Keeping American democracy at bay

Public opinion polls in the United States consistently have President Donald Trump trailing Democratic challenger Joe Biden by an average of four per cent, in some cases as high as seven — so everything points to a change of Government in November. Right?

Wrong.

This is not to say that Biden won’t win, but simply polling the voting choices of individual Americans is not the way to predict the outcome of this election.

Trump could still be four points, even seven points behind in the popular vote on Election Day and still retain the presidency by a handy margin.

The reason lies in one of the strangest indirect systems of choosing a leader that has been devised — the Electoral College.

Americans may think they are voting for either Trump or Biden, but in fact they are voting for a member of this Electoral College in their State who may, in turn, vote for their choice — or not.

These electors, equalling the number of seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives for their particular State, will meet about a month later and their votes, and their votes alone, decide the presidency.

It would not be so bad if their voting pattern reflected that of the electorate at large, but sometimes it doesn’t. This is because no matter how close the race is in their state they cast all their votes for the candidate that finished ahead.

Whether that margin was just by a handful of votes, or by a landslide, it does not matter. In all but two of the states, the votes of the Electoral College are delivered on a winner-takes-all basis.

So it is easy to see how a candidate that won a plurality by small majorities in a significant number of States can defeat the candidate that won other States by big margins that puts them ahead on the overall national vote.

It happened in 2016 when Hillary Clinton gained 65.8 million votes to Trump’s 62.9 million, and was still beaten, quite handily in the Electoral College 304-227.

It has been argued countless times since about how the pollsters got it wrong. They didn’t. Their predictions were spot on.

The problem was that they were asking individuals how they would vote when the election was going to be decided by other means. They were comparing apples with oranges.

How has this potentially undemocratic way of choosing a leader in what is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy come about?

To understand it we need to look back at the nation’s Founding Fathers who drew up the country’s Constitution in the wake of the successful war of Independence against the British.

History has tended to romanticise this group as champions of democracy and the rights of man. They were anything but.

They were aristocrats; many were slave owners and having expelled the British ruling class were intent on filling the void.

As men of property, they considered that unrestrained democracy would be as bad as the tyranny they had just ousted; that giving equal votes to all would threaten their standing, their possessions, even their lives.

So putting men of discernment between themselves and the mob would mitigate their greatest fear of pure democracy — that the uneducated and unsophisticated masses might elect a demagogue who would sweep away their wealth and privileges.

Given the complicated processes needed to effect a change in the US Constitution it is hard to see anything different happening soon, but agitation will and should continue to abolish this antiquated system with its roots in factors that have no relevance to the citizenry of a powerful world state in the 21^st century.

Evidence of an unhealthy relationship

China has taken a great deal of criticism over its handling of the COVID-19 outbreak in recent days as its friends rushed to its defence.

Inevitably, these have included Australian captains of industry such as Kerry Stokes and Andrew Forrest whose billion-dollar businesses are very much tied up with the People’s Republic.

Stokes even took out an advertisement in the Western Australian newspaper (which he happens to own) quite baldly stating that if the country continued to attack Beijing the consequences for the Australian economy would be “catastrophic”.

In other words, he was saying that Australia should give in to what is straight-out blackmail by China.

Forrest added his opinion by stating: “I don’t know if this virus started in China or somewhere else and frankly, I don’t care.”

Both industrialists can be given full marks for their honesty — the fact they put economic gain over the consequences of a disease that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide, and the need to do everything possible to prevent it happening again.

In this they are firmly in the camp of the likes of United States President Donald Trump and Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro.

What they are not being so honest about is their own roles in getting Australia into a position where China’s economic clout can be used to bludgeon critics into silence.

China accounts for almost 29 per cent of Australia’s exports, more than twice that of the second largest destination. Japan, while all other nations are in single figures. How has this been allowed to happen?

There are other countries in the world that need what Australia has. What about India that receives a miserable 4.3 per cent of Australian exports? Admittedly India’s economy is not nearly the size of China’s but until COVID-19 it was expanding more rapidly, yet it has been virtually ignored.

What about the thriving economies of South-East Asia: Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam? Of course their markets are way smaller, but together they receive just 7.5 per cent of Australia’s exports. The Middle East? Only the United Arab Emirates features in the top 10 at 1.3 per cent. South America? Nowhere.

Over the years our exporters have treated these countries with disdain while growing fat on the ever-expanding demands from Beijing. Their laziness and greed has placed the country in the unenviable position of being little more than a client State to the People’s Republic.

In recent days there are signs that China is being more accommodating to global calls for an accounting of the causes of COVID-19. The Australian Government’s measured response in seeking some form international inquiry, while short on detail, is at least preferable to some of the hysterical accusations emanating from Washington. It deserves universal consideration if not support.

However, the fact remains that the Chinese Government’s aggressive stance to Australia has had its exporters jumping to attention. Beijing knows it is in a position to push Canberra around. Its response indicates the current relationship is not a healthy one.

There are other neglected places in the world where Australia should be doing more business. It will be harder work, and the results will be piecemeal, but it needs to happen.

Diversification should be Australia’s watchword in a post-pandemic world.   

Brexit: Still time for second thoughts?

In the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, best-selling author Sir Philip Pullman has reignited the debate over the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, saying the Conservative Government is more interested in appeasing “the foaming zealots of Brexit” than addressing the pandemic.

Sir Philip says there is a need for a second referendum on EU membership as there “are so many clear advantages to being in the EU and the benefits of leaving are so tenuous”.

His call comes after the Government led by Boris Johnson reiterated its determination to keep to a December 31 deadline for cementing a trade deal with Brussels or leave without one — an outcome that many observers believe would have long-term disastrous consequences for the nation’s economy.

While Mr Johnson has until July to seek an extension to the talks, which the EU would certainly accept, Johnson is doggedly sticking to his belief that a comprehensive deal can still be struck by his original deadline, despite the distractions of the pandemic.

“The Government will not ask to extend, and if the EU asks, we will say no,” a spokesperson for Johnson said.

The former Secretary of the Department for Exiting the European Union, Philip Rycroft said this rigid attitude flew in the face of commonsense “when the huge uncertainties caused by the Coronavirus pandemic are factored in”.

He was echoed by Lord Kerslake, who led the Civil Service from 2011 to 2014.

“The lost time as a consequence of COVID-19 has [a trade deal by the end of the year] gone from being ambitious to almost impossible,” he said.

The sad fact is that there is no room for argument on the matter from within the Government. At the December election all candidates for the Conservative Party had to sign a pledge that they would support leaving the EU whatever the cost.

Dissenters — and there were plenty in the party leading up to the election — were forced out. The ‘broad church’ of views and opinions that Conservatism was once so proud of no longer exists.

This has led to the Government to being little more than a shadow of Nigel Farage’s single-issue Brexit Party — something that Sir Philip believes should be a window of opportunity for the Opposition Labour Party.  

“My hope that this time the Labour Party under a new leader will play a proper part in the argument; and that the lies, the cheating, the flagrant and shameless mendacity will be fully exposed by a strong, passionate, and focused campaign to Remain,” he said.

Whether new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer will go as far as that is doubtful, but advocating for a second referendum on the EU exit would be popular with the 48 per cent of the population that voted Remain in the 2015 poll as well as others among Leavers who are having second thoughts.

The precedent is already there. After Britain joined the bloc in 1973 following a parliamentary vote, a referendum, launched by Labour two years later, confirmed the decision.

The current Government will fight that proposal tooth and nail because it knows it might well lose, but it will not be there forever and Sir Keir could benefit by incorporating such a vote into the party’s platform at an early date.

COVID-19 and business as usual

In the midst of the current global COVID-19 crisis a Dutch commentator put forward a disturbing rhetorical question.

Why, this person asked, are we disrupting our entire economy, sinking millions of people into unemployment, poverty, domestic tensions, psychological stress and depression, in order to save one per cent of the population?

The individual went further, saying the one per cent were mostly elderly or people with bad lifestyles, many of whom had limited life expectancy anyway.

In other words, was the survival of a few worth the stress and dislocation of society for the many?

As can be expected, the immediate reaction was an emotional one, with arguments about the sacredness of every human life and debate over whether authorities should be ‘playing God’.

However, jurisdictions around the world have been considering this question, if not in quite so bald terms.

Even as deaths continue to mount in the United States, President Donald Trump has been champing at the bit to get the country back to work and some State Governors are easing restrictions in the face of angry demonstrators who say they have had enough of lockdowns and want to start earning again.

In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro has been openly hostile to any restrictions, calling COVID-19 nothing more than “a little flu” and famously arguing that lockdowns would be same as “closing car factories because there are traffic accidents”.

Some countries have tackled the virus through the theory of ‘herd immunity’, allowing it to spread through the community on the basis that the more who contract it and recover, the greater the build-up of immunity.

What advocates of this tend to play down is that a significant minority will not recover and die.

Strip this down and you have an argument between proponents of the preservation of life above all else and those who believe that a small percentage of deaths is an acceptable price to pay in order to ensure the economic wellbeing of the vast majority.

Advocates of the latter course point to the fact that in lockdowns people still die; the number of lives that have been saved cannot be known, while the economic and social costs are becoming clearer by the moment.

Governments that initiated strict lockdowns are going to have to deal with the consequences that will extend over years if not decades — long after, I suspect, the trauma of the death toll itself has subsided.

Even so the counter-argument that Governments are just businesses running to make profits (surpluses) to be handed back their shareholders (citizens) in the form of lower taxes, holds fundamental flaws when it comes to dealing with a crisis like COVID-19

It cannot be properly reconciled with a duty to look after the health, welfare and happiness of its citizens, to ensure there are enough hospitals and schools of sufficient quality; that the roads are paved and the railways work, that cultural life flourishes and sufficient opportunities are available — for what is needed, but also for what is wanted.

The business model of Government is failing now, and in the wake of COVID-19 would be a recipe for untold misery and ultimately social unrest.

In prosperity the role of Government should be to always look at ways to make things even better; in crisis it must shoulder the burden of repairing the damage.

Never in modern times has there been a greater need for inspirational leaders who can point the way forward, not necessarily by the easiest way, but the best.

This will be the test for the men and women who will seek to take on this responsibility in the difficult and dangerous times to come.

No obituaries for globalisation

In a recent television interview, the self-styled architect of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, Nigel Farage, was at it again.

This time he had bigger targets in his sights – the demise of the European Union itself and with it the concept of globalisation.

The COVID-19 pandemic was doing it, he said. Flights were halted, national borders were being strengthened; international agencies were neutered and all over the world ultra-nationalist leaders – including his personal friend Donald Trump, were in the ascendancy.

A week is a long time in a pandemic, and since Farage made those gleeful predictions things have changed.

Populist Governments, including that of the UK, are proving the least capable of dealing with the crisis. There, and in Trump’s United States, the death tolls are still rising while other countries with more mainstream (dare I say competent) administrations are beginning to see lights at the end of their tunnels.

In Brazil, Populist President Jair Bolsonaro is running amok, claiming the pandemic is “just a little flu” and pointedly flaunting social distancing advice by shaking hands and hugging anyone who is daft enough to get near him.

The avidly pro-business leader had this comment to those who questioned his free-wheeling attitude to the crisis: “People are going to die, I’m sorry, but you can’t close a car factory because there are traffic accidents.”

This weekend he finally sacked his long-suffering Minister for Health who has desperately tried to promote traditional methods of stopping the virus’ spread, such as lockdowns and business closures, in defiance of his boss’ antics. 

Leaving aside the ideology, those commentators with a knowledge of history that goes beyond yesterday’s tweet on their smartphones, will know that far from being a modern phenomenon, globalisation is a resilient beast with a lengthy pedigree.

It can be argued that it existed from the days when Phoenician merchants set sail across the Mediterranean in search of profits, but certainly since the 19^th century as the European exploitation of its colonies around the world went into overdrive.

Since then globalisation has survived the disruptions of two world wars, a flu pandemic far worse than this one, the Great Depression, 9/11 and the Global Financial Crisis.

In recent times, technology has strengthened its growth. The text messages that anti-globalisation activists use to organise their demonstrations would not exist without globalisation.

Finally, in the midst of this pandemic, the fight against the virus is being carried on through the cooperation of medical researchers working in laboratories around the world – a truly international effort that will bear fruit years in advance of isolated national efforts in even the most advanced countries.

Globalisation has its dark sides. It has been a conduit for misery as well as prosperity. It has benefitted international crime as well as global economies. The pandemic has exposed its faults as well as its strengths.

However, if the billions of humanity have any real hope of surviving, let alone flourishing, on this small stressed planet there is simply no other way.

Thoughts on the ‘new normal’

The case of an Australian man threatened with jail for drinking his takeaway coffee alone on a park bench raises questions of how far police should go in enforcing Government-sanctioned social isolation and stay-at-home-orders.

It is accepted that Australia is in a state of emergency, and certain freedoms that were once taken for granted are now curtailed.

However, the extent to which isolation and total obedience to authority can be enforced almost literally overnight in a free and robust democratic society needs thinking through.

The sight of squads of police and military on the streets, stopping and questioning people, is unsettling. It may be necessary, but with enforcement needs to come a certain degree of discretion.

Let’s go back to the man on the park bench. We know nothing about him, but let us imagine he lives alone in a small, one bedroom basement flat with nothing but the television and endless surfing of the internet to distract him.

Or he might be in slightly larger accommodation with his partner and two bored and argumentative children.

Suddenly deprived of his normal social activities of pub, club, gym and cinema, he just needed to get away, outside into the fresh air.

A few minutes with a takeaway coffee on a park bench, being careful to keep to social distancing rules, would seem a not unreasonable thing to do.

I do not share the view that our police are all fascists in the making, just hanging out for emergencies like this in order to push people around.

There are plenty of examples of this going on in the world at present. The young man in Kenya shot to death while standing out on his balcony because he was deemed to be breaking a curfew; Philippines military ordered to shoot anyone for “causing a commotion” — whatever that means.

Our police are not like that, but there are times, especially among the less experienced officers, of seeing things in black and white, while a few shades of grey are needed.

Otherwise the country could be faced with a new surge in mental illness when the current crisis is over.

Perhaps a more worrying result of this pandemic is the extent to which authorities in countries that should be best equipped to deal with it are being found wanting.

In the United States a simple thing like face masks is in such short supply that they are being issued only to medical and other emergency workers, and even then there are not enough to go round.

Members of the public are urged to cover their noses and mouths using “tee-shorts or bandanas” — this in a country that prides itself in being the richest and most advanced in the world.

In the UK, police have been cracking down on that most British of activities – dog walking. Some stores have been told not to sell chocolate Easter eggs “because they are not essential items”.

Yet when it comes to the really essential items, such as COVID-19 testings kits and ventilators, the Government has failed to produce.

As one National Health Service staff member said: “They ask people to applaud us, while not giving us the equipment we need to save live and even to protect ourselves.”

In recent decades leading Western nations have moved away from the socialist concept of cradle-to-grave care.

In doing so they have assured their people most will be better off in a free market allowing them to achieve their full potential, but that the Government would always be there with a safety net for those who fall by the wayside.

In recent weeks the safety net has been stretched and the holes have appeared.

COVID-19 and the failure of Populism

For years I have defined the populist agenda as presenting simple answers to complex questions which in the end prove to be no answers at all.

It has taken a pandemic to prove me right, and I take no pleasure at all that the shambolic approach to the Coronavirus crisis by the two major populist leaders in the Western world has wreaked havoc on their populations and probably cost lives.

United States President Donald Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson must face the consequences for their failure to listen to medical advice, for acting too slowly, and for adopting measures and attitudes that have patently proved to be wrong.

I will be fair and say that more traditional approaches have initially failed to stem the virus’s march in countries as different as Iran and Italy. Only by adopting draconian measures that would be unthinkable in the West has China shown some success in getting COVID-19 under control.

Elsewhere we still have a long way to go — and the missteps by the US and UK Governments may well make the path to recovery that more difficult.

In his excellent summary of the Trump Administration’s failures, Australian academic Nicholas Morieson says the President refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the crisis until an abrupt about face on March 12.

“He not only resisted taking any drastic measures to fight the virus, but actively downplayed the danger it posed, claiming COVID-19 was fake news spread by his political adversaries in the Democratic Party and the media designed to prevent his re-election,” Morieson writes.  

Now, of course, the tune has dramatically changed, with Trump suddenly claiming the country was at war with “an invisible enemy” and calling for the nation to face the threat until “total victory” was achieved.

Since then, he is beginning to claim the enemy is not so invisible, renaming COVID-19 the “China virus”, a virtual encouragement to his more rabid supporters to bombard the internet with conspiracy theories, drowning out any criticism of his own blunders.

In the UK Johnson was ready with his own solution to COVID-19, initially introducing the theory of ‘herd immunity’, allowing the virus to spread slowly, letting a lot of people get sick and recover, thus eventually building up immunity.

What Johnson didn’t seem to grasp was that most people did not want to risk their loved ones and themselves being the minority who inevitably did not recover and died.

US Virologist Akiko Iwasaki quickly pointed out that herd immunity usually works when there is a vaccination available administered under controlled circumstances.

“You don’t rely on the very deadly infectious agent to create an immune population,” she said.

Like Trump, Johnson was quickly back-peddling, claiming he only wanted to try and “flatten the curve” of COVID-19 so health services would not be overwhelmed.

However, he was forced to admit that “herd immunity is not our goal or policy”.

Both the US and the UK are now pursuing traditional measures to deal with the outbreak, but they have arrived at them at a much later stage than the rest of the world. As a result their populations are likely to suffer more, over a longer period.

Their simple answers to complex questions have proved abject failures.