Saturday, August 27, 2016

Liel Leibovitz at Tablet wants to Excommunicate Peter Beinart and most American Jews

Liel Leibovitz published an article in Tablet yesterday (Dear Social Justice Warriors: Your Religion is Progressivism, not Judaism). It's a nasty, sneering piece of work. He wants--had he only such powers--to excommunicate Jews working for social justice from the tribe.

Leibovitz is upset with Peter Beinart for suggesting that the organized Jewish community should take a stand against the burkini ban and against anti-Muslim bashing in general. Leibovitz derisively calls Beinart "the columnist," linking to his article in Haaretz. Leibovitz likewise sneers at Jewish social justice activists for Black Lives Matter and Jewish activists opposed to Israel's now 50 year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Religious liberty and social justice are not Jewish values, implies Leibovitz. Jews should attend to their theology, and theology has nothing to do with social justice: "Wrestling with the bond that ties us to the Creator is hard," says Leibovitz,  "preaching some gauzy nicety about embracing the Other is not." Our social democratic values correspond at best in a tangential way to those of Judaism, he claims. Craving social justice is a mood, not a belief system, says Leibovitz.


"That which is hateful to you, do not unto another, that is Torah; the rest is commentary, now go study!" That is the famous adage attributed to the first century rabbi Hillel. It has given rise to a long tradition of Tikkun Olam (healing the world through justice) in rabbinic Judaism. But that is not Judaism, no that is not Judaism at all, says Leibovitz:
It’s time we ended this farce. Those of us who find little use for Judaism except as a stage on which to perform the pageantry of progressivism should kindly take a bow and leave for other precincts that better suit their interests. They do the rest of us no favors by sticking around and insisting that we contort our beliefs to mean nothing more than whatever political agenda happens to be fashionable at the moment. .... But all of us who remain should ... refrain from arguing that this engagement (with Judaism) somehow gives us the authority to make claims on anything but the faith itself; and to have the intellectual and moral decency to realize that while political and theological questions sometimes converge, they are never, at their essence, the same questions. As Jews, there’s really nothing else we ought to do.
Oy.  If religious liberty and social justice are not values we can find in Judaism, then what's left, and why should we bother? Arbitrary dietary laws? Arcane prohibitions on conjugal relations? Rules about the slaughter of animals in a temple 2000 years gone?

Ethnicity is what's left, says Leibovitz; and that special feeling of being God's chosen people; and Jewish law. "Whether you consider the Jews followers of a faith, members of a nation, or both," says Leibovitz, "you can hardly ignore the historical and doctrinal truth that they became whatever they may now be one day long ago at the foothills of a mountain far away, when they accepted the strange burden of becoming God’s chosen children."

But no. Jews did not become what they are today one day long ago at the foot of Mt. Sinai. As Leon Wieseltier said in his essay Against Identity in the New Republic (1994), quoting Hawthorne: "Let us thank God for having given us such ancestors; and let each successive generation thank Him, not less fervently, for being one step removed from them in the march of ages." Time marches on. Our values change.

According to a comprehensive 2013 Pew study, 62 percent of American Jews believe being Jewish is more about culture and ancestry than religion. Nearly half of American Jews are intermarried. More than half don't believe in God. Yet they continue to engage with Judaism. They continue to engage with Judaism through synagogues, through education, through study programs, through museums, through music, through social service groups, through engagement with Israel (both pro and con), and yes, through working for social justice and equality: Tikkun Olam. Fifty-six percent of American Jews in the Pew study, when asked "What does it mean to be Jewish?" answered working for social justice and equality. Only 19 percent felt that observing Jewish law was important.

Leibovitz says Judaism is all about observing Jewish law, and not about social justice. He succumbs to the lure of identity and the lure of wholeness. But, as Wieseltier noted in his essay, Jews are not one thing, they are many things. There is room for Chabad and room for atheists. And American Jews are not just Jews. They are Americans. They hold constitutional values of liberty, equality, fairness, and justice. They bring those values to their Judaism. They are children not only of European Jewry, but they are also children of the Enlightenment and of Haskala. They are the product of our American universities and hold values and world views absorbed there. They are professionals and bring with them the values and ideals of their professions. They have connections to French, German, Austrian, Spanish, Polish as well as Israeli cultures. They, like all Americans, are many things.

The American achievement, said Wieseltier, is not a multicultural society: it is the multi-cultural individual. The multicultural individual is what tribalists like Leibovitz fear, Wieseltier suggested. They want to be one thing; but we are not one thing.

Leibovitz harkens back to the reactionaries of the counter-Enlightenment. Social justice and Enlightenment values are not universal, they don't fit comfortably in Judaism says Leibovitz.  J.G. Herder (1744-1803) shared that view. He too denied universal values. He regarded the nation as the basic unit of humanity. The identity of an individual is dependent on his culture, and Herder strongly affirmed the right of each people to determine its own path and worth. We must  understand each culture on its own terms and as an organic unity, he said. That's what Leibovitz is doing in his thinking about Judaism.

Herder claimed the nation (or Volk) is what provides the most basic and original horizon for understanding and interpreting the world, and that it is only insofar as we belong to a particular people that we can begin to make sense of our life. That's what Leibovitz says about the Jewish "nation." To be exiled or alienated from one's people can be spiritually disastrous, suggested Herder, for an individual is nothing without the community that has nurtured him or her and from which the individual takes all his bearings.

But what is the relevant community? What does "all bearings" mean?

Leibovitz is channelling Herder and the Spanish Inquisition when he tells Peter Beinart, Jews for Black Lives Matter, and Jews working for justice in Palestine that they should all get lost. He wants to keep Judaism pure for those concerned with Jewish law (theology). He has no room in his Judaism for atheists. He has no room for Peter Beinart. He wants to excommunicate most American Jews.

But like Herder, and his successors on the European radical right, Leibovitz is wrong, wrong, wrong. American Jews are many things. And there is room in Judaism for all of them. Even for Liel Leibovitz.

An appeal to Tikkun Olam and looking to Judaism for inspiration for social justice is somehow inauthentic, suggests Leibovitz. But authenticity, Wieseltier reminds us, is a paltry standard by which to appraise an idea, or a work of art, or a politics. Authenticity, he said, is a a measure of provenance, and provenance has nothing to do with substance. Jewish law or theology may be ours, and still be false. A piece of art may be ours and still be ugly. A politics may be ours and still be evil.

Authenticity is reactionary, said Wieseltier. It is the idolatry of origins. Tikkun Olam and the inspiration to work for social justice should be celebrated, not least because these values are made from what was given.  Such values are derived not only from the theology itself; they draw on broader traditions, including our Enlightenment values and our American values. Our values are richer for it, and not any less Jewish.

Read the Wieseltier article HERE.

Follow me on Twitter @RolandNikles

Friday, August 26, 2016

In the United States we are a Month Away from Early Voting

Roman coin minted 63 BCE, showing voter casting ballot
63 BCE was a momentous time in the history of Rome, says Mary Beard. Cicero, the orator, philosopher, politician, priest, and poet, defeated Catiline in an election for the Senate. Catiline organized a revolt, but Cicero managed to have the plotters arrested and summarily executed without trial. A mere 14 years later Ceaser crossed the Rubicon and put an end to the Republic.

In the United States we are a Republic still. But the potential for revolutionary change is in the air. We are just a month away from the first votes being cast. In Minnesota early voting starts 46 days before the November 8 general election; several states will start 45 days before; California will start 30 days before.

In this election it appears that more than fifty million voters will cast their vote for Donald Trump, a would be emperor. It is a jarring number. Even though Hillary Clinton is predicted to win (83% chance of winning as of this writing), the sound of 50 million votes for a would be emperor will reverberate.This sound hints at problems that must be addressed: not like Cicero did, but through good technocratic governance, and civic engagement.

Who will vote for Donald Trump? Will you? Or will you waste your vote on Jill Stein or Gary Johnson who have nothing to offer because they will win no electoral votes? Not now, not ever.

Donald Trump is popular with white voters, albeit less popular than Mitt Romney was. See, e.g.  NPR. He is particularly popular among whites without a college degree, and popular with right wing whites.  See e.g. the Jonathan Rothwell Gallup Study, based on 87,000 voter interviews over the last year.  Josh Marshall at TPM says Trump is exploiting uncertainty and fear: "the erosion of white privilege, supremacy and centrality in American life."

Trump won out over Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and the other also rans of the GOP primary by overtly pandering to white privilege, white supremacy, and white fears of lost centrality

Pessimism plays a role. "There is evidence," says the Gallup study, "that whites are unusually pessimistic about their well-being." This pessimism is particularly acute among lower income whites and older whites. Middle aged whites have experienced a rise in mortality rates over the past 15 years. It's a fact that makes the GOP scorched earth opposition to health care reform for the last 25 years especially obscene.

None of the support for Trump is rational. Supporters say he speaks his mind, says it like it is. They mean they agree with what he says; they like what he says. Yet there is no coherent program. Trump supporters say they could never vote for "crooked Hillary Clinton" because she lies. This is not a rational stance because on any objective measure Clinton is relatively honest in her pronouncements and Trump is off-the-scale flagrant in his disregard of the truth.  If Trump lies 76 percent of the time and Clinton lies 28 percent of the time and you say you like Trump because Hillary lies, there is something else going on.

A vague desire to blow up the system without any plan or understanding for what will replace it is not rational. It's like voting 60 times to repeal Obamacare.

Is it white nationalism?

Don't call Trump support "nationalism"(of any stripe) pleads Brad DeLong: U.S. nationalism means celebrating a nation of immigrants, freedom, and setting a moral example to the world--the essence of U.S. nationalism could not be further removed from the xenophobia Trump is exploiting.

What's shocking about Trump is that he has become the Republican standard bearer, and may garner in excess of 50 million votes despite extreme rhetoric, boorish and crass behavior, bullying, narcissism, crude sexism, ignorance of world affairs, and an utter lack of relevant experience. What's scary about Trump is his volatility, irrationality, utter contempt for the truth, apparent fondness for Putin, and the fact that he surrounds himself with scoundrels.  His first campaign manager Corey Lewandowsky, reported Karen Tumulty in the Washington Post, like Trump, "hit(s) hard, play(s) close to the lines — and occasionally step(s) over them, disregarding the foul calls." Lewandowsky was eventually forced out after assaulting a female reporter walking next to Trump attempting to ask him a question, and grabbing a protester by the collar at another rally. Trump's next campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was a friend and highly paid consultant (more than $12 million) to the corrupt pro-Putin Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich.  Trump's latest campaign CEO, Stephen Bannon, is the head of Breitbart News, a far right news site [see e.g. How Breitbart Unleashes Hate Mobs... ] whose "visceral hatred of the left and self-righteous desire to destroy it frequently appears to overwhelm whatever other moral or ideological beliefs he holds," says Conor Friedersdorf at the The Atlantic.

Bannon speaks in apocalyptic and revolutionary terms. Here he is speaking to a group of conservatives in 2013, as reported by Friedersdorf:
“This is going to be a very nasty, long, protracted fight.... There is a permanent political class in this city that dominates it, and by that dominates the country. And there is a dedicated group of libertarians and grassroots conservatives and Tea Party conservatives and limited government conservatives that are here to destroy that. And that is going to be ugly tough work. That’s just reality. People are not going to give up on aristocracy easily.”
Bannon hints at violence, "marching on people's houses." In the meantime, Trump is laying the groundwork for street violence by warning that the only way he could lose the election in Pennsylvania (a key swing state) is if the election is rigged. "I hope you people can sort of not just vote on the 8th, go around and look and watch other polling places, and make sure that it's 100 percent fine," Trump said. Pat Buchanan joins right in.

Elect Trump and the worst elements will rise to the top. He's off to an inauspicious start. And consider Michael Flynn.

Trump entered national politics by leading the "birtherism" movement, alleging President Barak Obama was not born in the United States, despite the fact that the State of Hawaii vouched they had his birth certificate [not to mention that his mother was undeniably a U.S. citizen]. "Birtherism" was a movement to delegitimize our first black President because he was "from Africa." Trump started his campaign for president by slandering immigrants from Mexico as "rapists." He has vowed to expel all illegal immigrants, setting up a police program to round up and expel more than 11 million people from our midst--many of whom have been among us for decades leading productive lives. Who will step forward to do it? Who will stand-by and do nothing? There is that wall he's promising to build.

Trump is a man comfortably joking about the assassination of Hillary Clinton, joking about encouraging Russia to hack the DNC, and musing that "Honestly, I wish I had that power; I'd love to have that power."  Wait seventy-six days and he may.

It's up to you and me.

Follow me on Twitter @RolandNikles

Friday, August 19, 2016

Is Voter Ignorance a Reason to Shrink Government? Ilya Somin and "Voting with your Feet"

Vote and Fight, or Leave?
Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In our republican form of government we delegate governance to elected representatives whose performance we periodically review. In order to do a proper job of reviewing the performance of elected politicians, therefore, we should have political knowledge. But we have a problem. Most voters are deficient in their political knowledge. Therefore it is difficult for us to meaningfully hold our elected representatives accountable for their performance. How do we manage this problem?

The Optimists

Consider the optimism of John F. Kennedy speaking in 1963:
"The educated citizen knows that .... knowledge is power, that only an educated and informed people will be a free people; that the ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all; and that if we can, as Jefferson put it, enlighten the people generally, tyranny and the oppression of mind and body will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of the day; and, therefore, the educated citizen has a special obligation to encourage the pursuit of learning, promote exploration of the unknown, to preserve the freedom of inquiry, to support the advancement of research, and to assist, at every level of government, the improvement of education for all Americans." 
                                                        --John F. Kennedy, May 18, 1963.

We live in a less optimistic time. President Kennedy in 1963 was aspirational and inspirational. He reflected a hopeful attitude that we can have an enlightened and engaged citizenry, that progress is possible, and that our democracy can work. Today, after 20 years of Fox News and its imitators, we have our doubts.

Yet Henry Farrell and Cosma Shalizi and their cognitive democracy project (the subject of my last post) are keeping the faith. They start off with the realization that the biggest problems democracies face are complex and technical; they acknowledge the vagaries of human nature--that we are subject to confirmation bias and prone to motivated reasoning; they acknowledge that many voters are sorely lacking in knowledge: yet Farrell and Shalizi remain hopeful that the best way to find solutions to society's difficult problems remains through maximizing the diversity of perspectives, through education, social media, and other communication tools, and that despite the flaws and limitations of individual voters, democracy remains our best hope for coming up with good solutions to our complex societal problems (achieving full employment with low inflation, providing security, safety, and stability, protecting the environment, educating the population, making sure everyone has healthcare, a dignified retirement, stimulating culture and scientific development, and resolving competing views on such things as abortion, gay marriage, gun control, etc.)

Nobody said it would be easy! Nobody promised us a rose garden. But I'm on board with optimism and hope. I think we have no choice.

The Pessimism (or is it just motivated reasoning) of Ilya Somin

Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, and a libertarian since high school, looks at the challenges and throws up his hands. Voter ignorance is rational, he says, and therefore the citizens of democracy will never be able to provide effective government oversight. Because people do a poor job with government oversight, the solution is.... we should eliminate government!

O.K., not quite. Somin's proposal is to shrink government and to keep it small. He is as pessimistic about the democratic process as Kennedy was optimistic. On the other hand, being a libertarian, Somin has great confidence in individual action and the power of markets for solving complex social problems. Let them vote with their feet, he says.

Somin has outlined his arguments in a book, Democracy and Political Ignorance, which has just been reissued as an expanded second edition. For a succinct statement of his position, take a look at his article in Cato Unbound (October 2013). He has also advocated his position in many other articles in the popular press.

There is the suspicion, of course, that since Somin's small government conclusions are in line with his libertarian principles held since high school, what we have here is book length motivated reasoning. On the other hand, just because reasoning is motivated doesn't make it wrong. So let's take a closer look.

There is the point that when we look about at the deplorably inane level of our political discourse across the spectrum, when we behold Trump and the fact that 40 million people appear ready to cast their vote for him as president of the United States, when we take stock of the level of voter ignorance about basic political facts (see e.g. Ilya Somin), many of us wonder: how can an uninformed electorate subjected to demagogic misinformation possibly act as an effective check on our political leaders and their performance?

There is also the fact that we lack political knowledge despite attaining higher educational levels across society than in the past. We may even have higher IQ levels than our great-great-great grandparents. Yet we lack political knowledge, says Somin, because we don't spend the time required to become sufficiently knowledgeable. We spend more time considering the purchase of a new television than we do considering our vote for president, senator, member of Congress, or local government representatives. Moreover, we are more likely to be objective in our evaluations when we buy a new television than when we vote for presidential candidates. We take consumer decisions more seriously than voting decisions. This should not be a surprise, says Somin. It's rational to spend more time on purchasing a television than casting a vote for president because our TV purchase will affect our lives in a tangible direct way, whereas our individual vote will never (for all statistical purposes) make any difference.

In San Francisco this November we will vote on 25 local ballot measures. A conscientious review of these measures will take 50 hours of my time. Why should I spend this time when my individual vote will never be determinative of the outcome? It's irrational, says Somin, so we should not expect it. And so we don't. But rather than worry about this problem, Somin embraces it as a rallying cry for shrinking the size of government.

It's true that in our modern world government has become ever more complex. Government expenditures constitute a larger share of the world economy than 50 years ago. According to World Bank statistics, the average government share of GDP world-wide has increased from 13 percent in 1960 to nearly 18 percent in 2015.  In developed countries this number is considerably higher: the range for OECD countries is 33 percent (Switzerland) to 58 percent (Finland); the United States is 38 percent (2014 figures). Increased complexity and increased size of government, says Somin, makes the citizen's task of understanding, evaluating, and voting meaningfully ever more complicated.

Forget it, implies Somin: voters will never be able to properly evaluate government performance, or the performance of individual elected politicians in a world where government comprises 38 percent of GDP. The solution, he says, is to diversify and shrink government, leaving private actors to solve complex social problems through civic groups and by voting with their feet.

What is voting with your feet, and why should we favor it over elections?  Here's Somin in the Cato article:
There is no easy solution to the problem of political ignorance. But we can significantly mitigate it by making more of our decisions by “voting with our feet” and fewer at the ballot box. Two types of foot voting have important informational advantages over ballot box voting. The first is when we vote with our feet in the private sector, by choosing which products to buy or which civil society organizations to join. The other is choosing what state or local government to live under in a federal system - a decision often influenced by the quality of those jurisdictions’ public policy.... 
[F]oot voters don’t have the same incentive to be rationally ignorant as ballot box voters do. In fact, they have strong incentives to seek out useful information. They also have much better incentives to objectively evaluate what they do learn. ... [F]oot voters know they will pay a real price if they do a poor job of evaluating the information they get....
The informational advantages of foot voting over ballot box voting strengthen the case for limiting and decentralizing government. The more decentralized government is, the more issues can be decided through foot voting. It is usually much easier to vote with your feet against a local government than a state government, and much easier to do it against a state than against the federal government.
It is also usually easier to foot vote in the private sector than the public. A given region is likely to have far more private planned communities and other private sector organizations than local governments. Choosing among the former usually requires far less in the way of moving costs than choosing among the latter. 
Reducing the size of government could also alleviate the problem of ignorance by making it easier for rationally ignorant voters to monitor its activities. A smaller, less complicated government is easier to keep track of.
Shareholders engage in foot-voting. If a stock ceases to perform, they sell and move on...., they don't get involved in evaluating leadership and making efforts to replace it with better leadership. Somin suggests we should approach politics the same way. In his Cato article Somin provides the example of southern Blacks moving north for a better life during the Jim Crow era.

But it is not at all clear how Blacks leaving the Jim Crow South for a better life in the North has any relationship to the size of government. Or that it has any relationship to voter ignorance. The problem faced by the woman protesting in the photo at the top of this post is not voter ignorance. She is painfully aware of the problem.

The proper size of government is itself a political question. As a libertarian Somin wants to shrink government. But the democratic consensus over the last half century has not been that government should be smaller. It's been a Republican talking point, but they don't mean it. Government has grown under all administrations since the 1950's.

In order to shrink government, we would need to make value choices. Should we reduce military expenditures? Prisons? Social security? Education? Infrastructure? Environmental regulation? Regulations monitoring a safe food supply? Police? National security? School lunches? Head start? The Space program? How much?

All of these are political questions.  Voting with your feet won't help us resolve any of these questions.

The argument Somin is making--that we should reduce the size of government in order to make it easier for a disengaged electorate to provide oversight--appeals to our democratic process. He is providing reasons why we should vote for elected officials who will bring this about. But that is not different than arguments that voters should vote for representatives who will protect the environment, or increase social security, maintain the TSA, or vote for the earned income tax credit. And in the process we'll have to evaluate which candidates would likely follow through with what we want.

Does Somin have in mind some magic size of government where voter ignorance ceases to be a problem? He's not telling. But it seems unlikely. Any country with a $16 trillion economy must have a sizable government to operate smoothly.  Whether our government spending is 20 percent of GDP  or 38 percent, it won't solve the problem of voter ignorance.

Somin is sympathetic to efforts to improve voter knowledge. A week ago in the Washington Post he favorably reviewed some advice to voters in Scientific American: don't just go with your gut,  don't get all your news from social media, watch the next debate with your eyes, closed, and abstain from voting when you really haven't had the chance to engage at all. These are positive voter virtues, he says, but in the long term "the most effective solution is to reduce the size and complexity of government." I don't think the size of government has anything to do with it.

In the long run I think we'll do better if we harken back to the optimism president Kennedy expressed in 1963. I think we'll do well if, on November 8, the Electoral College map approximates the results of the 1964 election as much as possible.  And I think we'll do well if we adhere to some of that idealism expressed by Kennedy in his speech (above). We'll do well if we remember that citizenship is not just an exercise in rational self-interest because we think our vote will make a difference; if we remember that citizenship is a value;  that taking an interest in political affairs matters; that if we model proper engagement it will influence our children, our friends, our peers.... and that our vote will not just be our vote but the vote of our children, friends, and peers, and their friends and peers, and that we are ultimately all connected in this great venture that is America. We'll do well if we remember that democracy does not consist of making individual market decisions.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Democracy and the Wisdom of Crowds

Oxford Union Debating Hall
Henry Farrell and Cosma Shalizi have collaborated thinking about how human communities have organized themselves, and why democracy based on equality, may be (and will continue to be) the best thing going.

Back in 2012 they published An Outline of Cognitive Democracy. There they note that there have been three enduring political institutions: markets, hierarchies, and democracies.

Markets, they said, work best to solve individual problems rather than collective problems. Governments might meddle in markets through the imposition of Pegovian taxes in order to address collective problems, such as achieving a goal of reducing total carbon emissions through the imposition of taxes in conjunction with a cap and trade program; but, at heart markets are not about collective goals. Markets solve individual problems through price and exchange mechanisms.

A feature of markets, say Farrell and Shalizi, is that they eliminate rational and reasoned discourse, and limit the useful exchange of views. People communicate only through prices and advertising.  Because markets are impersonal, markets homogenize what is provided, they reduce diversity, and they reduce the exchange of ideas. Because information is in the hand of sellers and their advertisers, markets tend to suppress the free flow of ideas. Farrell and Shalizi suggest that markets may provide stability and order, but in the long term markets alone are not sufficient to solve our complex social problems.  [More on this tomorrow]

Similarly, hierarchies have deficiencies. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein speak about libertarian paternalism and "choice architects." Choice architects are leaders who have responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions. Their job is to design institutions to spur better choices. We might think of Plato's philosopher king.

The problem with hierarchies, say Farrell and Shalizi, whether our philosopher king is enlightening or not, is that that any hierarchy requires power asymmetries in order to work. Power asymmetries are set up to push orders down; hierarchies are not so good at filtering useful information up. Hierarchies require bureaucracies, and bureaucracies systematically encourage a culture of conformity in order to increase predictability and static efficiency.

Thaler and Sunstein, report Farrell and Shalizi, criticize the market model by giving numerous examples of how individuals make poor choices and decisions. But, they say, how do philosopher kings--much less Saudi princes, or Russian presidents--make better decisions on individuals's behalf? Such hierarchies, even absent any corruption, treat individual citizens as passive consumers whose choices need to be guided to the desired outcome. Citizens are not participants in politics. Libertarian paternalism (the philosopher king model) is flawed not because it restricts people's choices, say Farrell and Shalizi, but because it makes heroic assumptions about the choice architect's (philosopher king's) abilities to figure out what the choices should be.

Figuring out what the right choices should be, and how to price these choices, turned out to be a central problem in the collapse of the centrally planned state as envisioned by the Soviet Empire. For a great description of this--in a history of an idea novelistic format--read Francis Spufford's Red Plenty. For a great read on how life in Plato's Republic might turn out, we should all be reading Jo Walton's The Just City.

We get better results in solving our complex problems if we all muddle through our politics without submission to philosopher kings or choice architects.

Democracy is the best model to solve complex social problems, argue Farrell and Shalizi, because it can best harness diversity in order to generate useful knowledge. In order for this to work best, we need equality among citizens, fewer power asymmetries, and an actual debate. Democracy and equal rights, that's the key.

Farrell and Shalizi point to social research over the past few decades which has shown that our reasoning becomes much better if we are challenged in an argumentative setting. Democracy with minimal power asymmetries--i.e. Democracy and equality--enables debates and the exchange of ideas. Groups with persistent dissenting minorities, research has shown, are able to come up with more creative and better solutions to problems. Groups that debate and argue tend to be smarter and wiser than the elite members in the group.

Karl Popper noted this about the scientific process: the reliability of science is an emergent property of scientific institutions, not of scientists. Likewise, Democracies in conditions of low power asymmetries--high levels of equality--can reliably come up with better solutions to complex social problems than either market based systems or hierarchically based systems.

Some of this, of course, is faith and a profession of values. Democracy does not come with a guarantee that complex social problems will be solved optimally, or well. Democracies can go far off the rails. Complex problem solving requires, at minimum agreement among diverse groups as to what the problems are that should be solved. When debating, there must be a modicum of good faith, and a minimal level of empirical standards--a willingness to change one's mind based on new and different information. Some would say those conditions are lacking in the current U.S. Congress.

It is human nature, of course, that we consider arguments through the filter of a strong confirmation bias. That is we all have a tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms our preexisting beliefs, and we look with a jaundiced eye on any facts and argument that contradict our preexisting beliefs. However, say Farrell and Shalizi, research shows that groups can make this work. When we argue in diverse groups in favor of our pet solutions to complex social problems, our reasoning is intended not so much to reach a right answer, but to expose and evaluate weaknesses in the arguments of others. It is an argumentative account of reasoning. The benefit to a group, a demos, that challenges opposing views--and nurtures minimal power asymmetries--is that everybody is forced to improve their reasoning process and their arguments, and to come up with better evidence.  Better decision making can emerge from this process, just like scientific truth can emerge from the scientific process--and not from the impartial objectivity of individual scientists. 

The next post will look at the problem of the uninformed voter. Ilya Somin has written a book,  Democracy and Political Ignorancein which he argues that political ignorance is a fly in this ointment of political discourse, that it is an unsurmountable problem because it's rational for citizens to be politically ignorant, and that the solution is to have limited government so people can vote with their feet.  Stay tuned. 

In the meantime, let me know what you think of Farrell and Shalizi's optimistic take on Democracy with conditions of low power asymmetries. 
You can follow me on Twitter @RolandNikles

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Warning Bells of Civilized Society Unraveling are Ringing Loudly

Eva Illouz/SRF 
In June 1995 Umberto Eco (1932-2016) published an essay in the New York Review of books about the timeless aspects of fascism. The magazine saw fit to bring his article back to readers' attention yesterday, because Trump.  The day before, Eva Illouz, a professor of sociology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, published a subtle and fine essay in Haaretz  which focuses on the unraveling of civil society in an Israeli context. Israel is considerably farther down this road than we are in the United States, but taking note of and being able to identify the symptoms of civilization's unraveling is, indeed, of great importance for all defenders of civil society. As we look around, many have the feeling that alarm bells are ringing. These essays explain why this perception is correct.
Umberto Eco/AP

Enlightenment Values Civilization

Civilization, noted Norbert Elias, is a historical process by which states progressively monopolized violence, forbade members of the community to use violence against each other, and by which states appropriated and symbolized law that was universally applied. The state in a civilized society acts as a pacifying force in relations amongst its members. Through participation in civilized society, different groups learn to restrain their aggressiveness and to pay attention to others through codes of civility, and through respect for the rule of law.

In a healthy civilization, collective solidarity and strength are built inclusively, not exclusively. By mixing different humanity, civilized multi-cultural societies yield hybrid forms of intelligence that allow a society to adapt and move forward, says Illouz.

This idea of a civilized society, of course, arose from the Enlightenment. Above all, the Enlightenment championed reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy. Through reason, we can improve the world, or at least our society, for the benefit of everyone. Through reason we can continue to make progress and improve governance, the economy, the lot of mankind, including that of the least among us.

The Enlightenment idea of civilized society gave us the American declaration of independence, the American constitution, and the American ideals that have allowed us to make progress on the road of civilization, with hiccups, faults, and backsliding along the way, but progress all the same. Progress for 240 years and counting. It brought us the French constitution and equality, liberty, and fraternity. It kept the British Raj more decent than it might have been and set the stage for Indian democracy. It inspired the United Nations and formed the basis for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan after World War II.

The Breakdown of Civilized Society

Civilized society suffered tragic breakdowns in the 20th century. The result was war, genocides, and other mass killings. In Europe this breakdown came in the guise of fascism. But the label is incidental.

Civilization breaks down, says Illouz in her essay, when one group inside the collective body starts over-emphasizing its own cohesiveness and unity, and moves to exclude other groups, isolating them spatially and symbolically. Civilization unravels when a cohesive group becomes ready to expropriate the property, dignity, and freedom of others, not because they are ordered to do so, but because they have a sense of being unique and great, and because they have a sense of moral entitlement and moral mission. From a strong group cohesion among a majority group there follows the ability to dis-identify other (minority) groups; to draw rigid boundaries between us and them. Separateness is fostered through the daily and routine exclusion of others in deeds, laws, and ideology.

The Nazi party in Germany in the 1930's adopted a racial view of themselves, which they proceeded to institutionalize through the mechanism of the state. They distinguished between genuine Germans, and those racially impure. The Nazi notion of race divided humanity into un-mixable human groups, making mixing itself a crime and the sign of a degenerate humanity.

This process of separation, which starts the disintegration of civilization, is evil at heart, says Illouz. A distinctive characteristic of evil regimes is their belief in the need to preserve the racial or ethnic or religious purity of a dominant group.  It's what leads to a sense of moral entitlement and moral mission to dominate others. This process of separation is necessary on the way to a state committing collective horrors.

A Problem of Recognition

Civilizations do not unravel overnight. Society is not polarized overnight, reports Illouz. How do we recognize the early signs? How do we guard against the unraveling of civilization?

The capacity to divide sharply between us and them, and to view "them" as a foreign element in our midst, is a historical process that always requires new modes of thought, suggests Illouz. In Nazi Germany the defeat of World War I, harsh economic reparations, economic depression, the demonization of Jews, the mentally ill, degenerate liberals, and other enemies within all played a role in progressively weakening the liberal democratic forces. Slowly, by degrees, the Nazis managed to enact racist laws unhindered. Over time, the Nazi world view became acceptable and a wide variety of Germans adjusted to the gradual changes in norms in light of daily violence--physical and verbal--which was justified, tolerated, and gradually unnoticed. 

Societies in which violence against another specific group is routinized and tolerated are societies in which the mechanisms of civilization have broken down, says Illouz. 

Eco in his article lists several markers of fascism, including: a cult of tradition, a rejection of modernity and the embracing of irrationalism, a glorification of action for action's sake (including violence), a fear of difference, and an embracing of the need for heroic struggle in order to overcome differences. 

A hyper-nationalist policy that is inherent in the unraveling of civilization creates a war of all against all, says Illouz. In such an environment no group is spared hatred. Strongly defined groups, said Reinhold Niebuhr (per Illouz), are inherently selfish and uncaring. Groups have a tendency to close up and to fetishize themselves, and when they crowd too densely around common beliefs about themselves, they undo the delicate normative fabric that holds diverse human beings together. Such rending of the social fabric leads strongly defined groups to legitimize their own violence with a sense of moral entitlement and moral mission.

A Time to Worry

The Illouz article is written in a way that invites any reader reflecting on these warning signals in the context of Israeli society to say: check, check, check .... Indeed, Gideon Levy has drawn all the inferences and reached his conclusions in a follow up article in Haaretz, Stop Living in Denial: Israel is an Evil State. It's not so important what we call it, but it's clear that Enlightenment Civilization is in mortal danger of unraveling in Israel, if it has not done so yet. 

What about the United States? As we look about we see that it's not just Donald Trump. The GOP has been making a concerted effort to overemphasize the cohesiveness, identity, and moral prerogative of White European America for 35 years.  From Willie Horton to "Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers,"  from "welfare queens" to "Make America Great Again," from voter suppression laws to slogans like "keep out all Muslims," from Joe the Plumber to Sarah Palin, from fighting affirmative action, to enacting criminal drug laws that have resulted in 1/3 of the country's black youth being imprisoned in their lifetime, the GOP has been working on the identity and cohesiveness of white America as a distinct group, and working to segregate and stigmatize minority Americans. 

In Congress, the almost all white GOP has worked hard to delegitimize the Democrats. After the 2008 election, the announced top priority of Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell was not to work with Democrats for the good of the country, but to do everything in his power to deny any success to President Obama so as to make Obama a one term president. The whole "birther movement"  served to delegitimize and make Obama--and by extension black America--"other." Through its emphasis on culture wars, through its appropriation of the flag, the GOP has sought to stigmatize liberal America as "other." Some of the third parties have contributed to this separation with their rhetoric.

From its policies on tax reduction, to shrinking government to the point it can be "drowned in a bathtub," to climate change denial, to touting the gold standard, and debt phobia--all the while running up debts by cutting taxes, and initiating unpaid for wars--the GOP has embraced irrationality. The GOP has embraced the need for heroic action, never mind what action, "to make America great again." 

On the campaign trail Trump engages in daily verbal violence, and he whips up verbal and physical violence among his followers. Through innuendo he is urging his followers to take the law into their own hands. He rejects the role of government in calming the aggressiveness of groups and to foster civility and respect for the rule of law. To the contrary he whips up incivility and encourages aggression. By spreading conspiracy theories about "rigged elections" in case he were to lose, by urging his followers to take their 2nd amendment rights into their own hands, by dividing society into "us" and "them," Trump is undermining the very foundations of civilized society. 

The greatest catastrophe's occur, said James Waller, when the distinctions between war and crime fades away, when there is dissolution of the boundaries between military and criminal conduct. Here, too, there are danger signs. The entire war on terror serves to blur the boundaries between war and crime. We react to terrorist acts with acts of war, and war is extended to the domestic realm through the expansion of the social security state and the erosion of civil rights. 

We may well prefer abstention, or choose to vote for some third party, but warning bells are ringing loudly, and this is no time to sit idly by--or to waste a vote. 

Follow me on Twitter @RolandNikles

Sunday, August 7, 2016

My Brush with the Olympics....

Pierre (Fredy) de Coubertin, the French educator, historian, and founder of the modern Olympic movement saw sport as an integral part of education. Sport keeps the mind and body in balance, he thought: it builds moral character, social strength, and prevents time wasted on more trivial things. Coubertin was a dreamer. But it has mostly worked for me.

The Tokyo Olympics in '64 passed me by. I was nine years old, still in Switzerland.  My family did not yet have a television and I read no newspapers. I had started skiing, albeit badly and without instruction. I climbed trees, explored the forests and ruins on the hill behind our house, palled around with incipient gangs, and got bad grades in school. It landed me in boarding school for some much needed supervision.

In my Swiss all-boys boarding school they subscribed to de Coubertin's philosophy. But sports was encouraged in a strictly informal manner. There were no school teams with competitions against other schools. No coaching. But every recess and lunch hour, and after school period we played soccer. It was a passion. I gravitated to goal keeper. An independent position, solitary, proud, with no  competing claimants. I read juvenile novels about goal keepers. Nationalism and sport caught our fancy during the 1966 Soccer World Cup. We listened raptured in the lunch hall that summer as Switzerland played Germany, Spain, and Argentina and went home with three losses. England captured our hearts as they beat Germany in the final 4-2. I've been rooting for England every cup since.  But sine Brexit, England is losing to Iceland! It may be time to move on.

In 1967 my family emigrated half way round the globe to the wilds of central British Columbia. Out in the northern pine forests, far from organized sport, my family moved into a trailer and proceeded to build a house, two barns, and an outhouse. There were tractors, trucks, a D-3 Cat, building fences, corn crops, and squirrel hunting; but I also kept a soccer ball. That ball and a goal marked on the side of a barn kept fantasies alive.

A flickering image of Tommie Smith and John Carlos's black fisted salute, a gesture beyond my understanding at the time, was all I recall of the Mexico City Olympics in 1968. The remarkable leap of Viktor Saneyev did not loom large for me until half a decade later.

Viktor Saneyev World Record in Triple Jump (17.39m), Mexico City 1968

By the time the Olympics dawned in my consciousness I was channelling de Coubertin and taking my sports at least as seriously as my studies.

By ninth grade my family drifted south from Prince George to the Okanagan town of Kamloops. There I found basketball and made my way onto the starting squads of my Junior High and High school teams. I continued to play goal in soccer. I discovered track and field and the Western roll. I read a book about running in the school library and fancied to take up the mile. I recall the lightheadedness, fear, and anxiety at the starting line of my four 1500m races. Without coaching,  training, or a requisite base, it never amounted to much.

By my senior year in High School, my family had moved to Vancouver.  The big city. I continued with soccer. I started as a forward on the basketball team. I tried volleyball and found I did not have the hands for it. The same problem placed limits on how far I might go as a soccer goalie in University. I ran cross-country. And in the spring I stumbled onto a group of jumpers--high jump, long jump, triple jump--with coaches who were dedicated. It turned out I had a knack for the triple jump.

I won the British Columbia High School championship in triple jump that year (1973), and I was hooked. I learned about Viktor Saneyev.  I found a loving and supportive community of athletes and coaches. I attended the University of British Columbia and received support from the University, the Province, and the Country to pursue my passion of triple jumping. It was nurturing support. It was support designed to further student athletes--it was not support to further the glory of the University, the Province, or the Country. It was sport in the image of Pierre de Coubertin.

The Munich Olympics of 1972 were an inspiration to me. The great Viktor Saneyev won the second of his three triple jump gold medals (17.35m).  The event had progressed a lot since Naoto Tajima set a world record at the Berlin Olympics in 1936 with a 16.00m leap. There was the tragedy of the Israeli team and terrorism. But above all there was Steve Roland Prefontaine, the great runner from Oregon who finished fourth behind Lasse Viren in the 5,000 meter run.

Sports did not make me a better student. But it did celebrate life, and it instilled in me a confidence and love of movement that has lasted through the decades. The love of sport, and the desire to make me a better person, is also what motivated my coaches through the years. It has made me respect their efforts, it has made me love them. And the love of sports and admiration of effort, and progress however grudging, is what makes me admire and respect individual athletes in every sport, whether they are gold medalists at the Olympics, or friends picking up skiing and working at it at age 30.

There was a generosity and love of sport in Steve Prefontaine when I met him at Brockton Oval in Stanley Park in May of 1975. It was our practice track in Vancouver. Prefontaine was visiting and had finished a training run. He was vivacious and warm hearted in his encouragement. An ambassador for track and field. A week later he was dead, killed in a car crash. He was 24 years old. He did not get his rematch with Viren in Montreal. He never received an Olympic gold medal. And it did not matter. The lack of an Olympic medal diminished nothing about his running, about his life.

And the Montreal Olympics passed me by too. At the Canadian Olympic trials in Laval, Quebec, I jumped 15.15m, a personal best. It would have been good enough for 5th place at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, 3rd place in London in 1948, and fifth place in Helsinki in 1952. Even in Rome (1960) it would have sufficed for 14th place.  By 1976 the best I could do was no longer world class. Viktor Saneyev won his third gold medal in Montreal with a leap that was two meters beyond where I could have landed in the sand (17.29m).  This was 1.29 meters farther than Naoto Tajima managed when he set a world record in the event at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

And time has caught up with Viktor Saneyev as well.  Today, his Mexico City world record does not rank among the 100 best jumps of all time.  The current mark is Jonathan Edward's now 21 year old world record of 18.29m.

Jonathan Edwards 2 world records, August 7, 1995

The man who will be chasing that record in Rio next week is the American Christian Taylor, who set a personal best mark of 18.21m last summer.  These are remarkable distances: hop 20 feet, step 20 feet, and jump 20 feet into the pit! And this event takes place largely out of the limelight of nationalist expectations. Fans will be following the medal counts by country more closely than they will be following the results of the triple jump event.

De Coubertin also thought the modern Olympic movement could be instrumental in preventing wars, and in bringing out the best in nations. The mega-marketing and branding organization known as the IOC perpetuates this fantasy. But since Berlin '36, the Olympics has become a hyper nationalist propaganda festival. When we review the opening ceremonies of the Bejing Olympics and its thousands of robotic drummers, we are reminded of the Nazi sponsored Berlin Olympics. Over the years individual athletes and entire countries have engaged in systematic cheating with the use of performance enhancing drugs.  I think of the East German programs, I think of the Russian program that came to light in the last couple of years; I think of Ben Johnson, the Canadian sprinter, and Marion Jones, the American sprinter. The list is very long.

The Olympic program today is a huge marketing brand. It's a great show complete with soft pornography. It revels in nationalism and money and spectacle.  Medals and winning and records seem outshine sport.

Yet through it all, sport persists. Athletes remain real, and their efforts, de Coubertin would say, are there to appreciated from the lowliest heats to the finals. If we keep our eye on the ball, on the Olympic ideal envisioned by de Coubertin, on the stories and athletes who are there to compete--out of the medals--out of the finals, sport remains true.

I'll be keeping my eye on the triple jump event on August 15-16. And I'll be rooting for Christian Taylor. And I won't give a hoot about the medal count.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Brad DeLong and Tyler Cowan on Trumpism as a Cyclical Phenomenon

The New York Times has a video (above) of Trump's crowds. They are crazies, to use a term of art. Crazies, says Brad DeLong, have always been part of our political culture. They have always hovered around the 20 percent mark of the American population.  In that sense the Trump phenomenon is nothing new.  The problem is that the crazies, by and large are concentrated in the Republican party, so that they make up 40% of the GOP. And because they are highly motivated, they make up 60% of the GOP primary electorate--hence Trump.

DeLong lays out the argument in an interview with David Beckworth on Macro Musings, speaking in fluent paragraphs as few can.

Here's DeLong on the connection between Trump and the crazies in the NYT video above (starting at 20:30):
The way Tyler Cowan  puts it: it was always the case that 20% of America was crazy. But it used to be that 20% was divided between the two political parties. There were Western and Northern types of people who were fairly crazy, and who were ensconced in the Republican Party because they feared immigrants and the immigrant Democratic machines of the cities, and crime, and so forth. And there were people on the Southern side, but they were not in the Republican party, they were in the Democratic party because Lincoln had freed the slaves and they weren't going to forget that. 
And so you had the elements of Trumpism. 
The elements of Trumpism were always there, but they were marginalized because they were split between the two great coalitions of American politics: the right of center and the mostly left of center coalition. Or, if you want to put it another way, as Truman's secretary of state Dean Acheson did, the party of enterprise and the party of those who feared that enterprise is not going to give them their fair share.... 
And then we have this great partisan realignment, starting in 1964 when Goldwater decides that there is a political opportunity to throw overboard the Republican party's historic commitment to the African American population. And now we have everyone sorted so that the Trumpists are still 20% of of America, but  they are 40% of the Republican party; and because they are highly energized, they are 60% of the Republican primary electorate. 
That's Tyler's view, and I think there is a very strong case that that's a correct view.
That's a big problem and it's a serious problem. Not just for the Republican party, but for America as a whole. In some ways it reflects the problem of America and of the Democratic party back in the 1850's when the Southern slave power was a minority in the country as a whole, and was a minority even in the South, but because they were energized and activist, and concentrated in the Democratic party, effectively the Southern slave power elite controlled the Democratic party and they were able to win more than their fair share of national elections.
But it is not a big change in terms of the underlying economic interests and views of the people, or even of the underlying sociological interests and view of the American people. It's just a concentration at a weak point of our political system. And I think that's by and large likely to be correct.  
Overall, if it weren't for the small detail of the Civil War, I'd say this is an optimistic take. But that small detail should scare the hell out of us.

Follow me on Twitter @RolandNikles.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Swiss Independence Day

Schloss Thun, Switzerland

It's not much to boast of, Schloss Thun, but it has a special place in my heart because Thun was home for the first twelve years of my life. The Zaeringer's built it in 1190 and today it still stands proudly astride the entrance to the Alps as ever.  The Zaeringers, together with the Savoys, the Habsburgs, and the Kyburgs--old feudal families--controlled the plateau and access to the mountain passes on the north side of the Alps. That was before Switzerland. But the mountains, the lake, and the Aare were the same then as now.

Yesterday, the first of August, Switzerland celebrated its national holiday. The bonfires, fireworks, flags, lanterns, cowbells, and traditional dresses mark the initial confederation of three small mountain provinces: Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden in 1291, when Schloss Thun was already a century old. These small mountain provinces managed to obtain letters of Imperial Immediacy--granting limited political autonomy--from the Holy Roman Empire.

According to the Wilhelm Tell story immortalized by Schiller, the nascent Swiss confederation entered into a more robust defense agreement in order to assert their independence on the Ruetli meadow overlooking Lake Luzern.
Wir wollen sein ein einzig Volk von Brüdern,
in keiner Not uns trennen und Gefahr.
Wir wollen frei sein, wie die Väter waren,
eher den Tod, als in der Knechtschaft leben.
Wir wollen trauen auf den höchsten Gott
und uns nicht fürchten vor der Macht der Menschen.
We want to be a band of brothers, free like our fathers; give us death before enslavement; we wish to trust in God and fear no man. So said Schiller's Tell. Some historians date this event to 1307.

In 1314--the start of that most miserable of centuries-- there was a political crisis in the Holy Roman Empire. Duke Louis IV of Bavaria (who would become Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor) and Frederick the Handsome, a Habsburg prince, made competing claims on the crown of Holy Roman Empire. The Swiss Confederates supported Louis IV. When a dispute over access to pasture lands resulted in a raid on the Habsburg-protected Einsiedeln Abbey, the result was war with the House of Habsburg.

The battle of Morgarten (1315) from Wiki:
Leopold of Austria, led a large army, including a small number of knights, to crush the rebellious Confederates. He planned a surprise attack from the south via Ägerisee and the Morgarten Pass, counting on complete victory. ...The Confederates of Schwyz, supported by the Confederates of Uri, .... prepared a road-block and an ambush at a point between Lake Ägerisee and Morgarten Pass, where a small path led between a steep slope and a swamp..... The Confederates attacked from above with rocks, logs and halberds, (and) the Austrian knights had no room to defend themselves and suffered a crushing defeat. 
Flush with their victory at Morgarten, the nascent Swiss confederation was renewed. By 1353 Bern, Glarus, Zug, Zurich, and Luzern joined to form the original 8 state confederation. The independence of this confederation was further consolidated in the Battle of Sempach in 1386.

From Wiki:
The Battle of Sempach was fought on 9 July 1386, between Leopold III, Duke of Austria and the Old Swiss Confederacy. The battle was a decisive Swiss victory in which Duke Leopold and numerous Austrian nobles died. The victory helped turn the loosely allied Swiss Confederation into a more unified nation and is seen as a turning point in the growth of Switzerland.
Switzerland's de facto independenc, earned at the battle of Sempbach,  and the later Swabian wars,  (1499) was formalized into full sovereignty by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Here is Jessica Mathews, writing in the New York Review of Books:

"From the mass of overlapping rulers--emperors, kings, dukes, popes, bishops, guilds, cities--the Peace of Westphalia produced a solution of dazzling simplicity and longevity. From henceforth the governing unit would be the state. Borders would be clearly defined and what went on inside those borders (especially the choice of religion) would be decided by its rulers and a matter of noone else's business. In modern terms the delegates invented and codified modern state sovereignty,a single authority governing each territory and representing it outside its borders, no authority above states and no outside interferance in states' domestic affairs." 
But it would take another two hundred years, including occupation by Napoleon and a mini, half-hearted civil war, for Switzerland to emerge as a truly modern democracy with its own constitution.

The first Swiss Federal Constitution was enacted on September 12, 1848. It was modeled after the U.S. Constitution and incorporated ideas emerging from the French revolution. The constitution was partly revised in 1866, and wholly revised in 1874. Among the changes made was the introduction of the federal referendum. The constitution assures the right of initiative, providing for Switzerland's direct model of democracy.

I think the builders of Schloss Thun would approve if they dropped by for a visit.

Ruetli meadow, August 1, 2016/NZZ