; of its full extent, but it’s there and provable if you look at the details of the Linux computer operating system (why wouldn’t people use a free operating system with free software that is better in many case’s than many of the packages the tech giants make)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/30/marietje-schaake-tech-coup-save-democracy-silicon-valley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution#Installation-free_distributions_(live_CD/USB)

And if all these things are reasonable to believe, then so to is the possibility that people do not want to believe the truth about the environment and what it means regarding population numbers and over consumption, especially with regard to America. Which becomes even more pertinent if you then posit that the loss of power of the rich is the only way to confront these issues as it is them that create the problem in the first place, but unfortunately many democracies are complicit in this, because economics dictates that profit needs to be made.

When you say that ‘establishing a political system or organizing a method which best co-ordinates the basic desires and needs of the group, is presumably what politics is about’; I feel that it doesn’t quite represent it’s fragility in relation to democracy and the effort that has historically and currently goes into the outcome of a country having a true democracy and which I would say; partially goes against the grain of the human condition in relation to its personal hierarchies in business and at home.

I don’t think politics & democracy have been formed (unless you mean formed by social evolution).

They have been fought over, usually to wrest control out of oligarchs and families, royal and otherwise. The road to democracy is paved in blood, I don’t think it’s something that forms naturally (although some might say that war is natural too, it does happen with other species, and the hierarchy of humans in all circumstances is always being fought over both sociologically and financially, interdependently, we; like all the animals, are creatures of desire and move in not necessarily conscious way to get what we desire, that is also partially the story of evolution, so in some-ways democracy is societies & humans greatest achievement.

I think for all the USA’s many institutions to balance and keep democracy in check; what ironically has been shown; unfortunately; is that in the end you need something, above the president; like the royal family (don’t tell anyone I said that, but alas, it is one of the things that a sitting prime minister does, they ask for permission from the head of state to form a government, can you imagine someone like Trump even being able to do that)

The reflection of the institutions that go into actually making up the American government is very interesting and does do a great job, but without the full support of the so called pillars of democracy; which is a reasonable simplification of the social structures that keep democracy afloat, on top of our animal instincts, but without mentioning the freedom of the press, the institutions of government by themselves can’t be maintained without bipartisan agreement, which as we know and can see is starting show signs of wobble and decay, this is partly because the press has started to also show signs that it is not free; especially on the right.

https://www.legit.ng/1172490-the-pillars-democracy.html

I really liked the details of the American and British bureaucratic systems of state, that I was not aware of; especially in relation to the independence of the States’ themselves, but worry that Federal law could be tweaked enough to erode that independence without effecting the constitution, with the sort cronyistic government make-up that Trump is proposing and currently making.

I think the four pillars of democracy is a reasonable way to state that the mechanics that were talking about is being eroded by Trump and his cronies; who don’t particularly like the idea of democracy, mainly because it means they might lose control of the mechanisms of power and some of their money, which is what you are saying.

It is very good to get a bit more detail on the houses and the legislation in relation to the constitution. I certainly wasn’t aware of each states independence in the way you are talking about it. I think that maybe the way the State react to his eventual disruptions will be very interesting, presumably the judicial system will throw a lot of filibusters into courts for the duration of his presidency to stop him dismantling too much.

Even though presidential power is limited by each state, in practice; does not federal law take precedence?

‘The Constitution is what keeps it all together, which is what the Civil War (1861-1865) was all about.’

Although I don’t believe a civil war will happen, it could be close, I think luckily the Army will always stand on the side of the institutions; as it is one (even when they are not allowed to)

But I think you are right that the previous balance between the left and the right is slowly toppling towards right extremism, extremism is everywhere; a sure sign of encroaching war.

In the original statement about the impossible conundrum of American consumption and its collective inability to face up to the fact that they are over cooking the engine of life and mother nature is choking and we don’t have anywhere else to go Mr Musk because that future is a few hundred years off.

The second world war never really finished; these are the final chapters; let’s hope it doesn’t finish us all off. I did once call Putin an Environmentalist when they invaded Ukraine (as an ironic bad joke, I hasten to add).

In the end no matter how much you reduce C02 output, it is our population level that relatively generates the most damage and as a bioproduct of Americas over consumption and their inability to see that they just have to stop consuming or reduce their numbers to balance the same equation.

And as much as Elon Musk thinks that continuing the capitalistic progress to Mars will counter these environmental conundrums; we are no way near ready to do that on the scales that are necessary, although I agree that it is something that we should continually aim for, but the time scales are all wrong.

In the end ‘The People’ hold democracy up in a balance with all the social institutions, which is why freedom of the press is part the four pillars of democracy. the countries collective unconscious is represented in those institutions not only in bureaucracy, but socially by the people that make the decisions to continually support and adjust it, change it; it’s also why there is a culture war, because some religious beliefs are so strong that they find it difficult to live under democracy as the final arbiter of right and wrong; but maybe they can beside it; they fear the power of democracy above any form social persecution; because losing their belief in their religion is somehow worked into this confrontation and that is what they fear most. Trump and Musk are zealots because of it in reverse and it does take two to tango. Any religion with monotheistic tendencies will find democracy very difficult to live within. But I think, even though personally I have suffered from this cultural confrontation, both sides have things to say that are beneficial to the whole, look at the world we live in, it’s a total mess and very unequal, with fundamental issues.

‘the party that seeks to provide as much welfare for the citizen as is deemed necessary for maintaining the overall health and safety of every member of society no matter what their circumstances. This is in keeping with the idea that any individual can become rich by being an entrepreneur or exercising their talent and expertise.’

Yes like humans, there are lots of contradictions in these processes, As much as I dislike the Windows operating system; if not least as the first of the tech giants monopolies that the American government failed to do anything about. But If you look at what Bill Gates did for global vaccine distribution and usage; he has saved millions upon millions of lives, and probably saved double that just for the world being partially prepared for Covid, especially when you look at the figures from the 1918 Spanish flu.

As you say in relation to the move to the American right, we hear about the odd state banning books for religious reasons, but your statement ‘there are also those who believe that the ruling party must regulate the behaviours of its citizens whilst at the same time supporting the most rich and powerful’ implies a whole different level of interference, but I suppose Margaret Atwood did image that America would get there; I might read it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid’s_Tale

‘Whether the tradition of States Rights keep the spirit of the Constitution alive is to be seen. The Federal Government could well be a lost cause, particularly in the light of a simpering and unresponsive supreme court which upholds criminality as opposed to anything approaching a check or balance on the executive.’ 

‘So grin and bear it is hardly in my thinking. This election is a disaster for the United States as it is for Western Democracies as a whole.’  

I do agree with you, but on another contradictory note; the decent into a third world war looks remarkably possible and although there are benefits to such things for the environment, it would cause an amount of suffering that is difficult to imagine; so maybe we need the chaos of an idiot, because there are no real answers to our problems other than strict oversight that goes against many of the freedoms of democracy, especially for American consumption, although that is where the Turnip won’t help at-all.

The next four years will be critical for many reasons, politically & environmentally; I suppose war is politically, everything is connected, maybe Lovelock’s ideas of Gaia are true; although he always hated that they became so religiously upheld by the environmentalists – nature will get rid of us if become too out of balance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Any approach to political policy begins with personal philosophy/ Why are we here? What are we here for? does it matter? and what are we to do about it?  There are any number of answers.

Separatists and Nationalists are not what is required, yet that appears to be all that is on offer.

Where do we go from here? Where does philosophy take us and whence the economic agenda to take us there beyond politics? 

I’ve not really come up with any answers, just counter points, I suppose the future described by Iain M Bank’s with his invention of a society called the ‘Culture’ would be my dream answer, but it’s a few 100 years away. Anarchism with the robots

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/24/trump-depends-on-the-eu-and-uk-to-act-as-peacemakers-more-than-he-thinks

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/28/the-guardian-view-on-nasas-next-frontier-exploring-the-hidden-oceans-of-uranus-is-worth-it

MORE ON LOOKING INTO PPE

I have been, as you know, contemplating the matter of a PPE degree or at least a self-imposed approach to the study of such a course. A political system, supported by a philosophy and an economic methodology seems worthy of examination. Some of it, from what I can gather from reading lists on the subject, is pretty basic stuff.

 

The idea that human beings’ innermost desire is to exist in a free association governed by particular norms or conventions is certainly supported by the actions of humans throughout the world. This is also reflected in most animal behaviour who exist in tribes or groups. So it is not too far-fetched to assume that this instinct is hard wired into our brains, as is our human ability to acquire and use language (sound and sign) as well as developing reading and writing.

 

Establishing a political system or organising a method which best co-ordinates the basic desires and needs of the group, is presumably what politics is about. So nations have been formed and developed over time to become the democracies we have today.

 

The various systems that have emerged suppose a leader who is mainly elected directly by the populace or by elected representatives of the populace. It also supposes that the general population (citizens) have a choice through an electoral system. Whether this electoral system is fair and free of corruption is another matter. The idea that each citizen has the right to vote has taken some time to develop, but that is what we have now in most democracies. Also, we have a universal doctrine of the rights of man and have establish a universal forum with the United Nations, the Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court. How effective these institutions are, depends on the resolve of the member nations.

 

The United Kingdom has developed a Parliamentary Democracy under a constitutional monarchy. There is a Head of State in the Crown, a Primary Legislative Chamber in an elected House of Commons, led by a government chosen by the majority party. There is also a second supervisory chamber in the House of Lords,  an historic concession to the existence of an aristocracy aligned to the Crown. This too is evolving. The government is also composed of a leader, or prime minister, who selects a cabinet, or groups of individuals to oversee the various government agencies which implement and regulate their various responsibilities (e.g.: welfare, education, health, employment, foreign affairs, security etc..) Each department will have a number of people who actually work on putting into effect the ideas of their minister or head of department. These are people with certain skills and training who are hired for the express purpose of carrying out the work required. They are the Civil Servants who have jobs that remain constant no matter which political party is in charge of the ministry as they guarantee a degree of stability in dealing with the transitions required at the time.

 

The cabinet is meant to operate on the basis of ministerial responsibility. These ministers are overseen by a ‘Prime’ Minister who is effectively in charge of the government overall but who is responsible to Parliament, which is part of his ministerial responsibility. The idea is that Parliament is sovereign above all. The decisions of Parliament, as decided by all the members, who are the elected representative of the electorate, are what rules the nation. 

 

The United States on the other hand has a more complicated structure in that it has developed a three pronged approach to Governing the country. There are three independent institutions who act as a check on each other. A system of checks and balances comprising an independent Judiciary, and independent congress, comprising two chambers (Senate and House of Representatives) and an independent executive. This sort of triumvirate operates with the consent of a federation of states who are governed under a similar system of checks and balances. Each state has a governor, a supreme judiciary and a legislative assembly, consisting of local state representatives and senators. Effectively each state is independent and has what are called States Rights which on the whole supersede Federal rights unless they infringe the overall rights imposed by the written Constitution of the United States. Indeed there are times when Federal Legislation is deemed unconstitutional vis a vis the individual States.

 

Each State will therefore have its own different ministries (education, defence or national guard, commerce, welfare, health etc..). The various departments of the federal administration are in respect of overall National matters such as Foreign Affairs, National Security, Armed Services, major disaster relief, overall health care and overall welfare. They provide overall legislation and assistance and finance to state institutions. Therefore the Federal governance of the United States is a much more layered system, and presidential power is limited within each individual state.

 

The individual states are or course reliant on the overall policies of the federal government in so far as they affect interstate relations in respect of the overall economy, security and welfare of the nation. So it is all intertwined, which can make things more complex in terms of the relations between federal and state civil servants, and federal and state legislators. The Constitution is what keeps it all together, which is what the Civil War (1861-1865) was all about.

 

Included in the Constitution, perhaps as an afterthought as they are defined as amendments, are the rights of individuals deemed as sacrosanct and inalienable. The first ten amendments are as follows:

1-    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2-    A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

3-    No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4-    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

5-  No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

6-    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

7-    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

8-  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9-   The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Some of these rights are now part of the constitutions, whether written or not, of most countries who profess to be democracies with free and fair elections.  

 

Operating within these political systems are a variety of individuals who purport to be best able to accomplish the desired requirements to keep the system in operation and preserve the rights and needs of the individual citizens. They form political parties and in most cases there appear to be two parties who tend to dominate the political landscape.

 

On the one hand there is the party that believes the state should function with the minimum of interference with the general population. This conservative body firmly believes that the market place and private enterprise is the best way for the state to function. In that way the state can operate on a smaller budget and therefore need not impose a heavy tax burden on the citizen. It will favour the rich and the so called entrepreneur who will provide for the welfare of the less fortunate in society as a matter of course.

 

On the other hand there is the party that seeks to provide as much welfare for the citizen as is deemed necessary for maintaining the overall health and safety of every member of society no matter what their circumstances. This is in keeping with the idea that any individual can become rich by being an entrepreneur or exercising their talent and expertise.

 

There is however another sort of party line, which is evidenced by the current trend in the election of authoritarians.  There are those who believe that the ruling party must regulate the behaviour of its citizens whilst at the same time supporting the most rich and powerful on the basis that minimal government expenditure is required for the state to function providing order is maintained. This form of governance requires every citizen to conform to a specific train of thought and to ostracize any citizen who does not conform to this idea. Hence the censorship of books, a restrained method of education, and a thoroughly conformist view of the state. Anyone who disagrees is vilified.

 

We have seen this already in the attitude of Trump to questions he deems fake news or contentious. His reactions are instant attack and vilification of the questioner. So to have we seen this with Kari Lake, who ran for Governor and Senator from Arizona. The exact same playbook. So long as you agree you’re ok/ If not “You need your head examined” So too the 2025 committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and any number of people who have got behind Trump. He is appointing people without any real knowledge or expertise in the subject of their ministry.  None of his team have any idea of running a government department, nor does he have any real idea of running a presidency.

 

He presents himself as the sole leader who can fix all the world’s problems and in particular those of the American people. He will do this putting American First and the rest of the world will follow in 24 hours by making a couple of phone calls.

 

The reality is that he does not care one jot about the citizens of the United States, only the photo op and the chant of USA, USA etc. He has an infantile view of the nation as depicted in Del and Marvel Comics and a strong adherence to making the wealthy even richer. Hence his references to fictional characters as if they were real and toadying to the likes of Elon Musk.   

 

So what will happen to education is anybody’s guess, save that it will have less funding. Indeed many things will have less funding, and some media publications may come under surreptitious attack. The EU and NATO will be under constant strain in relations with the United States State Department and foreign affairs will disintegrate into deals with dictators to the detriment of democracy.

 

Whether the tradition of States Rights keep the spirit of the Constitution alive is to be seen. The Federal Government could well be a lost cause, particularly in the light of a simpering and unresponsive supreme court which upholds criminality as opposed to anything approaching a check or balance on the executive.

 

So grin and bear it is hardly in my thinking. This election is a disaster for the United States as it is for Western Democracies as a whole.

 

Any approach to political policy begins with personal philosophy. Why are we here? What are we here for? does it matter? and what are we to do about it?  There are any number of answers. If one takes the view of Adam Smith, David Hume and others of the enlightenment, there are clear social implications and a social contract must be arrived at. The reasons behind the formation of the United Nations and European Union are not to be discarded and are still relevant today, particularly in this climate of war in the middle east and in middle Europe.

 

Separatists and Nationalists are not what is required, yet that appears to be all that is on offer. Where do we go from here? Where does philosophy take us and whence the economic agenda to take us there beyond politics?

 

The Constitution of the United Kingdom although unwritten as a specific document, has its own Convention of Human Rights which it has developed over centuries and those first ten amendments of the United States Constitution, created in 1787, are in effect derived from those human rights as developed in the United Kingdom. This in turn led to the Declaration of the Rights of Man emerging from the French Revolution in 1789. These rights are at the core of most democratic political systems. Providing those rights are very much part of the United Kingdom’s very existence and they do not come cheap. Health, education, employment, safety and security are the very much part of that agenda. Those ministries of government are vital for the welfare of the nation as a whole and not just for the few. There are 67 million souls and counting who are entitled by right to benefit from those ministries which must be supported or the whole thing falls apart. 

 

Because we live in a world that now requires funds to function, in order to obtain goods and services rather than barter, the citizen of necessity has to contribute in whatever way they can to the state, in order for all to have the goods and services require. The government is therefore charged, amongst other things, with the task of raising and distributing the funds required for each of the ministries concerned with providing those rights and necessities. How governments do this is what politics is all about. The various factions and parties put forward their ideas and the populace will elect those who they feel best represent the priorities of the nation. Depending on the political organisation of elections, it is not necessarily the majority who rule. This is most clearly evidenced by the United Kingdom whose electoral system currently allows for a large Parliamentary Majority from what is in effect a minority of the electorate.

 

Nevertheless that party in power must govern for all. This is not an easy proposition. Any party and indeed all current parties are struggling to get it right. None of us seem satisfied and there are as many points of view as there are column inches in the various newspapers and other forms of media.  I hope that what we have, at present, in the UK, is a government committed to the welfare of the people and all the concomitant features that implies. I hope.

 

More of this anon.

 

I would just like to add that Oliver Cotton’s play, The Score, will be playing at the Theatre Royal Haymarket Theatre from the 20^th February 2025. It is highly recommended.

RETURN TO P.P.E.

I have been struggling with coming to terms with Mr Trump’s forthcoming presidency of the United States. The news reports about his choices for members of his cabinet do not in any way alleviate one’s fears. Indeed there is even greater concern that his less than even amateur approach to constitutional government will cause greater conflict and lead to policies even more detrimental to civilisation than his election already has. The rule of law has been replaced by a ‘concept’ of governance. He seeks to immunise criminality on a colossal scale by deploying cruel and vicious sycophants throughout his administration. The fact that his republican party acolytes are in the majority in congress gives him the freedom to run roughshod over the constitution unless those senators and representatives remember their sworn oath to uphold the checks and balances of the constitution. Their devotion to Trump seems to override their actual oath of allegiance to the United States of America.   It seems clear therefore that the current leadership of the country is without character, ethics, integrity or indeed any civilised philosophy whatsoever. The rule of the gangster and the mob is all.

 

As well as the above mentioned cogitations, I have been contemplating the mater of a degree in PPE at the Open University. According to Wikipedia, a Politics, Philosophy and Economics degree was first offered by the University of Oxford in 1920 as an interdisciplinary degree combining study of the three disciplines. In theory one would assume such an endeavour would provide one with a very strong platform from which to put oneself forward as a public servant. A thorough grounding in the activities of government and members of law-making bodies who can influence the way a country is governed, and the way in which it is governed, would seem to be a prerequisite for any elected or appointed representative.  As a compliment to this, knowledge of the various types of economy and how different approaches to commerce, industry and public services can affect the nation would also seem of some significance to maintaining a country’s ability to function. To cap it off, some grip of logical and ethical thinking might be appropriate if one is going to present oneself to the public as someone who understands humanity or at least has developed some knowledge of what can be called the human condition. Does one know anything? How can one know what is right or wrong? What is freedom? What is the best form of government for my particular country?  What are human rights? What’s it all about?

 

There are institutions around the world that recognise the necessity for combined study of these subjects with a view to improving the quality of its government and, as a result the better wellbeing of its society. The École Normale Supérieur in Paris is an instance in point.

 

“The school is very small in student numbers. Its core of students…are selected via competitive exam…Two hundred are…recruited every year…and receive a. monthly salary…and in exchange sign a ten year contract to work for the state…”

 

This clause is not necessarily applied although a number of alums go on to occupy elite positions within government, administration, and corporate forms in France. Good, bad or indifferent as the case may be, these are people with some dedication to public service who have undertaken a very specific course of study to understand what their function, as hired civil servants or elected officials, ought to be.

 

In the United States there are a number of universities who offer a form of PPE although some merely call it Political Economy or Ethics, History and Public Policy. At Yale it is Ethics, Politics and Economics. Some only offer the course as a postgraduate degree.. Whatever its designation it seems to have had little effect in the United States. 

 

What we now have in place in America is the populist amateur insanity. He has already indicated he wishes to rule by executive order and will seek to pass legislation allowing him to make appointments bypassing legislative scrutiny and consent. This is exactly what Hitler did within two months of taking office with the Enabling Act of 1933 or Ermächtigungsgesetz, officially titled Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (Law to Remedy the distress of People and State).  If that parallel is not a warning of things to come, I don’t know what is.

 

But I digress yet again. I spoke of a return to university education.  At this late stage, and with some worry about my immediate short term memory, it is perhaps a frivolous expense, and I can hardly see myself seeking public office in Lambeth at whatever level. I would be hovering towards 90 at graduation, assuming I even make it to putting on the Mortar Board. So perhaps a more autodidactic approach would be best. My inspiration would be Abraham Lincoln, the man Mr Trump likes so much to compare his alleged achievements.

 

Unfortunately I do not read as much as Lincoln did, but then in the early 19^th Century in Illinois and Indiana there were no smart phones or Netflix or 100 TV channels to choose from, quite apart from movie theatres. There was little displacement activity to distract Lincoln from books, apart from his father hiding them or throwing them away.  This went on from Lincoln’s birth in 1809 to 1831 when Lincoln left the parental home. Twenty nine years later he was elected President of the United States. He was first elected to office in the Illinois House of Representatives where he served four terms from 1834 to 1842 during which time he was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1836. He was elected to US House of Representatives as representative of Illinois’s 7^th district in 1847 until 1849. He was elected President in 1860. So he was not without some political education as well as commercial and legal experience in between civic duties, all the while continuously educating himself in all manner of ways. He was only 56 when he died. He achieved extraordinary things even though he, himself, claimed to be slow to catch on to concepts and ideas. Would that we were all so slow.

 

So, in looking at the Yale University list of core requirement for the study of Ethics, Politics and Economics, we have, inter alia:

Tradition and Modernity

Persuasion and Discontents

Recent Work on Justice

Normative Ethics

The Problem of Evil

Propaganda, Ideology and Democracy

Strategic Models of Politics

America from Scratch

Digital War

The European Union

Politics of the Environment

Debating Globalisation

Topics in Cooperative Game Theory

Platforms and Cultural Production

 

This is only a sample of what’s on offer.

 

As to the PPE course at the LSE, the 1^st year required courses are listed as:

PH103 – The Big Question: An introduction to Philosophy (Dr Paola Romero)

GV101- Introduction to Political Science (Dr Ryan Jablonski)

EC1A3 – Microeconomics I (Prof Ronny Razin)

EC1B3 – Macroeconomics (Dr Antonio Mele)

LSE100 – The LSE Course – flagship interdisciplinary course for all undergraduate students, designed to bring you into the heart of LSE tradition of engaging with big questions.

 

There are also options in the first year:

ST107 Quantitative Methods (Statistics), MA107 Quantitative Methods (Mathematics), MA108 Methods in calculus and linear algebra, MA100 Mathematical Methods.

 

In the circumstances, as much as I would love to get to grips with ‘America from Scratch’ and the ‘Problem of Evil’ at Yale, I thought I might get in touch with Doctors Romero, Jablonski and Mele, as well as Professor Razin, explain my situation and ask them for their reading lists and titles of essay assignments. I could then post the essays on the blog for comment.

 

Would anyone else living in London care to join in? We could meet up once a fortnight or month, or even week, for an hour or two, to discuss our progress. It could be a fun exercise and might keep the brain cells ticking over.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ADAM SMITH'S CONCERNED PERSON

I went into Guys Hospital on Tuesday the 5^th November 2024 at about 7:50 AM London UK time. After various administrative sessions and chat with a wonderful Attending Clinician Miss Pareeta Patel, the team did their stuff and I woke up in the recovery room and was wheeled into Aston Key Ward at around midday. I was to be kept overnight, just in case, and was administered antibiotics and hooked up to a drip feed of some clear liquid for eight hours through the night.

 

The following morning Wednesday 6^th November 2024 I got hold of the mobile and gleefully logged into the BBC online to see the United States election results. To my surprise, consternation and despair I saw a substantial lead for Donald Trump. It was deeply depressing and I could not bear to look at it anymore, nor could I bring myself to listen to or read any further reporting on the matter.   A brief glance at the numbers voting was even more disturbing.

Clearly a great many people had not bothered to vote, and it was reported that over 50% of women who had bothered to vote, voted for Mr Trump. If that is right, then the United States has definitely entered into a new dark age. The level of ignorance has reached catastrophic proportions.

 

I asked myself how any American women, who must surely be aware that independent juries, chosen in part by Mr Trump himself, found him guilty of sexual assault and possible rape as well as libel and ordered him to pay millions of dollars in compensation (which, as far as I know, he has yet to do), and convicted him of felonies trying to hide a sexual peccadillo, could bring herself to vote for Donald Trump as President of the United States.

 

That aside, I questioned how it was that so many allegedly college educated citizens could do the same. What is being taught in American Universities? The number of such institutions rated in the top 100 world university rankings is 33. Seven of the top ten are in the United States, including Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Cal Tech, UC at Berkeley and Yale. The University of Chicago is at number 13 on the list. The University of Pennsylvania is number 16, followed by Columbia at 17 and UCLA at 18. What are students coming away with? Are they completely incapable of rational thought? Are they completely unable to discern fact from fiction, lies from a semblance of truth? Do they have no concept whatsoever of mendacity? Are they just as devoid of character as Mr Trump? Is psychotic narcissism the new icon?  I ask again, what is being taught at American Universities?

 

Clearly very little of value. As a result we have entered into a new dark age and we will all suffer for it. So far as the UK is concerned, the Editor of the Telegraph Allister Heath heads his editorial with “Trump’s triumph is a disaster for Starmer and the self-regarding, virtue signalling elites – This resounding triumph is total repudiation of the Left’s brand of politics – and cataclysmic for Labour.” What else can one expect from the Telegraph. Nigel Farage has offered to help the Government as intermediary with Donald Trump. Can you believe that?

 

In other papers, notably the Guardian, one finds “Today is a day of despair for America. We are plunged into an anticipatory grief”, “People around the world are appalled by Trump win. But women have been gripped by a visceral horror”, “The shocking US election result will create a new world order – and launch a fresh wave of Trump wannabes”, “Why Donald Trump’s return is a disaster for Europe”, “Trump’s win is so much worse this time. Americans knew what they were voting for”, did they really? Clearly I am not alone in this despair.

This cartoon from The Times:

 

What can one expect now that gangster and fraudsters will now occupy the white house? The United States has lost any character it might have had. It started with the complete betrayal of constitutional rule of law, by granting the President of the United States immunity from prosecution. An outrageous action that has now made him invulnerable. This crass stupidity is completely contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States.  

 

Now of course begins the posturing and behind the door’s meetings in every Capital around the globe on how to deal with Trump. As reported Farage has offered the UK Government help. The UK Government is rewording the various comments some of its Ministers have previously made about Mr Trump, including the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. Putin and his mob will or course be delighted and will be ramping up the flattery and probably will be annexing the Ukraine any time soon. Netanyahu will possibly be a fly in the ointment as he will feel able to go crazy with his aggression. After all he has the ear of Mr Trump.

 

So much is uncertain. The counting houses are weighing up his tariff proposals and general economic manoeuvrings. The general American public, and mostly the lower income poorly educated he so loves, will probably suffer the most before they realise what they have done. As to the rich, they will love it. According to some investment merchants “Trump’s policies can be summarised as lower taxes, higher tariffs, and more domestic energy production with potentially less support for the energy transition.” There won’t be much help for the MAGA crowd despite what they think.

 

What is apparent from all this stuff is that despite Mr Trump’s previous advisors, both military and civilian as well as some members of his cabinet and executive team working with him in his first term as President, clearly stating that he was not fit to be President again, they have been ignored. Why? Was no one listening? I say again, his own people think him unfit to hold the office. Why is that ignored? 

 

In addition, he reiterated Ronald Reagan’s question, at a late stage, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” A difficult question given the difficulties around the world with increases in prices and the general need to fund climate disasters across a number of southern states. So of course a lot of people feel let down because of increases in general living expenses for food and energy. Nonetheless the economic situation in the United States was improving and showing more growth potential than any other country around the world. Being insular, Americans failed to take that in.

 

But, regardless of all that, what is glaringly apparent is Mr Trump’s total lack of character and his infantile psychotic narcissism, as well as his offensive divisive language, sexist, deviant and blatantly criminal behaviour. None of that seems to matter one jot. One can only draw the conclusion that the American public have lost all sense of civility or ethics. They no longer have any regard for integrity and have lost any sense of social consciousness. Let the gangsters’ rule and to hell with the rule of law so long as it makes me feel I am better off that I was four years ago. It has become a completely selfish society. Americans are as arrogant and narcicistic as their leader. Make Me First is what it’s all about. What other conclusion can one draw.

 

With that in mind, what difference education? Fuck the rest as long as I’m all right and don’t really have to think about much. Keep the foreigners out, just get rid of them. Why should my taxes be used to look after those losers?

 

Looking at the figures, some 20 million plus people did not vote. Excuses given are numerous. The Democratic Candidate was a woman, black, shaky on Gaza, flaky on immigration, too much aligned to social consciousness and we can’t vote for Trump either. What difference does it make anyway? 

 

Americans care nothing about character.

 

I post here another comment from Bob in California. Make of it what you will.

Well Ed,

 Looks like “the People” have spoken!

Trump and the right have so corrupted the way “the People” get their news that most voters remain uninformed as to the true state of affairs and are as likely to be influenced by the false statements proliferated on the right, the Russian firehose of propaganda poured upon us, and “X”, run by a South African born into an apartheid society, all who spread lies and false stories about the Democratic candidate.

So, the strategy was to kill the bipartisan immigration bill in Congress and voted against by more than 140 Republicans, who had previously supported it, but opposed by Trump, so that he could run on “immigration”.

The next step was to scare people about immigrants as he did in 2016, and smear Harris, calling her every name he could think of such as fascist, socialist, communist and calling her dumb and low IQ.  The two things that seem to work in politics are scare and smear, and that was his message, over and over. This was all accomplished in a fact-free environment, as they attacked the “main stream media” as being untrustworthy and dishonest. It would appear that many folks just turned off and did no fact-finding whatsoever.

But the Democrats helped out here as they discarded Biden and went for a “Black Woman”.  It would seem that the lessons of the past were not learned, when Trump defeated a white woman, but four years later lost to a white man. Many demographic groups really didn’t want a (black) woman as President, such as Hispanic men and Black men. Although this was not universal in these groups, the numbers were high enough to swing the election. Democrats though they could beat this by turnout on election day, which ignores this bias entirely. Instead of seeing the problem with a large racist portion of the population, they went for it, instead of choosing someone like the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, who could actually have a chance of winning He has been relentlessly attacked by the right since he Governor of California in an effort to negate him as a candidate for President.

Additionally, the timid US Attorney General did nothing about the Jan 6^th riot at the Capital for several years, destroying any chance to conclude the prosecutions of Trump before the election. Apparently, he felt threatened by the Trump followers, who continued to threaten government officials and employees. The Jan 6^th Congressional Committee dropped all the necessary evidence into the Attorney General’s lap several years before the appointment of the Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith. Nothing happened! Truly tragic.

So, the United States of America will be led by a twice impeached, felon, who is a sexual predator and proven fraudster in New York. He apparently has an IQ in the 70’s, has trouble learning and incorporating new facts into his “thinking”, lies constantly, and admires dictators. What could possibly go wrong??