Ricardo Villarreal

Think, Therefore Think Again

Reaching Utopia, If We Want To

by

Utopia BannerWhy have we been working harder and harder despite being richer than ever? Why are millions of people still living in poverty when we are more than rich enough to put an end to it once and for all? These are questions the Dutch historian Rutger Bregman asks in his eye-opening book Utopia for Realists.

In other words, if we could reach a state of Utopia (one where everybody is rich, safe, and healthy), why haven’t we achieved it? For Bregman, one of the main things has to do with politics being stuck in a type of redundancy where immediate problem management hasn’t allowed room to engage the public with radical ideas to solve long-term goals.

Bregman mentions capitalism did in fact open the gates to create wealth and abundance, but it wasn’t enough. Progress is more than just amassing wealth, but it’s about having the wisdom to understand how to live well, and how we achieve a utopic scenario where everyone does well.

Radical ideas are needed, and very soon, as accelerating technologies, advanced automation, aggressively competitive online retailers, and Artificial Intelligence systems continue to disrupt many industries all over the world threatening millions of jobs into the future.

The author proposes three main ideas to reach Utopia: an unconditional basic income, a shorter workweek, and open borders. These ideas may sound radical (because they are) but make a lot of sense economically and meaningfully.

Universal Basic Income

There have been many studies in different parts of the world where a guaranteed unconditional basic income constantly shows very promising outcomes, resulting in reductions in crime, child mortality, malnutrition, domestic violence, teenage pregnancy, and showing improved school performance, economic growth, and gender equality. Children are the big winners, suffering less from hunger and diseases, and reducing the threats of becoming victims of child labor.

Not only were the outcomes very positive, but the studies also showed that negative perceptions many have on universal basic income are not true. Arguments like “giving people free money will make them lazy” or “they will spend the money on alcohol and tobacco” turned out to be false. The results showed exactly the opposite: a decline in consumption of alcohol and tobacco, and having an extra cash enabled people to work harder. As Bregman states, poverty is fundamentally about a lack of money, not about stupidity.

A very revealing part of the book on this subject is when Bregman shares how the United States was so close to pass a modest basic income in 1970 through President Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan. The House of Representatives approved the bill by an overwhelming majority, but it failed in the Senate opposed by Democrats. Since then, there hasn’t been a similar proposal, but today the topic has been covered more frequently, with even a Democratic candidate for president, Andrew Yang, proposing universal basic income as his main policy.

A Fifteen-Hour Workweek

For the past decades, technology and automation have helped us produce things way faster than ever. Things that would have taken days or weeks to make are now being done at a smaller fraction of time. However, it seems this hasn’t reduced our working hours, or, to put it in a different way, it hasn’t freed more of our time for leisure activities.

Pioneers of this idea in the early 20th century, Henry Ford and the cornflake magnate W.K. Kellogg, decided to experiment with reducing their employees’ working hours. Soon enough, they realized their workers were not only more productive at work, but happier to have real leisure time to spend with family and doing hobbies.

But as Bregman expands, a shorter workweek has benefits that go far beyond the individual level. It can help solve unemployment through work sharing (including the aging population), it can help reduce stress (people that work fewer hours are more satisfied with their lives), it can help reduce the effects of human-made climate change (shorter workweek cuts CO2 emissions), and among other things, it promotes gender equality (as house chores are better divided).

You may be wondering how do we start working fewer hours? Well, this is certainly not going to happen overnight, but we need collective efforts from policy makers, companies, and persuade the public to shift paradigms and break away from traditional ways of thinking.

Open Borders

In a world of globalization, we feel more connected to other countries and cultures. We can find imported goods from all over the world at stores, we can interact online with pretty much every country, we watch foreign films and listen to world music. Everything seems to move around internationally… except people. According to the author, only 3% of the world’s population lives outside their country of birth.

How beneficial would it be living in a world with open borders? A study conducted by Michael Clemens from the Center for Global Development shows an estimated global GDP growth ranging from 67% to 147% deriving from global labor market migration. According to Bregman, opening borders to labor would increase wealth by sixty-five trillion dollars, making this also the most effective measure to solve world poverty.

Today, a newborn baby’s future chances of succeeding in life depend greatly on which country they are born, not on their own merit or contributions. And that’s partly because borders discriminate and continue furthering the inequality gap. Scientists at the World Bank report that if all developed countries would let just 3% more immigrants, the world’s poor would perceive an extra $305 billion. And even though today open borders would seem a long shot to achieve (especially with far-right country leaders), we must support politicians who understand that a gradual implementation of labor migration flow can help advance progress and fight poverty.

In conclusion, I think Rutger Bregman has written a very important book that has made a lot of people think about these remarkable ideas which, if implemented, could help make the world a better place. But as he quotes John Maynard Keyes, “The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones.”

 

 

It’s (kind of) Happening Here

by

Barbed WireSinclair Lewis’ dystopian political novel It Can’t Happen Here was written in 1935, but it regained popularity and relevance lately due to the unavoidable parallels of the story with the current state of political affairs in the United States under a Trump presidency.

Lewis, the first American to win a Nobel Prize in Literature, wrote this masterpiece warning us about the rise of totalitarian regimes in free nations, and how they can destroy the foundations of freedom and democracy when they exert obstructions of checks and balances, when there is suppression of the press, and when government focuses more on military power than in the advancement of science and education.

Not only that, but there are also warnings about having an ignorant population of political zealots who easily fall prey to the false rhetoric conducted by the antagonist character in the novel, Buzz Windrip, a populist candidate who wins the presidential election in the United States.

Similar to Trump, Buzz Windrip’s political strategies to escalate his agenda involve inciting fear among his followers, shutting down opponents, and fabricating conspiracies for personal gain and power, while dividing the country.

The author describes Windrip in a way that sounds like a description of Trump: “(Windrip) was vulgar, almost illiterate, a public liar easily detected, and his ‘ideas’ almost idiotic…” Early in the story, there is even a mention on how Windrip, the presidential candidate, wants to “make America prosperous again.”

And while the parallel between Trump and Windrip is quite unequivocal, let me remind you again Sinclair Lewis wrote this novel in 1935, eleven years before Trump was born.

But the magnificence of this cautionary tale is universally applicable to even moderate politicians who have utilized totalitarian practices against their population.

Surely, the novel It Can’t Happen Here reminds us of Trump today. However, the George W. Bush administration also comes to mind when we discover a reference in the story on how Americans in the 1930’s, during the war hysteria against Germany, started calling sauerkraut “Liberty Cabbage.” Pretty much the same level of stupidity as when many Americans in 2003 started calling French fries “Freedom Fries” after France voted against the Iraq War at the UN Security Council.

Just like Buzz Windrip in the novel, Trump publicly mentioned he would fight the banks and the powers of Wall Street. But once he got into power, he has given banks power and influence in his cabinet, hired Steve Mnuchin (a former bank executive) as his Secretary of the Treasury, and, among other things, repealed consumer arbitration rule in favor of banks.

As far as other key people, I believe an obvious comparison in the story is that of character Lee Sarason and Steve Bannon. Sarason was the right-hand man of President Windrip, and was also invited to work with him having been the managing editor of a popular newspaper, where he was “building up” Buzz Windrip for years before his nomination as President.

It’s also inevitable thinking about Melania Trump when the author mentions that “no potential dictator ought ever to have a visible wife.” Buzz Windrip did have a wife, but she was not noticeable. In fact, she didn’t even live in Washington. Compared to previous First Ladies, Melania Trump’s lack of involvement is quite notorious.

The political philosophy of Buzz Windrip is described in his “Fifteen Points of Victory for the Forgotten Men” and incorporates fascist and confederate ideas, prevalent in today’s Alt-Right movement. Just to list five examples of this platform created to please his base, we have the following:

  • All persons are guaranteed absolute freedom of religious worship, provided, however, that no atheist, agnostic, nor any Jew who shall refuse allegiance to the New Testament, nor any person who refuses to take the Pledge of the Flag, shall be permitted to hold any public office or to practice as a teacher, professor, lawyer, judge, or as a physician.
  • The Government will decide which Labor Unions will stay and they will have the power of decision in all labor disputes.
  • The size of the military, armaments, and naval establishments shall be consistently increased.
  • African-Americans shall be prohibited from voting, holding public office, practicing law, medicine, or teaching in any class above the grade of grammar school.
  • All women employed shall be assisted to return to their incomparably sacred duties as home-makers and as mothers of strong citizens.

The above points sound horrific indeed, but the scary thing is many in the far-right today will have no problem with any of those concepts.

Another resemblance of Windrip with Trump is shown on Buzz Windrip’s eagerness of having business dealings with… Russia! And similar to Trump’s “America First” catch phrase, Buzz Windrip is anti-trade and wants every single thing the country needs to be produced at home.

The exertion of a Corporate State in the novel dramatically impacts education as well, where the authoritarian government does its part to get rid of any intellectualism, “dangerous thinkers,” literature, and science .

Funny thing is, one of the Corpo universities in the novel was named Windrip University after the president. Yes, just like a Trump University, and a total scam as well.

Of course, Trump hasn’t gone as far as executing people who discredit his administration or imprisoning journalists who cover him negatively (although he has retaliated against CNN publicly over their reporting and has referred to any news network not covering him favorably as “fake news”).

Neither has Trump established labor camps and a paramilitary army at his service, nor has he made the liberal Supreme Court members resign and replaced them with his friends, among other draconian measures that Buzz Windrip does impose in the novel.

But Trump’s authoritarian style, although at a smaller scale, is obvious. And as long as he remains in power, the threat against our democratic institutions is still there.

Extreme ideologies are hurting our country, and we must be smart in identifying and reducing divisive authoritarian groups in order to protect our freedoms.

As Doremus Jessup, the protagonist liberal journalist, observes: “the struggle today is not about Communism against Fascism, but tolerance against the bigotry that is preached equally by Communism and Fascism.”

We have been forewarned and cannot take things for granted. Towards the end of the story, and without giving any spoilers, Doremus Jessup leaves us with a final thought:

“More and more, as I think about history, I am convinced that everything that is worthwhile in the world has been accomplished by the free, inquiring, critical spirit, and that preservation of this spirit is more important than any social system whatsoever. But the men of ritual and the men of barbarism are capable of shutting up the men of science and of silencing them forever.”

 

 

Trump’s Checkmate

by

Checkmate TrumpThe latest issue of The New Yorker (May 8, 2017) shares “Endgames” by Evan Osnos, a very comprehensive piece on what it would take to bring down Trump’s Presidency, focusing on the US Constitution’s Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the possibility of an impeachment, or even a self-imposed Nixonian exit.

While it is true that no US President has ever been immune to criticism, Trump entered his presidency having lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, in a sharply divided nation, with plenty of chaos, and fueled by a huge opposition of citizen activists and critics that so early in his term are calling for his impeachment.

His start has been everything but smooth sailing. Full of controversial executive orders, an unwillingness to release his tax returns, a questionable cabinet of incompetent loyalists, massive marches and protests all over the country, nepotism & conflicts of interest, and a federal investigation into a collusion with Russian interference of the 2016 US presidential election, among others, have gained Trump the lowest approval rating of any President in modern US history.

To make things worse, his arrogance and inability to take any negative criticism has irritated many people from his own political party. Trump is simply not interested in responding to his own actions, accountability is non-existent for him, and it’s always someone else’s fault.

But, can something really be done to take down Trump?

Yes, but the road to get there is not necessarily quick nor easy. Evan Osnos describes, for instance, how in 228 years of US political history, only one President has resigned and two have been impeached (although they were not removed from office).

One legal option to remove the President lies in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

This amendment was adopted on February 10, 1967 and it deals with the succession to the Presidency as well as responding to the President’s disabilities. More precisely, but not as specific as we would like, Section 4 deals with the removal of the President if he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

The common denominator for using this legal instrument has to do with the possibility of Trump being mentally unfit.

Speculation about Trump’s mental health started during the presidential campaign, but it has kept growing and it remains a big concern as the US and the world rely on his decision-making abilities to deal with imperative world affairs matters.

Osnos reveals how more than 50,000 mental-health professionals have signed a petition stating that Trump is “too seriously mentally ill to perform the duties of President and should be removed” under the 25th Amendment.

The author also shares with us a revealing study by psychiatrists at Duke University concluding that about half of US Presidents they researched had suffered a mental illness. With this, he details three particular cases that are worth noting:

Pro-slave President Franklin Pierce was a heavy drinker and suffered from depression after his son’s death at a crucial time in US history, years before the start of the Civil War. President Lyndon B. Johnson was also affected with paranoia as the Vietnam War escalated.

And finally, President Ronald Reagan’s judgment, as well as his speech and decision-making abilities, changed during the last years of his presidency. Five years after leaving office, Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.

Trump does carry a lot of baggage against him that could trigger using this amendment, and there are elements that make people rightfully suspicious of his judgmental abilities and mental health.

To name a few, his constant repeating of proven falsehoods, his use of a fourth-grade level language, his threatening rhetoric against those who criticize him, his obscene narcissism and unpredictable behavior, and his incitement of violence against protesters, are among the dangerous signs that have people very worried.

Dispensing Section 4 of the 25th Amendment on Trump is a very possible, although not immediate, scenario.

Next comes the possibility of impeachment. The grounds for it include: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

One very important point Evan Osnos shares here comes from an interview he had with David O. Stewart, the author of “Impeached,” who told him: “impeachment is not a judicial proceeding, but a tool of political accountability.”

Among the reasons for impeachment are several undergoing investigations of Trump, including the very serious amounting evidence of collusion with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, and his reluctance to resign from his business holdings and profiting from them while holding the office of the Presidency, plus violating the US Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.

On this last example of using the public office for private gain, let’s not forget the State Department had to take down a website that promoted Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Resort.

But again, impeachment is not likely to happen soon. Not while Republicans hold the majority in Congress and the Senate. But Democrats have a big chance in the 2018 midterm elections to gain back political control and generate a bill for impeachment.

Finally, there is also the possibility of a Nixonian exit. One where Trump, cornered by multiple scandals, simply offers his resignation. He has expressed he misses his old life and that being President wasn’t as easy as he thought.

But as positive as it would be getting rid of an unstable and toxic President like Trump (if it ever happens before 2020), the scenario of dealing with a Mike Pence Presidency will also have its share of challenges in a country that desperately needs progressive actions to move forward.

 

How plutocracy and religion are killing American democracy

by

Statue of LibertyIt’s happening. The guy at the very top position of power is threatening the foundations of liberal democracy in our country by paving the way for plutocracy and religion to perpetrate in the functions of the government.

We need to continuously remind people who is this enabler: a self-called billionaire who lacks all the important skills to be president, a revengeful leader, ignorant of the country’s constitution, who continuously lies to the public, who has shown no respect for minorities, who doesn’t take any criticism, and who has even singled out the media as the enemy of this country.

Sure, democracy has room for improvement. Nevertheless, it is still the best form of government and we need to protect it now more than ever.

The current administration shines not for having the smartest individuals at the top jobs, but for their wealth. Their biggest merit is certainly not a qualification at all.

It is, however, the fuel that feeds plutocracy. The ultra-wealthy people in this nation help elect those in government, and in return gain the power to secure cabinet roles and to influence political decisions that would protect their interests and businesses, rather than the interests of the general population.

Not only that, but they think money and power give them the right to impose their beliefs on others. And this is how plutocratic forces amplify the dangers of religion and the risks it represents to our freedom and democracy.

For example, the presence of religion in politics has influenced legislation that has negatively impacted the rights of women and minorities on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

In education, politicians of faith in many states have tried to impose religious subjects in public schools as alternative to science. This is a clear reflection of the fear they have that scientific knowledge presents indisputable evidence and objective truths that undermine the validity of their religion.

There is no question religion thrives in an environment of ignorance, fear, and oppression. But suppressing science, reason, and truth is not an option.

Where does religion belong? In the privacy of individuals, not commandeering the functions of government, and certainly not becoming an obstacle in the exercise of freedom in an open society.

Only in a secular government can diversity, freedom of religion, equality, and a fair rule of law can coexist, while protecting democracy from any abuse, discrimination, and corruption that would favor one religion over the rest.

Rather than imposing beliefs, it is better for a country to have a society of free-thinkers, where ideas can be exchanged freely with an open mind.

The founders of the American Constitution believed in the idea that dialogue, not force, should triumph over the decisions pertaining the prosperity of the nation.

But the current leader of this country does not believe in dialogue. On the contrary, he has prevented arguments against him, demands his opinions to be unquestionable, and has even fired those who challenge him.

The moment you impose censorship upon the opinions of others (especially minorities), you open the doors to intolerance and the creation of fanatical bigots. And unfortunately, that is exactly what we are seeing happen today.

This is not a matter of political ideology. It is a matter of preventing the rise of a dictator-like figure threatening to destroy the democratic foundations of our nation.

It is not an exaggeration, and we cannot wait to act until it’s too late.