[Politics] Let the exorcism begin

Sometimes the answer to all questions isn't 42 but 46.

I suppose a lot of us let out a collective sigh of relief on Saturday when the results of Pennsylvania came in.

It's true that the USA need healing now, and I think Joe Biden is capable of making empathy and compassion front and center of his presidency.

However, the US also need an exorcism because they are still haunted by demons, and although Trump was their most obvious manifestation, he was far from the only one and their roots go back years, at the very least back to the fateful meeting at which the Republican Party decided, way back in 2009, to block Barack Obama as much as possible. Trump's presidency was the result of this stance, but just like Brexit in the UK, the conservative movement basically opened the bottle unleashing the genie, with the thought they could somehow keep it under control and use it to their advantage. It doesn't work like that. If you flirt with disaster, don't be surprised if you find yourself married with it soon.

The GOP really have a lot to explain, because they allowed a figure like DT to be successful and to undermine virtually all the values they, as a party, initially stood for, degrading the rest of the party to mere props only there to say yes to everything he said (except for the few rank-breakers of The Lincoln Project and a few outspoken critics like Mitt Romney). This is not how democracy works.

Thankfully, the result of the election caused Trump to finally show his true face and lay his contempt for the electorate down for all to see. I wasn't surprised in the least (but definitely dismayed) to hear him talk as crassly as this about trying to stop the counting of some votes that just so happened to be against him – it's just the logical result of saying "I will accept the results of the election IF I WIN" way back in 2016. No, this is not how democracy works.

The GOP also have a lot to ask for with their history of allowing science denial dominate their policies – this also proved to be fatal for many US citizens in the face of Covid19, and might prove to be fatal for many people all over the world if we still can't get our shit together with regards to climate change.

Of course, there is also the media side of the coin. Twitter and, to a lesser degree, Facebook considerably stepped up their game compared to 2016 when it comes to flagging misinformation but knowing the danger doesn't eliminate it. Social media remains to be a problematic part of the equation.

What's far less unpredictable than the machinations of social media is the world of conventional media, and I think it's really time that some screws were adjusted there in order to ground the discourse in facts and reality. Here, the problem originates even earlier; we have to go back to the Reagan era and the removal of the fairness principle. Although it's been shown that sometimes representing 'two sides' of a debate can be misleading (again, see my pet topic climate change on the curse of "both-sidesism"), fact-checking and not allowing opinions and facts to be mixed at will would really benefit the political culture. There will always be conspiracy theories and people their "alternative" narrative is the true one - but without a big amplifier like Fox News or (gulp) Breitbart they would get much less traction, just like not having a president claiming the existence of "alternative facts" anymore should be good for the US. (Study: Trump biggest source of Covid-19 misinformation)

I can't write this entry without talking about the electoral college. The electoral college is a disgrace in its current form.

How? Let's illustrate this with a very simplified example.

Take a hypothetical USA that consists of three states. State A has 100 electoral votes, State B and C 60 each. (220 in sum.)

State A gets won by party D with 80% of the votes, State B and C both get won by the party R with 55% each.

This means that the end result will be a victory for party R's candidate with 120-100. How is this in any way representative of the public opinion?

Without the "Winner takes it all" principle, i.e. with a proportional division of electoral votes, the results would be as such:

D: 80 + 27 + 27 = 134

R: 20 + 33 + 33 = 86

In other words, it's about 3:2 (15:10) in terms of actual votes, whereas the electoral college comes out at 5:6 (10:12).

This is simple math. The electoral college, as-is, will continue to skew the result towards the less populated US states. This violates the idea that elections should be equal, since a voter who moves from state A to B or C will suddenly be worth more and vice-versa.

During this election, it eventually proved to be of no big consequence except making the race a bit more nerve-wracking than it needed to be, but it remains a fact that Democratic candidates are under more strain if they want to win due to the way the system is currently laid out.

What do I think about Joe Biden? Well, although I hoped he would win, I was part of the chorus who were afraid he might lose because he was too old and not charismatic enough. I wonder if this was the wrong way of looking at it though. Biden actually has a couple of interesting things going for him. He's achieved more than most of us can dream of (vice president from 2009 to 2016), and he's at an age where he really can't be said to set himself up for life anymore. This means he's basically not suspect to using his office to make life better for himself, i.e. to line his own pockets. He's on a mission; I truly believe it. He even stated as much, saying that he felt the need to challenge Trump and try to get him out of office, not for his own sake but for the greater good of the US. And of course he knows how politics work, gah!

I also have to admit that his policy proposals sound very sound (hah) to me; and in complete contrast to Trump's stubbornness and constant insistence that he knew better than advisors and scientists who've spent their lives devoted to their respective subjects, he's willing to listen to other people and cooperate. The "Biden Plan", after all, incorporates ideas from many of the people who ran against him in the primaries, and even quotes them as such. Refreshing!

But let's not burden the poor old guy with too many expectations; otherwise, many people will quickly be disappointed that Biden didn't suddenly grow a halo and a pair of wings. A lot also depends on whether the Republicans remaining in the system (senators, etc.) are willing to also leave partisanship behind and thereby come across as more human again. I think their credibility in future races now hinges greatly on whether they realize the erroneous ways of Trumpism.

While I will NEVER condone racism, the Democrats must also acknowledge that not every Trump supporter is racist and that some people have voted for him out of understandable concerns. Biden also must address those people. In general, a lot of the political problems of the last two decades are also rooted in the simple polarity of the two-party system, but I have no idea if the US will ever change from that. As it is, there is the danger that they will simply swing back and forth, with every new administration undoing whatever the previous one has done, thereby stalling the country's progress indefinitely.

Back to the exorcism. Trump will not be immune anymore from the point that his term ends. This is important because he's been causing all kind of concern. I'm all in favour of "in dubio pro reo" but apart from the fact that Trump certainly never lived by that motto (see his comments on the Central Park Five - classy)… if he really had nothing to hide, why did he never want to release his tax returns? Why did he try almost everything to stop or hinder Robert S. Mueller's investigations into the collusion with Russian elements? Logic dictates that if somebody were really not guilty, they would fully cooperate in order to transparently make their innocence proven. Is this what Trump did? Far from it. Make of that what you will, but I think we're in for a couple of interesting revelations.

[Politics] Musings on Trump, Biden and climate change

Note: This post strictly represents my thoughts. Other opinions are available. I've included a fair few references but tried to not clog everything up.

~~ Do you remember the Paris Agreement? ~~

I do. I remember being quite anxious and pessimistic that the results of the 2015 climate conference would be non-existent or, at best, wishy-washy. To the great surprise of many people, the countries involved came out of it with something quite a bit more ambitious than predicted. At the same time, the agreement came under fire from various sides. But I'm not sure that's such a bad sign; if you've got criticism from all directions, it might as well mean that you're looking at a pretty fair and balanced compromise.

This is why I think Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the agreement is wrong. I'm not saying he wasn't allowed to do it, and I understand that from his viewpoint, it made sense to do so. There are various problems with that decision though. One can criticize all kinds of aspects of the paper but fact is that Trump was explaining his exit with misconceptions about the nature of the treaty.

There is also the argument used in his favor that the agreement is ineffective. However, there are people whom I would allow this argument, and Trump isn't one of them. He has shown, many times, that he doesn't really have a grip on climate science.

Now couple that with all the environmental rollbacks in his term and the argument becomes nonsensical. If he doesn't really care much about the environment and doesn't "believe in" global warming, why would he (or any other climate change denier) be worried that the agreement doesn't mitigate the damage as much as possible? This is a non-sequitur. If a doctor tells you that you should drink more water, you don't reduce your water intake even further. Yet that is more or less what withdrawing from the climate settlements amounts to, if you're actually convinced the science is right about the issue.

Generally speaking, that's a reason why I would be very careful with people who criticize the Paris agreement; it can often be quite enlightening to research what informs their own standpoint, and what aim they pursue by speaking up about it. Are they fair and unbiased? Although awareness of the carbon problem has thankfully risen in the wake of Greta Thunberg, the shameless attacks on her and the movement led by her have shown that the fossil fuel lobby is still extremely strong and still willing to invest more money into misinformation campaigns than into a more sustainable society.

Getting back to Trump for a minute. I know he gets admiration for his strong-arm style of governing. I should mention that as somebody with two nationalities who's grown up in a country that had to be "cured" of its imperialist fever dreams, I've never really been one for patriotism and national pride; maybe because from my viewpoint, they tend to divide and work against the greater good. So all of Trump's flag-waving and sloganeering means little to me, but I recognize that this is a strong trait in many Americans and he appeals to that.

But beyond that, his politics are also informed by his character. I know some people shun discussing him as a person but look at how quickly he loses his temper; how can this be ignored? Trump and his supporters like to point out that he's not your average Joe politician. That's certainly true but the coin has another side.

I don't profess to have followed his endeavors before his entry into politics but I think, after more than four years of paying attention to him and reading a couple of things about him, I've got a relatively good idea of some of his character traits. Two of them are relevant here: 1) Critics have accused him of projecting his own wrongdoings onto his political adversaries. 2) He thinks of himself first and foremost.

If you add those two together, it's not hard to see where his attitude towards political deals and negotiations comes from. He assumes everyone is as selfish as him, and therefore he thinks everybody wants to take advantage of the United States. The antidote is trying to get the most out of a deal for the US... with a lack of empathy for the other party that also had to give up some of its positions in order to reach an agreement. This changes the established equilibrium normally at play with diplomacy.

I don't like this approach at all. I believe in collaboration and symbiosis - decisions from which all involved can benefit. Trump's strong-arm style has sometimes taken on the shape of extortion tactics (putting the partner under pressure so that they would accept his conditions), with mixed results. Aside from being exactly what Trump has accused others of - being unfair - it's also risky for the general fabric of the world. Why? When you always tell your following that they're being treated unfairly by other countries, it's not going to increase their positive feelings towards others.

But I digress. And although I'm an idealist, I wouldn't necessarily disapprove of Trump's way of politics if he were fighting for what I'd call a noble cause. Maybe that's hypocritical of me but imagine - the same guy, same tactics, but with a definite view towards doing something for the environment? Why not! If he had said "This agreement is no good, we're going to do a better one" and somehow managed to grab, say, the government of China and India by the cojones and forced them to sign something more drastic and binding... I'd be the first in line to applaud him. (Though one of the links at the end shows that there are two sides to this issue, too...)

There are two issues with this thought, though.

1) Political negotiations are a tightrope walk. Frankly, for Trump to suggest that the deals made by the Obama administration are insufficient is a bit insulting to the people involved. I think it's not outlandish to suggest that the Paris agreement was close to the most that could be wrought from the climate conference at that time, as much as I (and many activists) would've liked more concrete results.

2) This whole thing is a global issue. It affects people all over the world. Somebody with the mindset of "America first" is unlikely to become a fighter for a greater good. Or pudding it differently 😉, somebody like Trump would always find a way to complain about an agreement that involves the US cutting down on something. So, getting somebody with his approach as a fighter for environmental policies seems like a long shot.

For far too long, Climate politics has been a game of "who blinks first, loses". The results have been as expected, especially since politicians tend to prioritize short-term developments and like to weigh up economy against ecology. I think that is a fatal flaw in the discourse; I know it's a horrible comparison but it's a bit like taking drugs. You might feel unusually great for a moment but the long-term effects will outweigh that high. The economical costs of not acting against climate change will likely outsize the investments we can make now. The bubble is going to burst sooner or later, but the later it happens, the louder it will burst. Communicating this to the people affected is difficult, I'll admit, but politicians shouldn't try to simplify matters just so that citizens accept a simple narrative. 

There are many moral implications at work here too - just to quote one example, Inuit are already struggling with the reduction of polar ice. It's also no surprise that island states and African countries were main drivers of the 1.5K goal*. But given the Trump admin's track record on human rights in general, I think it's fair to say that they're probably not too troubled.

We're at a fork in the road. Michael E. Mann, one of the leading climate scientists and an outspoken critic of Trump and the Koch brothers' network (in turns, he became a target of aggressive slander and threats), goes as far as saying that a second Trump term will be "game over" for the climate. It is definitely one topic that the two 2020 presidential candidates greatly differ on (not that they agree on many things anyway).

The public climate (excuse the pun) seems to be changing though, so even if he gets re-elected, Trump may face more determined opposition on environmental matters. Even in the economic sectors, some actors have apparently woken up to reality. There is some solace in seeing that the free markets might actually move in the right direction. But I can't help the bitter taste knowing that most of the science was on the table in the 1990s already. And I'm not happy about the shenanigans surrounding the Supreme Court.

What if Trump doesn't get re-elected? One thing's for sure, Joe Biden is setting himself up for failure. If he loses, he'll have failed to take opportunity of a strong political movement. If he wins... well, there's simply no way he's going to execute all the things he's promised, and a lot of people will be very disappointed for one reason or another. But what gives me some hope is his, as well as many of his fellow Democrats', endorsing of science as a leading principle.

Bringing it all back to the Paris agreement. Should the USA rejoin it? In my opinion, yes. We're all dealing with two big crises at the moment, so a new and better climate agreement may not be on the cards for the quick future while Covid-19 (which in itself is like a sped-up climate crisis) takes precedence. Even then, we shouldn't underestimate the symbolic power of such a move. It would set a good example for others to follow, it could give the country a lead on new technologies (in this positive context, I approve of "America first"! 😁)... and yes, it would also have an influence on emissions.

Addendum:

If you've been wondering why there is such a disconnect between what climate scientists predict and demand and what actually gets done by politics, you may get an answer here:

The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change

This peer-reviewed study points out some egregious errors leading to totally misleading conclusions... in a paper on damages by climate change that actually won the Nobel Prize for Economics!

Recommended further reading:

The Heartland Lobby (this is a really great article that delves into the dark underbelly of science denial. Every sentence should be savored. It's really that good.)

Tragedy of the Commons - Wikipedia

The Paris Climate Agreement: Deliverance or Disappointment?

Why Trump's withdrawal from Paris doesn't matter as much as you think

20 advantages and disadvantages of the Paris Agreement

Pros and Cons of Paris climate agreement (I think this is a bit too simple, but...)

The Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement: Dismal Failure or Historic Breakthrough? (this is an excellent write-up that also sheds light on the Kyoto protocol and why a lot of what might already be called "watered down" about the Paris accord was watered down due mainly to - yes - the US' influence)

And generally speaking, if you have doubts on scientific topics, try to peruse sites that are listed on this page by Media Bias/Fact Check. I've only just stumbled across RationalWiki which also seems to be an... interesting source.

* I know this is pedantic, but differences of temperature ΔT are normally given in Kelvin (K), not as degrees Celsius (°C)