The Real Mandela

Every great person is complex. Nelson Mandela was a real person. He is also a legend, a kind of modern day saint. In many ways, he is like Mohandas Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr., both real men, who changed our world, who have almost been lost in myth.

                 

Much like Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr., he was born into a privileged family (relatively speaking). Like Gandhi, he was the son of a traditional ruler, royalty, and raised in a deeply religious (in his case Christian) household.  Like Martin Luther King Jr., He had a college education from an elite black university. He studied anthropology and law, amongst other things.

 Like his other two, he was deeply interested in the history and culture of his people. Like Gandhi and MLK Jr., he originally had somewhat benevolent views towards the ruling class/colonists early in his life, and only became radicalized over time. Like Ghandi, he studied law and worked in law for much of his young career while continuing his advocacy efforts. 

Like Gandhi and MLK, his family life was not perfect. His relationship with his children was distant and strained at times. He frequently was away. He was accused of abusing his first wife. He went through a messy divorce, multiple times. His first wife took his children.

His views developed. He was almost always at least a liberal, but became more of a radical leftist in the face of massive violence from the apartheid government. He began anti-communist and then collaborated closely with communists, although it is not clear whether or not he ever actually became one (he denies it). He began with concerned protests and other pragmatic non-violent activity, for over a decade. But unlike Gandhi or MLK, after massacres who were ideologically committed to non-violence on theological terms, Mandela was a pragmatist. When non-violence worked, he used it. When not, he changed his methods. 

Mandela headed a violent military arm of the African National Congress, directing action against the apartheid government. He coordinated bombings against police and military targets, intending mainly property damage. His next step was to escalate. He began training in guerilla warfare. He was arrested and tried before he could lead a full revolutionary force. He was more of a George Washington then a Gandhi, in this sense. 

His true glory was as a prisoner. His thirty or so years in prison were his greatest triumph. He could have come out full of anger. Instead, he educated himself, and built alliances. He became a symbol of hope for an entire nation, and a source of inspiration. In the middle of brutal prison conditions, even after 27 years, he found a way to work towards forgiveness and a desire for reconciliation.


                      


He did not follow the way of Algeria, that expelled over a million white colonists, composing over 10% of the population, through brutal resistence. Instead he lead through negotiation and truth. By letting go of hate, and desire for retribution, he  lead a country to a  mostly peaceful transition, speaking with the very people who had destroyed most of his life.

    

Yes, he was a good politician, and an inspirational speaker and writer. But his pragmatic ability to create reconciliation was very difficult to match, at any point in history. A real human being, with a history, political opponents, mistakes. But still able to bring healing to a nation, and inspire a world.




The time has come for your well earned rest, Madiba. But try not to worry about us. There is always a new generation to begin that long, never-ending walk towards freedom.


 

Government By Truth

                           A Government Based on Truth 

 

 “Both liberal-political democracy and 'totalitarianism' foreclose a politics of truth." - Slavoj  Žižek

 

This is a provocative question. Are both democracy and totalitarianism either neutral to, or actually opposed to a politics based on truth? As a person who believes strongly in truth as a fundamental quality in life, at every level of society, it is vital to consider how we can build a politics based on truth. 

 

We can look at other systems that at least claim to be dedicated to truth. Science, for example. The goal is to find the objective truth, based on the clear-minded examination. The goal of science is not to find majority opinion about truth, as in democracy, nor to impose truth by pure arbitrary will, as in autocracy, but to seek truth wherever it is found. 

 

But science does kind of function like democracy, although not electoral democracy, doesn't it? Theories are created by the consensus of the scientific community. Anyone can write an article. Anyone can submit a theory. Anyone can be a candidate. The ideas are subjected through a rigorous review.  Bad theories are weeded out. Good ones are kept in. And if the scientific community accepts those ideas, then they become grounded in theory.  

                               

Good “thick,” liberal democracy works a little like this. People with experience and knowledge are allowed to participate in any important political process. All ideas are considered and subjected to rigorous review by experts. They must then convince the broader populace. They, in turn, moderate the arrogance and self-interest of the few. 

Science, of course, is not based purely on majority rule, but then neither are liberal constitutional democracies. There are certain fundamental, constitutional values that cannot be changed without extreme majorities in a constitutional democracy, just as a fundamental scientific theory cannot be accepted without extreme majorities in the scientific community. 

Science is only as good as the scientists and the processes they use. Thick, liberal, constitutional democracy is only as good as its leaders, its values, and the skills and education of its population. Controversial scientific ideas such as whether recent tropical storms are caused by global warming, or the potential for development of fossil fuel energy reserves, can be corrupted by outside funding and skewed research. The same can be true for democracy, with selfish interests corrupting public opinion. 

But that is the limitation of democracy. Ultimately, it attempts to impose the will of the people, even if the will of the people is wrong. It protects certain fundamental rights and values from pure majoritarian rule, by requiring 2/3rds votes, or even more rigorous agreement from a super-majority of political-subdivisions, but ultimately if the overwhelming majority of people want to do something, they can make it happen. What if they are wrong? 

                   

Various governments have tried to overcome this problem of the ignorance of the masses. Divine Right Monarchies assume that the ruler will be right because God said so. It is hard to see how Henry the VIIIth having sex with a concubine and giving birth to a baby with a penis creates a person who makes better decisions than millions of citizens. We know now that genetics does not make a small sub-set of people a whole lot smarter, wiser, or less crazy then the rest of the population. Not a good alternative. 

Aristocracy, Fascism and related governments still have the truth-by-penis-action problem. It is not at all proven that a small genetic group of nobles or ubermensch are all that better than anyone else. But they at least modify it by making sure that theoretically better than average genetics are also improved by concentrated exclusive education systems, culture, wealth, and military power. Unless the Aristocracy is open to all qualified people, though, it is hard to see why everyone should not have access to excellent education systems, culture, and wealth, creating a broader pool of experienced people to discern and seek truth in the political arena.

                          

Vanguard Soviet-style Communism has the same problems as democracy: the over-reliance on the majority, combined with all the problems of Aristocracy: once the revolution of the proletariat takes place, the small number of people put in the power cannot be taken out without another revolution. The pool of knowledge and ideas becomes stagnated without new blood. 

Totalitarianism, of any form, is the worst. It seeks to completely destroy any ideas or knowledge inputs outside of its control. The cultivation of truth requires questioning common understanding. Total control by the dominant power intentionally suffocates government based on truth.  

                                     

Technocracy or meritocracy is the next best solution to democracy I have seen.  By putting power into the hands of a select few of highly educated and experienced people, this technocracy can force through good policies, even if 85% of the population disagrees.  All people are allowed the opportunity to join the technocracy, creating a universal pool of talent. Objective tests, such as education requirements, standardized testing, or a strong internal culture of professionalism, weeds out anyone but the most qualified in their particular niche. This has the benefit of concentrating the best of human knowledge on an important issue, especially one which can be easily swayed by irrational emotions or self-interest if placed before a majoritarian democratic process.  

The problem with technocracy is that there is no objective test for the highest levels of government, or for the most fundamental values of society. There is no standard PhD program for running a country. There must be different means for choosing the highest level leaders. Liberal constitutional democracy still seems the best way to ensure the best people are able to run, and able to be picked. 

But even in broader democracies, portions of government are ruled by technocracies. Of course there are the courts, the technocratic experts in the law. But there is an ever greater hidden technocracy in generally democratic government.

            

We call it bureaucracy. Highly experienced, embedded political machinery that endures through multiple changes in democratic governments. The experts in health science. The developers of military technology. The government lawyers with 40 years in natural resources law. The deep knowledge base that moderates the majoritarian tendency to freak out when faced with short-term crises.   The enduring institutional knowledge, passed down from generation to generation, moderated by complex regulations, audits, constant reviews, and processes for rationalizing actions. 

Ironically, for all of its bad rap, bureaucracy may be one of the greatest balancing forces in broader democracies, ensuring a greater depth of government by good ideas and knowledge. In other words, a government that is more accountable to truth. 

Finally, a government dedicated to truth would need to remove certain practices imbedded into modern government. Intelligence agencies would need to tell their agents they cannot lie. That would radically change current practices. Agencies could not deceive the public, even in relation to matters of public safety. Treaty promises would need to be kept, or broken in an honest manner. Internal agencies would need to be transparent and accountable to investigations. Information would need to be shared freely. Policies should be based on rigorous testing and review. And public information would need to be clear and accurate. 

Ultimately, whatever form the government takes, the more a society develops education, in a deep and open sense, the more potential there is for government by truth. So, too, if the values of society, culture, family, and religion all place extreme importance on public truth. All this creates the foundation of a government in which difficult technical subjects are given to knowledgeable people, where matters of public concern are given to the public, where information is freely shared, knowledge is wide-spread, and ideas are considered, processed, debated, applied, and revised in a free, open, and honest environment dedicated to the practical application of truth.

The Face of the Normal American Worker

 I have been thinking about work more recently. Work is the source of so many pressure points in law and society: who pays taxes, and how much; social inequality, social and economic human rights; the right to keep what you make…  

In thinking about this, it is good to know what is normal. The Normal American Worker. Not the social norm, or the ideal norm, but the experience of the people who are right in the middle, the experience that is closest to the experience of most people in America.  

What I found massively re-oriented my view of what society thinks is the norm, and what, statistically, it actually is.  

 First, I calculated the typical wage. Several websites, like this one used the average wage for Americans, which as of the most recent statistics in 2011, is about $41,200 a year. From there, the typical American looks relatively well off, with a job that requires a college degree or advanced trade skills. With two incomes, a family is decently middle class in the $70,000 range. That is enough to pay rent, cover health costs, save a little for college, pay taxes, watch cable TV and enjoy a comfortable life in most parts of the United States. 

  The average is clearly wrong because of income inequality.

 Instead, the median annual wage in the United States according to Social Security Online is $26,965.43. Since the vast majority of workers in the United States work full time (less than 15% are part-time employed), and since the vast majority only hold one job, this is the only full time income for the most Americans.  S

So the normal American earns $27,000 a year. What are typical jobs for this range? A glance at the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the ten largest occupations within $1,000 a year from this median annual wage: 

Occupation:                                Number of Workers         Median Hourly Wage   Annual Occupation Wage

Personal Appearance Workers	478,160			$10.67		$26,370
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand	2,143,940			$11.49		$26,410
Grounds Maintenance Workers	909,350			$11.53		$26,460
Counter and Rental Clerks	432,650			$11.12		$26,900
Receptionists and Information Clerks	966,150			$12.49		$27,050
Material Moving Workers	4,036,120			$11.65		$27,350
Security Guards	1,046,420			$11.52		$27,240
Security Guards and Gaming Surveillance Officers	1,055,580			$11.55		$27,290
Other Protective Service Workers	1,417,510			$11.65		$27,790
Healthcare Support Occupations	3,915,460			$12.28		$27,780

Based on my experience, most people do not think of manual laborers, meat packers, beauticians, security guards and receptionists as the middle class. But that is the job type that is right in the median wage range.  

And closest to the middle: rental clerks. In other words, people sitting in the booths of a Hertz Rent-A-Car stall are the face of the Normal American Worker.  

This kind of thinking may be skewed, though. The median wage includes part-time and seasonal workers. Of course, these people are still workers. But using their wages to create the normal type of job might not be correct. People may work part time, at a job that pays much more per hour. A different way to look at it would be look at the median hourly wage, and find normal people based on jobs that pay this wage.

The median hourly wage is about $16.71 an hour. This will give a much different occupation list:

Occupation:                                Number of Workers         Median Hourly Wage   Annual Occupation Wage

Printing Workers		267,390			$16.40		$35,640
Miscellaneous Community and Social Service Specialists		631,150			$16.41		$38,200
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers		454,010			$16.57		$37,240
Dental Assistants		300,160			$16.59		$35,080
Driver/Sales Workers and Truck Drivers		2,719,630			$16.61		$36,710
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks		1,606,260			$16.91		$36,640

Maintenance and Repair Workers, General		1,230,270					$16.93			$37,190
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants		3,615,090				$16.99				$37,780
Metal Workers and Plastic Workers		1,837,280					$17.01			$37,190
Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks		226,260					$17.17			$37,300

Intuitively, this makes a lot more sense. Truck drivers and accountants feel a lot more like the Normal American Worker. Not just scraping by, but not exactly free from uncertainty and mind-numbingly meaningless tasks. Getting by alright, but not much cushion beyond that.  

So when we think about equality, the Normal American Worker is a good image to bring to mind.