TRUTH, A VITAL PUBLIC INTEREST

Just over ten years ago on the 12^th December 2013 I published a blog about journalism and ethics. There is a Journalists Code of Ethics carefully written out by the Society of Professional Journalists (an American Society headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana) which, following a preamble has four main headings:

 

Seek truth and report it

Minimize harm

Act independently

Be accountable and transparent

 

The United Kingdom equivalent, the National Union of Journalists (Headquartered in London) has a membership of approximately 24, 528 as of 2022. The SPJ has a membership of only around 7000.

 

The preamble of the SPJ’s code of conduct now reads:

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity. The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.

 

The preamble as printed in 2013 reads as follows:

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behaviour and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

 

There is a slight change of emphasis in the two paragraphs, the earlier version laying more focus of the behaviour of the individual rather than members generally. It specifies that journalists have a duty of care to the public. That phrase “The duty of the Journalist…” is more imperative that merely “striving to ensure free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough”. Integrity and responsibility are vital to journalism if it is indeed to be seen as ‘the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.’

 

The section on seeking the truth and reporting it has a few changes as well. One of current criteria, the ninth in the list reads: Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

In 2013 at number 8, it read:  Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.

 

You will note the additional admonition in the earlier reading indicating that when using undercover surreptitious methods it must be vital to the public interest and the methods should be explained as part of the story.

 

I believe that there should be an additional admonition that whatever undercover of surreptitious method is used, it should never fall within the scope of the criminal law. There should also be included a lengthy definition of just what can be classified as being vital to the public interest. A dictionary definition of the word states inter alia: of, relating to, or characteristic of life; necessary to the continuation of life; life sustaining; concerned with or recording data pertinent to lives; necessary to continued existence or effectiveness; extremely important; essential.

 

The United Kingdom equivalent, the National Union of Journalists (Headquartered in London) has a similar code but stated more simply as a sort of 12 step program.

1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
2. Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
3. Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
4. Differentiates between fact and opinion.
5. Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.
6. Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
7. Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.
8. Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge.
9. Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
10. Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed.
11. A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.
12. Avoids plagiarism.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 above, are much the equivalent of section’s 8 and 9 of the SJU Code.

 

The phone hacking case is a perfect example of the colossal breach of a journalist’s code. It descended into criminality and the information obtained was far from being vital to the public interest, let alone the public interest. It may have been of interest to some of the public but one cannot possibly make a claim ‘in the public interest’. There have been other examples. Most gossip and many so called human interest stories are hardly newsworthy, but fill up a lot of column inches. The crux of seeking the truth and reporting it is, or should be, just what is “in the public interest” Some reporters and publications clearly have a very wide and very loose definition of what is in the public interest. I repeat, what some members of the public are interested in, is not necessarily in the public interest.

 

Dishonesty or violence involving governments, elected officials, civil servants both state and local, armed forces, police forces, legal and judicial bodies, medical and health institutions, influential global corporations and companies affecting large portions of the work force and economy, journalists as well, should be open to scrutiny by the press.

 

Seeking the truth and reporting it is difficult at the present time. There is so much information floating around the world across every form of communication, on every platform now described as social media, and every type of news outlet on the planet. There may be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of persons describing themselves as journalists or reporters. On viewing the reporting from many different spheres it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between fact and opinion. Distinguishing between news reporting and advocacy in the light of present day events and present day aspirations as to what constitutes a civilised society, is a conundrum. The diversity of cultures, economic and educational levels, and human experience are difficult to accommodate.

 

What reporting can be like in the Russian Federation under Putin’s State and judicial control is practically impossible. Seeking and telling truths to the population has become a criminal offence. Even though, it would appear that, other voices from outside the country are available, they are not listened to or accepted by the general public, as the citizenry accepts mainly what is being purveyed by Putin fed information. At least that is what I am led to believe.

 

Should I have any reason to doubt the reporting about Russia? Steve Rosenberg, the BBC correspondent in Russia is extremely plausible and has spent quite a number of years in Russia since 1991 including a spell in Berlin. He is clearly well acquainted with the Eastern European situation. His comments and analysis are delivered with authority, so I have no reason to doubt him; however, that does not mean that the whole of his reporting or analysis is accurate. Indeed, how we accept analytical reporting depends mostly on what we tend to already believe.

 

Therein lies the problem. In the United States the situation is extreme. The repetitive assault on the validity of the 2020 general election and the behaviour of Donald Trump and his supporters in the Republican Party has been so full of lies and mendacity that the majority of news reporting seems more like editorial rather than factual reporting. There is a barrage of reporting which cries out against the ‘big lie’, and because the reporting, of necessity, characterises the Maga crowd as liars and self-deceivers, the comments appear to be entirely subjective rather than objective reporting, accurate and fair. Indeed almost all of reporting on the political situation in the United States is now editorial and opinion. How can it be anything else? The polarisation of political thinking as developed to such a degree that reasoned, informed and studied argument seems to have been eroded leaving nothing buy rigid entrenched views. The divide between reason and ignorance is almost complete.

 

The United Kingdom, in light of what is happening with the current government’s desperate, futile and cringeworthy attempts to cling to power, willing to say anything no matter how duplicitous and ridiculous, is going the same way. The distance between the major parties however is not so pronounced as in the USA, nonetheless the cracks are getting wider.  The reporting is also becoming more analytical and opinion based that factual.  People are in fact turning away. The flag ship ‘Today’ program and Laura Kunessburg’s Sunday slot are losing audiences. It would seem even the BBC is having difficulties with its reporting. It claims to be emphatic about being unbiased, yet most of its reporting is now analysis by ‘political’ or ‘named’ correspondents. Facts tend to blur with analysis.

 

There is a Declaration of the Duties and Rights of Journalists which was written in Munich. It covers mush the same as the code of ethics stated above. It was adopted by six syndicates of journalists of the six countries of the European community in Munich, 23-24 November 1971.

 

Preamble

The right to information, to free speech and to criticism is one of the most fundamental freedoms of every human being. The whole complex of duties and rights of journalists derives from this right of the public to know facts and opinions. The responsibility of journalists vis-a-vis the public has precedence over any other responsibility, in particular towards their employers and the public power. The mission to inform necessarily includes the limits journalists spontaneously impose on themselves. This is the subject of the present declaration of duties. Yet these duties can be effectively respected in the exercise of the journalist profession only if the concrete conditions of professional independence and dignity are implemented. This is the subject of the declaration of rights quoted here.

Declaration of duties
The essential duties of the journalist in gathering, reporting on and commenting on events consist in:

1)    Respecting the truth no matter what consequences it may bring about to him, and this is because the right of the public is to know the truth.

2)    Defending the freedom of information, of commentaries and of criticism.

3)    Publishing only such pieces of information the origin of which is known or – in the opposite case – accompanying them with due reservations; not suppressing essential information and not altering texts and documents.

4)    Not making use of disloyal methods to get information.

5)    Feeling obliged to respect the private life of people.

6)    Correcting any published information which has proved to be inaccurate.

7)    Observing the professional secrecy and not divulging the source of information obtained confidentially.

8)    Abstaining from plagiarism, slander, defamation and unfounded accusations as well as from receiving any advantage owing to the publication or suppression of information.

9)    Never confusing the profession of journalist with that of advertiser or propagandist and not accepting any consideration, direct or not, from advertisers.

10) Refusing any pressure and accepting editorial directives only from the leading persons in charge in the editorial office. Every journalist worthy of this name feels honoured to observe the above-mentioned principles; while recognising the law in force in each country, he does accept only the jurisdiction of his colleagues in professional matters, free from governmental or other interventions.

 

So I continue pondering. I know that objective truth is important. It is vital in the public interest. We can all ask ‘What is truth?’ but never mind the philosophy, we all know the difference between truth and fantasy. Every reporter knows that and should stick to it.

 

The codes I have included here may seem repetitious and redundant, but I thought it important to include them. There is an International Federation of Journalists which was founded in Paris in 1926. Its Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists was adopted at the 30^th IFJ World Congress held in Tunis on the 12^th June 2019. It completes the IFJ Declaration of Principles on the conduct of journalists (1954) known as the “Bordeaux Declaration”. Its preamble reads:

 

The right of everyone to have access to information and ideas, reiterated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, underpins the journalist's mission. The journalist's responsibility towards the public takes precedence over any other responsibility, in particular towards their employers and the public authorities. Journalism is a profession, which requires time, resources and the means to practise – all of which are essential to its independence. This international declaration specifies the guidelines of conduct for journalists in the research, editing, transmission, dissemination and commentary of news and information, and in the description of events, in any media whatsoever.

 

The full charter can be found at: https://www.ifj.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Global_Charter_of_Ethics_EN.pdf

 

It contains 16 points. The fifteenth paragraph states:  Journalists worthy of the name shall deem it their duty to observe faithfully the principles stated above. They may not be compelled to perform a professional act or to express an opinion that is contrary to his/her professional conviction or conscience.

 

“Journalists worthy of the name” is a weighty description for any professional ‘hack’. So far as the general public is concerned those worthy of the name are few and far between, but that is a matter of opinion.

FIRST AND ONLY TIMES

I was pondering this morning about the various changes that have occurred in the body since I have turned 80.  Of course the changes have been happening well before that age, it’s just that I was not aware of them. But then very few of us are. Those little aches, or fleeting episodes of concerns that we dismissed at the time, or simply overlooked, have a specific cause.  The causes are more fully exposed to us as we are inevitably referred to consult with doctors and physicians at various hospitals. Our GP is merely a broker who takes down the details and passes us on to the most appropriate department down the line. To us, we are hearing a diagnosis as if for the first time. There are many things that happen to us for the first time, but for the experienced physician it is far from the first time they have delivered the news.

 

Indeed, how they deal with the matter is what distinguishes one doctor’s bedside manner from another. One has to remember that there was a first time for them delivering the news. The frequency with which they do that must clearly have an impact of some kind. They must bear in mind that it is the patient’s first time of hearing whatever it is they have to reveal. This can be awkward or pleasant depending on the adept empathy of the carer and the comportment of the patient. The two go hand in hand.

 

It is all to do with how we approach the first time. Many things happen to all of us. Most things that happen to us are of a similar nature, so there is nothing unique. We are mostly aware of things happening to other people which have not happened to us, but we are reasonably certain will eventually happen to us. When it happens, it will be for the first time. How we deal with the first time makes all the difference. Will our behaviour and deportment be like everyone else, or will it be different? We think it will most certainly be different, but will, like as not, be the same as many others.  Again there is nothing unique, save, for us, it will be the first time.

 

Our lives are crowded with incident and first times. Indeed, when we wake in the morning it is the first time we have opened our eyes that day. As to that, who was it who said “This is the first day in the rest of your life” for the first time? There are any number of truly first times that have affected us all. Someone somewhere spoke intelligible words in the form of a sentence. Someone created an alphabet of sorts and started writing.  The first person to create mayonnaise or jump from a high place using a parachute never did it before. All inventions are first times, although some are merely evolutions of other objects. The mobile phone and most digital technology are instances in point.

 

One has to marvel at the thinking that gives rise to first times. What was the spark that induced someone to presume that separating an egg yolk from the egg would be appropriate to combine with an oil and emulsify it into a sauce which could then be flavoured with any number of herbs or juices. Is that too a matter of cooking evolution derived from the first time any human being decided to use fire to fry or boil a piece of meat or vegetation?

 

Along with first times that are also ‘only times’ and ‘never once’s’. It is something else to ponder. “The only time I….” and “I never once…” are phrases that one utters in sadness and regret or with joy and relief. It is not something one can be indifferent about.   There are some only times that one looks back on with amusement even though they were not particularly pleasant at the time. These tend to end up as stories one dines out on and do not necessarily paint one in a good light. It’s all in the telling. There are some first and only times that are so similar they fall into the character of déjà vu and clearly suffer from too much repetition.  That is the nature of getting to what is popularly classified as old.

 

So I enter the labyrinth people of my age step up to. I watched my parents and in-laws managing the terrain, and perhaps should have paid more attention. I can’t say that I should have known better, as there was, after all, a distance of thirty years between us; however, on reflection, that is a pour excuse for a lack of empathy. I did note that my father-in-law, being a medical man, did have moments of extreme lucidity and objectivity during which he described some of physical and mental incidents that were happening to him. He kept his good humour throughout. There was some dementia to a small degree, but that made little difference to his social and communicative skill, save for the retelling of some of his stories. Indeed, in the telling, there was always something different and when he lost the thread, having gone off on numerous tangents, he would pause for thought, and after a silence (sometimes quite long) he would say, “Ah yes ..” and the story was back on track.

 

In short, there is never a time when there are no first times, which ought to make things more exciting and give one a perpetual feeling of looking forward with gladness. Unfortunately there is so much crap being thrown in everyone’s face at the moment, it is difficult to find any glee. The quantity and quality of my observations are not as acute as my father-in-law’s as regards my physical being, and politically we were at opposite ends of the spectrum, but. so far as religion was concerned we were probably on the same page. I can recall a time, not the first time, sitting in the dining room with my father-in-law at the house in Wells, Somerset, finishing off a glass of something. My sister-in-law’s cat was visiting and at that moment came into the room with a mouse it had just caught. It was doing unspeakable things to the poor mouse, much to my horror. My father in law commented “God made that”. One had to laugh.

 

One could say the same about what’s going on round the world at present, only it’s not so funny. The first five commandments have been well and truly shattered. For too many people it’s their final first and only time. That’s a first time that should not happen until we are truly ready. To call it ‘God’s will’ is itself a blasphemy.

 

I continue to ponder.

 

This morning I have looked at a couple of pieces in the Guardian. The first is an editorial headed The Guardian view on environmental protest: dissent is vital to protect democracy and the second is an opinion article from Rafael Behr titled The Trump revival will force Starmer to acknowledge the sheer folly of Brexit.

 

The editorial can be found at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/23/the-guardian-view-on-environmental-protest-dissent-is-vital-to-protect-democracy

 

The Behr article at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/24/keir-starmer-donald-trump-special-relationship

 

Mr Behr subheads his piece with the comment “It’s hard to imagine the vindictive despot and the former human rights lawyer enjoying a ‘special relationship’”. Indeed it is difficult to contemplate; however, views being expressed by some politicians from all parties tend to eschew comment about Mr Trump and move straight on to the necessity to take a firm but friendly approach to dealing with Trump. In any event, to not be antagonistic and to take a firm advisory stand in any direct dealings with Mr Trump. This is what is being suggested by some “because, despite one’s feelings, to openly criticise the President of the United States would not be politically efficient” and any President of the United States does have to be dealt with.

 

So hypocrisy reigns supreme in British government. Expressing a preference about the choice of President is hardly interfering in the American elections. Mr Trump is openly antagonistic towards Europe generally, and so far as I am aware the United Kingdom is geographically part of Europe. To not make comment about his boorish and narcissistic arrogance is feeble in the extreme and only feeds his ego.  This is the problem with his acolytes. As to his relationship with Mr Putin, it is quite clear that Mr Putin played him like a fiddle with flattery and bonhomie. One only has to   listen to Trump to know what a fool he is, and completely unsuited to be the president of anything. He does not read. He does not enquire. He makes no attempt to learn. He merely pontificates about how hard done by he is, and as a side issue, how he can save the world in 24 hrs. He has no interests in anything outside his immediate sphere.  He is a buffoon. Why political leaders and representatives should pussyfoot around his ego is astonishing.

 

His presence however, causes anxiety. The world does not want him. The Maga group of republicans surely cannot be so numerous that there is any chance of him actually being elected; yet, here we are with him riding high on the news. There is a cohort of representatives in the United States Congress that for some obscure reason supports him, which clouds the issue. How does he have such a gangster like hold over them? Unfortunately this coming November election will be a turning point for us all. I can only urge and hope all those having a vote in it will do the right thing. 

 

One should not forget that four people have already pleaded guilty to their part in the Georgia case to overturn the 2020 election, which is tied to Donald Trump. They will also be giving evidence at trial. These are a few quotes from newspapers in the US.:

 

Scott Hall, a bail bondsman, pleaded guilty after being accused of conspiring to unlawfully access voter data and ballot-counting machines at the Coffee County election office on January 7, 2021.  He will receive five years of probation and agreed to testify in further proceedings. He was also ordered to write a letter of apology to the citizens of Georgia and is forbidden from participating in polling activities.

 

Sidney Powell, a public face of Trump’s attempts to challenge the election results in 2020 and 2021, pleaded guilty Thursday. The former Trump attorney will avoid jail time but agreed to testify as a witness and pleaded guilty to six misdemeanours for conspiracy to commit intentional interference, downgraded from felony charges she had faced.

 

Kenneth Chesebro, a less public face of the effort, was an attorney who helped engineer the fake elector’s plot. He pleaded guilty Friday to a single felony, conspiracy to commit filing false documents. He’s also likely to avoid jail time.

 

Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty to one felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings. She had been facing charges of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, and soliciting the violation of oath by a public officer, both felonies. She rose to speak after pleading guilty, fighting back tears as she said she would not have represented Trump after the 2020 election if she knew then what she knows now, claiming that she relied on lawyers with much more experience than her and failed to verify the things they told her.

Jena Ellis on entering plea

One has to ask why would these highly educated lawyers together with Mr Hall pleaded guilty and offered to testify unless there was some clear evidence to back up the indictments? Wake up America, wake up and smell the coffee.

I note that his family no longer step up and campaign with him. Some may make comment now and again, but none are out there front and centre. I only hope there is still sufficient intelligence left in America to vote him down. 

 

As to the matter of protest, I refer back to previous blogs in which I have commented on the dangerous path towards authoritarianism this government has taken.

DO NUMBERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE ?

According to the numbers, Donald Trump received just over 56,000 votes during the primary elections. Based on the figures from the 2020 election there are now approximately 2,200,000 eligible voters in the State of Iowa.  Trump won the State of Iowa in 2020 with 53.09% of the vote, whereas this primary result represents about 2.5% of the electorate in Iowa. I appreciate that the voters in this primary are meant to be registered Republicans, but that is a considerable drop from the general election of 2020, in a state that has mostly Republican voters. Indeed the entire turnout for this vote was just over 5% of the total electorate of the State, and although he may have won 51% of the vote in the primary, there were still 49% of voters who did not support him.

Unfortunately the dreadful weather must have played a part in the numbers who managed to make it to the voting booths, but nonetheless the percentages must give some sort of indication as to what can be extrapolated.  I realise that what one can predict from these figures is difficult to know. I am sure there are statisticians who have formulas for judging more precisely what these figures add up to, but I rather hope that the low percentages, as against the total electorate, indicate that the Trump band wagon is more flimflam and bluster.  Be that as it may, it still provides him with massive free coverage and publicity. His voice is being well and truly heard throughout America and feeds the Maga circus.

 

I only hope that the voices that speak of the real dangers of a Donald Trump Presidency, of his psychotic narcissism and pathological lies are heard and reported just as widely. I note, in this respect, that the Emmy’s nominations for outstanding talk shows included Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart all of whom have issues with Donald Trump.  I am assuming that their combined audience is reasonably large, or is it just that the people deciding on the nominations have a particular bias and the actual numbers are quite low.

 

There are also a number of politicians who do have a following and who do have a reasonably wide platform. This includes Democratic Congresswoman Katie Porter from the 47^th District in California, which contains, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Seal Beach. Oddly enough, she was born in Fort Dodge, Iowa and grew up on a farm in southern Iowa. She graduated from Yale and Harvard.  I am assuming that there may be other folk in Iowa who are not part of the Republican majority. Ms Porter may well have friends in Iowa who are as anti-Trump as she is. So one lives in hope that throughout the country there are more voters opposed to a Trump revival and that the effect of that number will see him sent off the political scene.

 

In the meantime in the United(?) Kingdom there are specific problems relating to language and interpretation of legislation. The current government seeks to deport illegal aliens (refugees) to Rwanda and in order to do so has proposed a bill that will allow government ministers to disregard any and all judicial rulings that might prevent the deportation of an individual claimant for asylum. They will be, by an English act of parliament, enabled to ignore the law. There is a group within the conservative party government who want the legislation to specifically say that no law or international agreement currently in existence will be able to prevent a minister for immigration from issuing a deportation order against any potential immigrant. There is to be no right of appeal or access to a court of law in any circumstances.

 

The current Prime Minister and his supporters claim that the legislation does in fact imply that that is the case. A number of his colleagues disagree. They do not want any exceptions, no matter how limited, that would give any individual rights of access to a court. The government also insists that the reason for the legislation is to deter people from trying to get to the United Kingdom across the channel in small boats. They say, the fact that they will be immediately carted off to Rwanda on arrival, will deter them from even contemplating the journey, thus ending the traffic across the channel. The boats will stop. Their firm belief in the deterrent effect is remarkable given the failure of harsh punishments imposed for certain criminal offences which have not stopped the commission of crimes. The 30 year sentences of imprisonment for the notorious train robbers have not stopped robberies of all kinds. Tough sentencing and punishment has nothing to do with deterrence. If that were the case then criminal activity would have ceased 5000 years ago.

 

What this legislation is about has nothing to do with stopping the boats. It is merely a subterfuge to get rid of the immigrants and refugees who are already here, thereby getting rid of the backlog of applications and removing people without any scrutiny at the stoke of a minister’s pen. It seeks to bypass any judicial sanction and is in complete contradiction of any adherence to national or international law. It is entirely at odds with the very basics of the British constitution.

 

The protestations of the mealy mouthed Michael Tomlinson MP Minister of State for Countering Illegal Migration, as expressed in an interview on the Today Programme this morning, are sad and disingenuous. If ever there was a conservative party junior apparatchik he is one. That he pretends to believe the guff he spouts would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.  

 

This government has brought the entire country into disrepute. On top of which the pretence at being a world power by once again aligning itself with the United States in its attempt to police the world is pathetic. It was pointed out to me today what determination, character and leadership it took for Harold Wilson to keep the United Kingdom out of the Vietnam war despite American entreaties. He may have allowed the United Kingdom to be used as an extended US Air Force and Munitions base, but he was not drawn into the fray and thereby saved many British lives.  I am not suggesting that the attempt to deal with the current piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Bab al-Mandab Strait is anything like Vietnam. It is clearly something that needs global attention, but the picture of Rishi Sunak clothing himself with a sword of honour and military prime ministerial bravado is ridiculous. It just hasn’t worked.

 

And so we trundle on. I was hoping for a healing start to the new year, but the fissures and cracks appear to be widening.  I wish all good things to my American friends and hope that their collective will and determination will see the end of the likes of Donald Trump, his most violent supporters and the crass and hypocritical republican party congressional representatives and members of the senate. Never in the history of the United States have so many been two faced and willingly submissive and supportive of a psychopathic narcissist. What’s the deterrent procedure and sentence for that?

FROM THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT

Listening to In Our Time on BBC Radio 4 (Link : https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001v3wy) with Melvyn Bragg on the subject of Nicolas de Condorcet, French philosopher and mathematician, born 17^th September 1743 in Picardy and died in a prison cell on the 29^th March 1794, in Bourg-la-Reine in the middle of his 51^st year, I was moved to doing some further reading about this interesting man. Mentioned during the broadcast, amongst other writings, was his Sketch – [full title: Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progres de l'esprit humain (Sketch of a historical picture of the progress of the huma mind)] The first paragraph reads:

“Man is born with the faculty of receiving sensations, of perceiving and distinguishing, in those he receives, the simple sensations of which they are composed, of retaining them, of recognizing them, of combining them, of preserving them or recall in one's memory, to compare these combinations with each other, to grasp what they have in common and what distinguishes them, to attach signs to all these objects, to better recognize them and facilitate new combinations.”

 

The Wikipedia entry referring to the Sketch states:

 

“It made the Idea of Progress a central concern of Enlightenment thought. He argued that expanding knowledge in the natural and social sciences would lead to an ever more just world of individual freedom, material affluence, and moral compassion. He argued for three general propositions: that the past revealed an order that could be understood in terms of the progressive development of human capabilities, showing that humanity's "present state, and those through which it has passed, are a necessary constitution of the moral composition of humankind"; that the progress of the natural sciences must be followed by progress in the moral and political sciences "no less certain, no less secure from political revolutions"; that social evils are the result of ignorance and error rather than an inevitable consequence of human nature. He was innovative in suggesting that scientific medicine might in the future significantly extend the human life span, perhaps even indefinitely, such that future humans only die of accident, murder and suicide rather than simply old age or disease.”

 

And

 

“For Condorcet's republicanism the nation needed enlightened citizens and education needed democracy to become truly public. Democracy implied free citizens, and ignorance was the source of servitude. Citizens had to be provided with the necessary knowledge to exercise their freedom and understand the rights and laws that guaranteed their enjoyment. Although education could not eliminate disparities in talent, all citizens, including women, had the right to free education. In opposition to those who relied on revolutionary enthusiasm to form the new citizens, Condorcet maintained that revolution was not made to last and that revolutionary institutions were not intended to prolong the revolutionary experience but to establish political rules and legal mechanisms that would insure future changes without revolution. In a democratic city there would be no Bastille to be seized. Public education would form free and responsible citizens, not revolutionaries.”

 

The Sketch was published in 1795 after his death, but no doubt written during the period of the French Revolution which followed on from the American Declaration of Independence and subsequent revolution 13 years earlier. That revolution was promulgated by men who clearly had education and knowledge of David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40) and Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1761), as did Condorcet whose wife Sophie not only published her husband’s Sketch in 1795, but her own translation into French of Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1794. Indeed Sophie Madame de Condorcet started a salon at the Hotel des Monnaies in Paris opposite the Louvre which was attended, amongst others by Thomas Jefferson. She also hosted the Cercle Social whose members included Olympe de Gouge who had published the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in 1791.

 

This world and word of enlightenment clearly was widespread and led to the optimistic thinking of the power of education and man’s supposed ability to absorb knowledge and common sense which gave rise to the multiple and various declarations of the rights of men, and the formulation of the Constitution of the United States, “a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.

 

The people, who gave prominence to reason and real education and believed in the evolution of free and responsible citizens, have, so far as the current United States is concerned, been abandoned. The very idea that an individual such as Donald Trump can be tolerated, let alone actively supported, by free citizens with the power to vote in such numbers so as to make him President of the United States of America, is contrary to every expectation of human decency, education and intelligence. We appear to be living, or rather existing, in a world retreating into the dark ages.

 

The people who came to prominence and influence during the 17^th and 18^th centuries looked forward to a progressive and continually enlightened civilisation. The glass was always half full. Following on from the ravages of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, we seemed to be hell bent on a downward spiral rather than peaceful and human progress. Technologically there have been some impressive and inspiring advances and, on the whole, are beneficial to the planet, if applied and used with intelligence and reason.  Then again, application and intelligence of technology is a problem all its own, but that too, has its up and down side. Overall one has to question why it is that the authoritarian approach to government seeks to maintain a populace in ignorance. What is it that creates ‘parental rights groups’ which seek to limit the availability of books ‘not approved of’ and enforce a very limited approach to learning. It’s as if education was about learning only what is deemed to be acceptable by the control group.  That is not education, that is indoctrination. Societies have been there before and it never ends well.

 

There is a divide in the United States as to what the Constitution actually means. Both left and right of the political spectrum lay claim to it and appeal to it to enforce their point of view. Outrageously there are the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who propound that it protects their right to bigotry, intolerance, the power of the gun and violence both physical and verbal. Our way or no way. They hurl insult and threat at the slightest opposition. In the face of overwhelming evidence showing their leader to be an obsessive charlatan applauding violent behaviour, they do not see the sham. “He loves our country” is their instinctive response. Constituencies that can elect the likes of Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Matt Gaetz. Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and many more, give cause for great concern.

 

Despite the revelations of the January 6 House Committee hearings and the statements of the variety of witnesses that Donald Trump is an arrogant swindler nothing seems to stick. How is it that a country whose popular majority rejected Donald Trump in 2020, having swallowed four years of his psychotic narcissism, is once again on the brink of allowing him to continue in any public office, despite exhibiting even greater psychotic obsession?

 

I wonder about humans born in the United States. Has the faculty of receiving, perceiving and distinguishing sensations been subverted? Do they really have the facility to recognise, compare and distinguish between what is the truth and what is criminal chicanery?  The internet is so rife with skulduggery invading emails and messages across the globe that one is forever on alert and almost every transaction now requires double verification. How does one distinguish anything?

 

I do not seek to be depressing at the very beginning of the new year, but the next 11 months is a major test for democracy around the world. I truly hope that the predictions and prospects felt during the Enlightenment of the 18^th and 19^th Centuries will prevail. Where are the likes of  Sophie Condorcet and Olympe de Gouge when we need them? I know they are out there. Now would be their time and it's not the likes of Nikki Haley.