Of Prometheus, Frankenstein, and Chris Christie

The full title of Mary Shelley's famous horror novel is Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. This is quite appropriate, considering that in Greek mythology Prometheus's hubris in daring to teaching the secret of fire to mankind angers the gods who subsequently punishes him by chaining him to a rock and having an eagle tear his liver out. Similarly, in Shelley's work, the monster which Frankenstein created with arrogant hopes that he'd be worshiped by it ends up being a bane to the scientist by murdering his loved ones. Yet this sort of hubris is not limited to literature but can be seen in the latest political news.

An example of hubris is the Dunning-Kruger effect makes us unable to realize what we don't know. This obviously leads to hubris in many cases as people have confidence when one isn't warranted. An obvious case of this occurred in the past week as the so-called "Bridgegate" scandal broke in the state of New Jersey. Despite various prior denials, definite evidence had emerged that high-level aides and appointees of Governor Chris Christie had been involved in intentionally shutting down the George Washington Bridge between Fort Lee, New Jersey and New York City because the mayor of the former had refused to endorse Christie in last year's gubernatorial election. As a result traffic jams occurred for several days while it was even alleged that an elderly woman had died due to the ambulance being delayed in reaching her.

While it is correct to give Governor Christie the benefit of the doubt as to whether he himself personally ordered the bridge shutdown, the news is nonetheless troubling. For the question arises, how could the good Governor have remained unaware for so long about an action that was done by his deputy chief of staff and press secretary with officials in the Port Authority personally appointed by him? In addition why would his political staff risk themselves by doing such a politically and professionally dangerous actions without Christie's command?

In addition, it is clear from previous statements by the Governor that he was under the spell of the Dunning-Kruger Effect considering he did not know that he did not know what his staff was planning. Yet this is but one example of the New Jerseyan's hubris. Another such example was clearly displayed last autumn when he scheduled a separate special election to fill a Senate seat vacanted by Frank Lautenberg's death. Because the popular Newark mayor Cory Booker had gained the Democratic nomination, the Governor feared his reelection campaign would be threatened and as a result held a separate election in October for the Senate seat which cost several million additional dollars. It should be noted this came from a governor who has slashed spending for education in the past. 

Thus has we have seen, hubris is not merely the province of fictional characters but of modern politicians. It is to be hoped that these examples will help all readers of the blog to be more critical in their thoughts and to consider not just what they don't know but what it is they might not know they don't know. 

Pieces of Culture: Hamlet

Enjoy. While I haven't seen the whole film, this appears to be a fine adaptation of Shakespeare's play, using a 19th Century setting.

The Downfall of a Politician

It appears that Kim Jong-Un of North Korea has decided to imitate Prince Hamlet of Denmark in removing his uncle, Jang Sung-taek. The significance of this event can hardly be exaggerated, for this is relevant not just to the internal politics of North Korea, but to the region and wider world. 

Jang had often served as the bridge between North Korea and its Chinese ally, often visiting the latter country which the current leader of North Korea has yet to do. This made him often advocate for the positions China wanted for North Korea such as reforming the highly centralized economy, much as the former country did in the last generation. Thus to a certain extent the blatant ouster of Jang, to the point that his arrest was carried in the middle of a meeting and photographed for all the world to see indicates Kim Jong-Un intends to continue his assertion of independence from China. This desire has already been displayed this year through the North's nuclear tests, which the Chinese opposed and which led them to respond by supporting UN Security Council sanctions. 

When Kim Jong-Un first came to power almost two years ago, there was some hope that he would be a reformist who would begin to open up the "hermit country" to the wider world. Yet this was not to be: North Korea instead has stepped up its bellicose rhetoric by constantly threatening to renew the war against the South which ceased some sixty years ago. The increasing fraying of relations with China threatens to further increase the isolation and block off what was hitherto a moderating influence.

Thus the arrest of Jang has served to but  add tension to the region of East Asia already fraught by territorial disputes between China and Japan over the Senkakus. The United States must navigate this new situation carefully, promoting what good it can by continuing efforts to denuclearize North Korea but also be prepared to meet any sudden action by the North with strength. We cannot but hope that the removal of Jang does not signify anything worse. 

A Further Explanation Part II-Reforming the Way We Vote

Last time on this blog I discussed why "something was rotten" in the current state of the Republic. One of the biggest problems noted there was the nature of how both the President and Congress was elected which often served to obscure the opinion of the citizenry then give voice to it. Thus, using examples from other countries, I will attempt to show how the way we elect our lawmakers should be changed. Now, a major criticism will be that this will be fundamental constitutional revision and go against the will of the Founding Fathers who were suspicious of a pure democracy. That is absolutely true, but the Founding Fathers were working in a context where the smaller states had to be appeased in order to sign on to the Constitution, so the nation would stay united which resulted in the Senate. Similarly, the Electoral College was based on the assumption that people's primary loyalty would be to their state and its Presidential candidates, leading to the election regularly being sent to the House of Representatives. However in reality this has occurred has only once. Finally the Founders' suspicions about democracy must be analyzed in the context of the times, considering most of them were wealthy merchants and landowners who feared a tyranny of the majority that would threaten their property. It is quite clear, with the expansion of suffrage (which many, if not most Founders favoured restricting to property owners) that such an ignorant mob has not arisen. In light of these changes, I would suggest the following changes to our way of elections.

First of all, the way we register voters and conduct elections should be changed to increase awareness and turnout, especially among demographics who have low turnout rates such as youths, minorities, and the poor. Many countries such as Germany and Israel, automatically register voters once they're eligible. Similarly, I believe all US citizens over the age of 18 and without a criminal record should be put on the voter rolls without having to sign up. This will not involve compulsory voting, however, as is the case in some countries such as Australia. I believe, in addition, that election laws should  so that the time when polling places are open, early voting opportunities, and voting by mail procedures are consistent nationally. Making Election Day a national holiday would also be a good idea by ensuing that many people who are pressed for time due to work and other commitments have the opportunity to vote. 

With regards to Presidential elections, the Electoral College needs to be abolished as soon as possible joining the powdered wig and the musket as an 18th Century invention. While the obvious replacement is to have the President be elected by the popular vote, a problem arises if we implement the system of making the candidate who receives the most votes the winner as that means a party that had split or had a significant third party leeching off ballots (as was the case with Ralph Nader in 2000) will often lose, even if among the top candidates that party is preferred. As a result, implementing a two-round election system (as France does in its presidential elections) would be a better idea. In such a system, if no candidate received 50% or higher of the vote, a run-off election would be scheduled some time later between the top two candidates to determine the final winner. Ideally this would encourage political diversity by allowing more candidates  With the President elected directly by the popular vote, candidates would have to visit and campaign in all corners of the country rather than just in a handful of swing states. While some may argue that this will lead to states that have few people being ignored due to candidates looking for the most amounts of voters, this is a nonissue as most small states are (with a few exceptions such as New Hampshire) already safely in the camp of one party such as Vermont which is overwhelmingly Democratic or Idaho which is strongly Republican. 

Avoiding the issue of reforming the distribution of powers in Congress for the moment, the structure of House of Representatives also demands change. As pointed out previously, the number of Representatives has not been increased for over a century (with a brief exception when Alaska and Hawaii were granted representatives), the number of people represented by a single Congressman has grown to an average of 710,767. To reform this system, the number of Congressional districts ought to be increased by a large amount-for example were it increased to 800, the number of people in an average district would go down to about 396,485, which still is far higher than most other countries. The 2012 elections for the US House showed another problem, as while Democratic candidates for the House received more votes, the Republicans still retained a safe majority. Part of this was caused by gerrymandering (which should be corrected by establishing a nonpartisan committee to redraw Congressional boundaries on a national level as is already the case in some states such as California) but it was also caused by the way Democratic and Republican voters are concentrated. To ameliorate this, a move towards a German system of a mixed-member proportional system which combines the current representatives elected in geographical districts along with representatives elected on a national level by party. The nationally-elected representatives should be distributed in a manner that will actually reflect the vote totals for Congressional candidates to correct for the geographically elected members. 

As stated previously, this series will continue with addressing other fundamental problems our country has along with proposing some solutions to them. 

A Further Explanation Part 1

Last's week post failed to elaborate fully on my belief that indeed "Something is rotten in the state of America". This post shall point out some of the worst faults of the American Republic to-day and perhaps what can be done to correct this.

As noted in the video below, the United States' income inequality is severe with the top one percent of Americans owning some forty percent of the wealth and roughly a quarter of its income. Yet this was not always the case in the United States-even in 1915 the top one percent earned only about 18 percent of the total income. In between, income inequality was even less, in the process known as the "Great Compression" with it being well under 10 percent from the 1950s through the 1970s. Yet since then, an opposite trend, known as the "Great Divergence" has occurred, reversing any gains made in reducing income inequality in the last century and there is little sign that anything besides recessions and slowdowns of the economy will end this. As a result, today, the United States is one of the most unequal countries in the world, exceeding that of virtually every other developed nation including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Japan and even developing countries in Latin America such as Venezuela. In relation to this, the United States also has one of the lowest rates of social mobility among developed countries. According to Timothy Noah's exhaustive analysis of the potential causes of income inequality, the biggest factor is that of education (especially for secondary schools) which has failed to keep up with changing times and also with other countries, making college education far more valuable to employers and inflating their wages.

In relation to this is the woeful state of our politics. One of the fundamental problems causing the current state of political deadlock is the way both Presidential and Congressional elections occur. While the Electoral College (with a few exceptions) generally follows the popular will in determining who becomes President, it is undemocratic in the sense that large areas of the country  become marginalized when electing a President. As a result the Democratic leaning academics and college students of Austin, Texas or the GOP-leaning wealthy bourgeoisie that reside in coastal Newport Beach both end up casting votes for President that are worthless. At the same time, presidential candidates will essentially focus on a handful of states such as Ohio or Florida which effectively wield disproportionate power in presidential elections. The problems regarding Congressional elections can be separated to those in the Senate and the House. While other countries such as Canada or France have upper houses that look strong on paper and which are decided in a fairly undemocratic manner (such as Canada allocating them by province much as the US does by state), they usually defer to the will of the lower house. In the United States, on the other hand, the Senate has both de jure and de facto equal powers (with some exceptions in regards to treaties, Presidential appointments, and bills of revenue), when at the same time Senate seats are allocated disproportionately by state due to inequalities in state populations. Thus California has one Senator for over 18 million people while Wyoming has one Senator for roughly quarter of a million people. This, along with procedural rules regarding the filibuster, has led to a small minority of Senators representing a small minority of Americans to block or at least delay many pieces of legislation. While the House of Representatives is supposedly more democratic in character, it suffers from having its boundary lines drawn in most cases by partisan state legislatures (with some notable exceptions such as California) who draw boundaries designed to maximize the advantage for their party. As a result, the Republicans have a 12 to 4 advantage of House seats from Ohio, a 9 to 5 advantage in Michigan, and a 12 to 5 advantage in Pennsylvania despite all of them being states which President Obama won last year in the Presidential election. This factor along with variations in the concentrations of voter populations, indeed, led to the Republicans retaining a majority in the House despite the Democratic candidates receiving more votes. Finally the number of House seats has been set at 435 for about a century now, which means that each House member represents an average of 710,767 people. By way of comparison, the United Kingdom which has only a fifth of the population of the American Republican has some 650 seats in its House of Commons.

Needless to say, these are not all of America's problems. One must also discuss the state of our health care system, the lack of advanced infrastructure in both energy and transportation (such as high speed rail or nuclear power), the phenomenon of white flight, problems with our education system, and cultural degeneration. These problems and solutions to them will be discussed in future posts of this series to be entitled "There is Something Rotten...".

Something is Rotten in America

And this is why:

Modest Proposal-An Update

It is one of the more mysterious things about humanity, that oftentimes that two different individuals or groups of individuals arrive at the same idea independently. This occurred in the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection by both Darwin and Wallace and in the development of calculus which both Newton and Liebnitz stumbled upon.

This seems to have occurred in my case, when I was informed that my proposed system of people dropping in and picking up books for free already existed in many coffee shops including locally:

Regardless, I plan to go ahead with this project of mine, having been approved by my instructor, who has even most generously given me offers of aid. If readers have any further ideas, I ask that you comment to share them.