Does the world punish the privileged?

I'm currently reading yet another book about the Tudor family. It's a bit of an obsession however I allow myself this indulgence because who can deny a fascination with Henry VIII? His history and that of his family intersect with and transformed so many fundamental aspects of modern life, religion, marriage, class, government that it's easy to forget that it's simply the story of a family, albeit a powerful royal one  (besides the book, I was also inspired to write on this topic by Howard Brenton's recent and wonderful article on Anne Boleyn and the Reformation).

Henry VIII made so many mistakes in his life. We all know about his romantic foibles but he also had talented and gifted ministers executed. He spent in excess of what he had, burning through a large surplus left him by a prudent and spendthrift father. He maintained and built over 50 palaces, some of them ridiculously grand. Perhaps his greatest achievement, the English Reformation, probably came about because of a confluence of circumstances and personalities. The Protestant Reformation was already underway in Europe before Anne Boleyn arrived at Henry VIII's court in 1522 but that event dramatically changed its course. We tend to think of the English Reformation in simple terms, that is Henry VIII simply breaking with the Pope but it was a much more complicated political process. Although there were many in England caught up in the wave of continental Reformist ideas, the Catholic church was firmly established there. It was probably the predominant factor in everyday life for most (it's also worth noting that Henry VIII never official repudiated the catholic church).

Let's look at some of the actions Henry VIII took against the catholic church, ostensibly simply so he could marry his lover: ostracized his (catholic) wife and aunt of the Holy Roman emperor as well as her supporters in Parliament, introduced and passed several acts of Parliament reducing the church's influence in England, passed a law making it a treasonable offence to challenge royal supremacy and then immediately executing several prominent ministers who had fought earlier laws, appropriated the property and money of the catholic church, and violently suppressed resulting uprisings in various parts of England. This was just so he could marry Anne Boleyn.

Not that there weren't powerful and strong ecclesiastical, theoretical and philosophical ideas underpinning the English Reformation. There clearly were. But without such a flawed King, willing to undertake highly controversial actions that threatened his kingdom, would it have ever happened?

Maybe the religious undertones of Henry VIII's first divorce saved him but what could excuse his continued reckless behavior? After all, Henry VIII eventually beheaded the most vocal of the reformers at court, the one who perhaps believed most fervently in the burgeoning continental Lutheran ideas, Anne Boleyn.

Boleyn gave him a daughter on top of the one Catherine had and Parliament passed laws allowing both to inherit the throne so why the drastic action to get a son if his only concern was safety of the kingdom and the reform of the catholic church? He did so, again, for flawed personal reasons.

Henry VIII kept executing others who fell out of favor. The executions and bloodlust appear like something out of a mafia movie. It wasn't safe to be in court. One moment you could be in favor and the next, based on a scurrilous rumor, the king's mood, the influence of your enemies, you could be on the chopping block.

Yet Henry VIII was never punished truly for his recklessness. True he faced constant threats to his rule and miscellaneous rebellions but nothing out of the ordinary for the 16th century. Additionally, the 16th century circle of elite in England wasn't that large and the same families often patronized court again and again. In many cases the descendants and relatives of those Henry VIII had executed worked themselves back into favor. And this was a nation already at constant war with continental enemies as well as the occasional skirmish with the Scottish not to mention the recently concluded civil war won by his father, Henry VII, who in reality had no real claim to the throne but essentially won it through armed struggle, the last English king to do so.

Although just a theory, I think many of Henry VIII's excesses probably resulted in the (temporary) downfall of the monarchy nearly 100 years after his death.

Are there any other areas in modern life where we tolerate excesses because of privilege, either because of self-interest or fear? There most certainly are (although we here in America like to proclaim and display our egalitarian anti-monarchical stripes). And I think identifying this privilege provides insight as to why Henry VIII's excesses were so tolerated by those closest to him.

Privilege is inherited. It's passed from generation to generation. We see this a lot in closed (and often developing) societies where family and social ties are heavily predictive of future success. You help out the child or relative of a friend for no reason except that they are in your social circle. The system ensures that opportunities stay within your circle and your family does well. It also creates respect for members of prominent families. Such families, through social and family connections, are extremely influential.

More importantly, the goodwill and influence of truly exceptional individuals passes along to their families. My theory is that just like the son of a prominent hedge fund manager gets a light admission review when applying to a selective college, or when the small town police officer looks the other way when the child of a prominent politician gets into trouble, Henry VIII's flaws and excesses were tolerated and went unquestioned by many who remembered the iron fist and efficient rule of his father.

This is a weak theory but it rationalizes the lack of significant rebellion at court by the legacy of the Tudor family and the privilege that it provided to resulting monarchs. And it identifies a similar theme with respect to all privilege especially in tight knit closed societies. Basically, people will always treat you different based on who your family is, where you come from, your nationality, tribe, ethnicity and it has nothing to do with your individual actions but everything to do with the actions of those who preceded you.

It creates several dilemmas for all of us. The most prominent to me is the protection and embracing of privilege. Do we work to build on the privileges handed to us, so we don't squander them, or do we disavow any privilege wherever it appears and try to advance solely based on our individual traits? Admitting that this is impossible in all circumstances (you can't prevent someone from treating you better than an unknown individual if you don't know if and why they are) is this fair to the privilege handed to us by the sacrifices of others? Sure we might not have 16th century kingdoms to safeguard but what about the reputations of our families and communities? Second, can you earn privilege yourself through, let's say, hard work? Can we earn the right to be treated better than others like we do a first class ticket paid for with air miles?

Just some thoughts to ponder in a way too long blog posting. A lot of my ideas here are unorganized and quite lengthy but if you managed to get through this, well, wow I feel so privileged!

Interesting reading:
Anne Boleyn and the theatre of reformation, Howard Brenton, The Guardian.
Reconnecting with Europe, Ana Palacio & Margaritis Schinas, New Alanticist.
Hollywood's role in South Sudan's independence, Leslie Goffe, BBC.

Limitless or limiting?

All I've seen of the new film Limitless is a Wikipedia page and  a few trailers. The premise is a (false) urban legend that humans only use a small fraction of their brains and the movie revolves around a character who is able to overcome this limitation through the use of a magic pill. What else can he do after taking such a pill besides consume and pursue massive amounts of power and money? If he did anything else, it wouldn't make Hollywood-sense so he does and the movie has gotten solid reviews.

I wanted to comment on a particular aspect of the film and what I find to be a troubling misperception/growing reality in our society, that is the view that finance and markets house the most intellectually gifted individuals and that there is a correlation between intelligence and success in trading markets.

The main character in Limitless starts trading stocks and given that he is a super genius, of course he is able to make money! This is a misconception that pervades our society and we attach a level of intellectual respectability to successful money managers in the same way we do to people like Nobel-prize winning scientists and engineers. If you're a brilliant maths student, the lure of a posh City/Wall Street job and all its rewards is often too strong to pass for a cramped classroom in a middle-of-the-road university. Why?

First, there is no correlation between intelligence and market success. Some of the smartest people produce the worst returns and many of the least intelligent succeed spectacularly. So why does the perception persist and why does it make more sense for a Hollywood film to depict a super genius as making millions by trading stocks than at a Vegas blackjack table or by developing profitable proprietary products like cancer-fighting drugs? One could argue that intelligence does correlate because many of the most successful market strategies involve the spotting of trends. But simply spotting trends in the markets does not guarantee success in the way that spotting trends at the blackjack table does.

My guess is society has glorified finance because most people simply don't understand it and because it has made a lot of people fabulously wealthy. The intuitive response is 'I don't understand how that guy is making so much money but he must be pretty smart.' The perception feeds itself as more smart people give up the sciences and other areas to pursue opaque riches themselves.

Therein lies the bigger issue within the false correlation between intelligence and success in markets. Finance has become the most lucrative and glittering part of our economy. Sure this film, and popular culture in general, play a part by glorifying vacuous displays of wealth and celebrity but the larger issue is a real structural problem with our overall economy.

Maybe that guy can take that pill and instead of day trading, figure out a way to grow the overall economy? Direct capital to where the right businesses and people can gain access to it as well as aid the economy to run more efficiently? That's what I would do. Besides, if I really were a super genius and sat in front of a trading terminal, I might be tempted to turn it off!

Interesting reading:
Obama Goes South, Jorge G. Castañeda, Project Syndicate.
The Small Tunisian Town that Sparked the Arab Revolution, Mathieu von Rohr, Der Spiegel.
The collapse of the old oil order, Michael Klare, Le Monde.

Small Island: film.

I watched a wonderful mini series this week called Small Island, based on the award-winning novel by the same name written by Andrea Levy.

I have yet to read the book but the film was simply fantastic. The characters really capture the kaleidoscope of humanity: vulnerability, family, love, hate, loneliness, happiness,  hope, despair. If the movie is any reflection of the novel, Levy has created simply beautiful characters.

There were several poignant moments for me. The most poignant were Hortense and Queenie's separate and confused encounters with Gilbert, both mistaking him for a man they loved. It demonstrated to me, powerfully, the universality of love and longing, across race, continents, upbringing.

The character Michael was also fascinating in the way that he was more a shadow than a man. His memory weaves through the film yet he never really exists, permanently, for anyone.

Perhaps my favorite characters were Gilbert and Queenie. Both overcame the hatred of their surroundings to accept one another as individuals. Queenie reminded me so much of people I know from Northern England. Her fearlessness and boldness, while stereotyping, hold some truth regarding the independent spirit of Yorkshire.

I encourage you to watch this film and read the book. It's an incredible reflection of multicultural societies like the UK. Whenever I am in the UK, I always sense a certain immigrant and multicultural spirit that I don't really get anywhere else. This could be more of a reflection on my personal interactions but I believe this film does articulate such a spirit and provides a powerful rejoinder to multiculturalism's critics and to the children of immigrant communities who have lost their sense of identity and history.

Interesting reading:
Lords of the Realm, Christoper M. Davidson, Foreign Policy.
Rage, Rap and Revolution: Inside the Arab Youth Quake, Bobby Ghosh, Time.
The Misleading Metaphor of Decline, Joseph Nye, the Wall Street Journal.

Carthago delenda est.

 

Apologies for the misleading title and photo. This is not a post about Carthage or really Rome for that matter. Nor does Caesar have anything really to do with Carthage historically.

I'm inspired today by the book I'm currently reading: Stacy Schiff's amazing "Cleopatra: A Life" and a news article I read today about Tunisia (modern-day Carthage). Today's article describes how the military leader Gen. Rachid Ammar stood in a square near his office with a bullhorn and gave a speech to reassure protesters.

It reminded me of a scene from Schiff's book where Caesar, after having interjected himself into the Egyptian civil war of 47 B.C., essentially overthrowing a king and facing a rebellion from the Greek-Alexandrians, stood on a palace balcony and gave a speech, to reassure the protesters. Besides the obvious analogy between two Mediterranean military leaders attempting to calm raucous African crowds, Schiff's book provides many more present-day analogies.

I envision Caesar as a modern-day private equity buccaneer type. He took gambles and exploited weaknesses to gain money and power. Schiff describes him as a tireless worker, dictating letters while watching athletic events, constantly moving from battle to battle.

For example, let's look at the years 50 to 47 B.C. In these years Caesar, after returning from conquering Gaul (modern-day France), initiated and won a Roman civil war against Pompey and his supporters. After the initial victory in the civil war, he headed to Spain to fight supporters of Pompey there, leaving a regent in charge of Rome. After winning in Spain, he went to Greece to face Pompey again, defeating the last remnants of his army. He returned to Rome, was appointed dictator then resigned before accepting a one-year term, chased Pompey to Egypt where Pompey was killed by supporters of Ptolemy XIII who was engaged in a civil war with his sister and wife Cleopatra. Caesar interjected on the side of Cleopatra who was in exile but sneaked into the royal palace to visit him. By spring of 47 B.C. Caesar had won the Egyptian civil war for Cleopatra and placed her on a throne and fathered a child.

Even in today's modern world of blackberrys, email, airplanes and ships, such activity seems mind boggling. For me, it is actually somewhat helpful to imagine Caesar as a modern-day business leader, moving from continent to continent completing acquisitions. It's the only way I can conceptualize the frenetic pace of his life, which to be honest doesn't do it justice because Caesar didn't have airplanes or email or telephones.

He was notorious for often arriving in places before the messengers or troops that were supposed to announce his arrival and make preparations. He was married three times without children (none of his marriages appeared to be for love) before seemingly settling down (for six months) with an exotic mistress much younger than him. He was balding with an obvious comb over. And he ended up jeopardizing his entire career, country (and life) with reckless personal behavior and by spending an incredible amount of time and money colonizing the most wealthiest kingdom in the ancient world.

The ultimate mid-life crisis.

So much of what we think is novel or new to our world, our sociology, our psychology, is actually very old. I've enjoyed listening to the BBC's "A History of the World" series but they get some of it wrong. It points to the mechanical galleon from the 16th century to signify the coming of the mechanical period and people's understanding of machinery. But the Egyptians had been using machines to wow for over a thousand years by the 16th century AD. We think the cut throat mid-life Western businessman ethos is relevant only within our society but Caesar shows us this personality type was known to the ancients.

So the crowds seemingly still scream "Carthago delenda est" and military leaders still climb balconies to calm crowds. As it says in Ecclesiastes 1, chapter 9: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

Interesting reading:

China Grooming Deft Politician as Next Leader, Edward Wong and Jonathan Ansfield, NYTimes.

Reinventing Tunisia at Record Speed, Mathieu von Rohr and Volkhard Windfuhr, Der Spiegel.

Equality, unity or both?

Today voting starting in southern Sudan on a referendum for independence. Having read a little commentary on the issue and having engaged in a few conversations with friends, I began to wonder if the referendum will portend a dramatic shift in African politics.

There are many mismanaged democracies in Africa and perhaps the only time suffrage has been used to address social and economic inequalities in the post-colonial period was the election of Nelson Mandela in 1994. And that election was more of a victory against apartheid, a dying and economically unsustainable system, which by 1991 had galvanized world opinion and policy. It was not an election where Africans, controlling their own destiny, removed one universally elected government for another that could better deal with economic and social injustice (although South Africa's most recent election could have such implications). It was a worldwide movement largely viewed through the colonial lens of oppressed and oppressor.

In many ways, the oppressed and oppressors in Africa are now all Africans. And in most instances, the oppressed arguably have an electoral voice. Democracy should provide at least some systematic redress for badly governed nations. But it doesn't, why?

Because Africa is trapped within a confusing and backwards political order. No place demonstrates this more than the Sudan. The people in southern Sudan never viewed themselves as being in political allegiance with the north. Their association as one Sudan is an anachronism of colonialism and political decisions made in 1956 when the British gave most of the political power to the north. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the south itself is not one politically coherent entity.

How does democracy work with so many competing agendas, histories, languages? Elections become not paths to right social and economic wrongs but opportunities to see that your tribe or region gets its fair shake. Politicians and officials have little allegiance to the nation, which in recent memory was nothing but arbitrary borders on a map, but retain most of their sympathies and efforts for their home regions and groups. Elections become another means of civil war with rampant disenfranchisement and vote rigging common.

There are no political ideologies running through most African elections today. There is no "jobs" agenda, "anti-poverty" agenda (but see developing elections in Nigeria). Instead, most nations are consumed with the "northern" or "eastern" or "southern" agenda. Not that there aren't serious African leaders tackling important issues in government but during its elections Africa is still fighting against the borders it was given. There are notable exceptions, for instance Rwanda but even its democracy is traumatized and colored by the recent genocide. That's why the election in Sudan is being hailed across the world. Finally, we have an another African election that matters, that is about something real, equality, freedom.

A commentary by Mo Ibrahim in last week's Financial Times, "Sudan is a warning to all of Africa" was thought-provoking precisely because it raises the question of whether this type of election could change the face of African politics. One wonders what the continent would have looked like without its colonial borders. Africa is a continent of hundreds of peoples and languages and thousands of villages. Perhaps a continent of a thousand nations would be more peaceful and harmonized. Personally, I doubt this would have happened. Even absent colonialism, Africa would have become engulfed in wider geopolitical struggles and arbitrary borders would still have been established, even if less disruptive and disorganized than current ones.

But what if other people, instead of resorting to civil war, rigging elections, protests, opted for electoral separation? Would nations like Nigeria be more peaceful and successful if its different regions and groups broke off politically? The people in these countries have a long history of trade, intermarriage and peaceful cooperation. Why couldn't they continue this tradition as separate political entities? In today's economic order, the size of markets matter but Europe demonstrates, albeit not that convincingly at the moment, that politically distinct entities can form economic unions. Why not Africa?

If you speak with many people in Côte d'Ivoire about the recent election, a lot of their comments are tinged with the tribalism that engulfs most African politics. Why can't Côte d'Ivoire establish a devolved or federalist style government built around monetary and economic cooperation?

The referendum in Sudan gives questions like these a much louder echo chamber as more groups, especially oppressed or disenfranchised minorities raise their hands and ask why not us?

Interesting reading:
The battle is on for the soul of the Tory party, Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph.
Washington concerned as Turkey is leaving the West, Ariel Cohen, Daily News & Economic Review.
Africa's Hour, James Traub, Foreign Policy.

In the dark.

Happy Holidays and New Year from me to you. 

I've been following the Vince Cable fiasco that threatens to bring down the the coalition government in Britain where Cable, Business Secretary and senior Lib Dem politician, gave embarrassing details about the governing coalition to two women whom he thought were constituents visiting his office. The women were instead two reporters from a British newspaper pretending to be constituents who published the details of the conversation even though Cable told them the conversation was confidential. 

Among the details Cable revealed to the women were policy fights, candid views about controversial issues and his own role in the government including the ability to, in his words, "bring down the government." Subsequent to the publication of the details, Cable had to give up a major portion of his portfolio, review of the News Corp. attempted takeover of BSkyB, a subscription cable service in the UK, and has otherwise been seemingly marginalized within the cabinet.

Personally, I've found this entire episode problematic in terms of what it says about media and open society. Governments need the ability to keep secrets in order to keep their citizens safe and execute their domestic and foreign policy objectives but what Cable revealed seemed less to me of a wikileaks scenario than more of a politician being honest with his constituents. 

There seems to be a strong need for deception and misinformation across our societies. The level of deception is, of course, less pervasive in the west than it is in, say, an autocratic regime like North Korea but it still is pervasive.

In politics, the biggest reason for this is the insatiable appetite of the media and media consumers (of which this blog is one). There's a constant need to "make news" by corporate media driven by profits and ratings and there is a correlating phobia by policymakers to avoid embarrassing headlines. In this never-ending news cycle, pundits, commentators, editorial boards react without contemplating and public opinion moves without criticism.

Thus, Vince Cable can't tell us what is really going on behind Number 10 although common sense tells us such a disparate coalition must involve tension and heated policy debates. Before the cameras, he must smile and stand hand in hand with his conservative brethren and pretend everything is OK.

Not only does this insult our intelligence, it provides no real service. We should be able to weigh in and contribute on the coalition strife. Both sides should be able to get input and feedback from their constituents, which is why what Cable did was so admirable. He laid bare frictions and sought feedback from people he served but was punished by an insatiable press.

I think we all as media consumers should think more critically about what we see and hear and demand more of media providers. On the right there already seems to be a move to think about mainstream media critically but I fear that many of these critics aren't thinking about media in a new way other than going to different sources.

The ethics of what the Telegraph did aside, something is really wrong with our society when policymakers have to lie to us to get anything accomplished.

Interesting reading:
The Online Threat, Seymour M. Hirsh, The New Yorker.
Germany's 'Frau Nein' calls the shots, Eric Reguly, The Globe and Mail.
Obama's Other War, Joe Bavier, Foreign Policy.

How rude.

I’m back blogging after an extended break where I changed jobs, moved cities, traveled extensively, etc. I'm excited about blogging again but am somewhat limited in the issues I can opine on due to my status as a federal employee. Nonetheless I hope to focus here on international relations and global economic issues, two areas in which I am able to write more freely.

As an American, I always thought of the British monarchy as a sort of showpiece. As the monarchy is no longer a source of hard political power, I've always thought of it as more of a symbol of British tradition and history. When we Americans think of political power and Britain, we think of Number 10 Downing Street. When we think of beefeaters, the Tower of London and double decker buses, we think of the Queen and Buckingham Palace. So on first thought I was quite surprised at the strong reaction at the attack on Prince Charles and Camilla's Rolls Royce during student protests at the tuition increase vote.

While the attack was outlandish, outrageous and foolish, it didn't strike me as the sort of rabid mob that was intent on physically harming the royals. It was more of a protest designed to strike a blow, perhaps deface, a symbol of established order. It was simply a protest. I didn’t see any indication that Prince Charles or Camilla were ever in any immediate physical danger.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson had this to say: “The officers who were protecting their royal highnesses showed very real restraint. Some of those officers were armed.”

The Mayor of London Boris Johnson gave this reflection: “It is very regrettable that in the heart of London the heir to the throne can be surrounded by agitators and his wife can be put in a position where she’s plainly alarmed.”

The Prime Minister David Cameron had this to add about the student protests in general: “we want to make sure that the people who behaved in these appalling ways feel the full force of the law of the land.”

While I agree with Cameron I think all three comments demonstrate a generational disconnect and a misunderstanding of the political worldview of the protesters, whom, again I do not defend.

To Cameron, the photo above is a shocking example of disrespect to his nation. While to the protesters, the attack was just as shocking as the burning the Christmas tree in Trafalgar square. In other words, the power of the symbol, Queen, country, empire, is totally lost. Nowhere was this more evident than when a student protester (interesting trivia in that he is the son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour) climbed the Centograph war memorial.

So while the police commissioner hints that security would have been justified at shooting protesters who threw paint at a passing car, students were running roughshod over some of Britain's most treasured monuments. Both groups, I believe, think of the monarchy in the same way that Americans do, that is, in largely symbolic terms. They differ, however, in terms of the status they afford to symbols such as the monarchy.

Why I find this interesting is because I believe it highlights a growing anarchical trend among young people in today's political discourse. I think this is a reaction to the growing interconnectedness of media, culture and language coupled with the growing complexity of economics, politics and society. The seemingly fragmented and regimented world of old, monarchy, class, empire, doesn't make much sense to young people today.

Looked on in this respect, wikileaks is a part of the same genre of anarchism. State secrets, diplomacy, these things are irrelevant within a chaotic movement designed to break down all walls. In this way, wikileaks seeks to create an entirely disorganized and hence unstructured society.

I don't advocate anarchy or wikileaks but they are worth trying to understand. As this generation grows, we will see more mainstream attempts to upset the social order. The response from government officials and diplomats thus far? Well it's written all over Camilla’s face.

Interesting reading:

WikiLeaks is delinquent and anti-democratic, Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph.

Europe, Look Outward Again, Op-Ed, I.H.T.