Optimistic and Pessimistic Societies

Physicist David Deutsch has a chapter called “Optimism” in his wide-ranging book “The Beginning of Infinity”.  Deutsch writes about the idea of optimistic and pessimistic societies, as exemplified by ancient Athens and Sparta, in the fifth century BCE.  It seems to me that the duality of optimism or pessimism explains much about human thinking and behavior, both as individuals and societies.  The idea is particularly striking when applied to American political parties in 2016.

To state the obvious, when faced with uncertainty, an optimist expects good things to happen and a pessimist expects bad things to happen.  Our attitudes and actions are built from those expectations.  An optimist plans for success; a pessimist takes precautions for failure.  An optimist expects normal traffic on the way to the airport, expects to check in easily and clear security without problems.  A pessimist expects difficulty at some point, and allows extra time. 

It should be clearly understood that neither optimists nor pessimists are necessarily correct.  Most of the time, the optimist meets the expected normal conditions, but some of the time misses a flight.  The pessimist spends much more time sitting at the gate waiting for departure, but rarely misses a flight.  Each of them simply experiences different costs and benefits.

--

David Deutsch generalizes optimism and pessimism to societies.  

Optimistic Societies

Optimistic societies expect the best from the unknown.  Optimistic societies welcome change, because they expect change to be good.  Optimistic societies value the diversity of ideas and seek innovation in science, industry, art, and culture.  Optimistic societies value non-conformity in youth and in education.  Optimistic societies are open to immigration and integration with other cultures.  Optimistic societies value individual freedom, and are permissive with regard to social behavior.

Ancient Athens is Deutsch’s example of an optimistic society.  Fifth-century Athens was a free-wheeling place, the site of the world’s first formal democratic government.  Pericles, in 431 BCE, speaks of a people who live at ease, who are lovers of the beautiful in all things, whose strength is in knowledge rather than laborious military training.   He describes a society of non-exclusiveness, where people freely do as they please in their private lives without fear of criticism from neighbors. 

Pericles noted his city’s openness to foreigners as a strength (although he also noted the increased risk due to information which could be transmitted to enemies).  The ancient Athenian society produced an unparalleled flowering of civilization from a few people in a small place and a brief time.   Athens produced the greatest advances in science, ethics, mathematics, art, literature, government and philosophy in the ancient world.  Ancient Athenians even explored the theory of knowledge itself – something not tackled seriously by Western philosophers until the 20^th century.

Pessimistic Societies

Pessimistic societies avoid change, because they expect bad things and fear the unknown.  Pessimistic societies value conformity and obedience to authority.  Pessimistic societies especially emphasize conformity and obedience in children, and traditional values in education.  Pessimistic societies fear foreign aggression and foreign influence, so they are militaristic and intolerant of foreigners.  Pessimistic societies are authoritarian, and emphasize the importance of police in maintaining law and order.  The military, the police, religion and other symbols of authority are glorified.  Past wars and the dead from those wars are memorialized and revered, to reinforce the moral obligation for obedience to authority.  Oppositional opinions and news sources are repressed. Pessimistic societies share many characteristics of fascist societies.  

Ancient Sparta, as a pessimistic society, provides the counterpoint to Athens.  Noticeably, there are no Spartan historians, no Spartan playwrights, no Spartan philosophers.  Almost everything we know about the Spartans comes from their rivals, the Athenians.  But 2400 years later, half-way around the world and in another language, “Spartan” is still a synonym for discipline and deprivation.  Spartan society was completely militarized.  Sparta was based on a slave economy, with slave provided by military conquest.  Its educational practices were harsh, disciplinarian and directed toward military service.   Sparta was intolerant of differences; it valued conformity and absolute obedience to authority.  Sparta did not seek improvement, except in military matters.  Sparta did not seek improvement; it abhorred change.

Optimism and Pessimism in American Politics

It seems to me that our current political divide and culture wars relate to an optimistic or pessimistic outlook.  Progressives embrace diversity and change, while conservatives seek to revert to the status quo of the late 1950s.  Attitudes towards immigration, cultural and sexual diversity, religious tolerance, militarization and authority – all seem to relate to the division between optimism and pessimism described by David Deutsch.  In most measures, Democrats are the party of optimism, and Republicans are the party of pessimism.  This is why Barack Obama successfully energized Democratic voters with his message of hope and change.  And Obama himself is the embodiment of diversity within American politics.

Donald Trump’s acceptance speech for the nomination of the Republican party paints a dark (and inaccurate) picture of America.  It is a thoroughly pessimistic speech, written to appeal to a thoroughly pessimistic partisan following.  Donald Trump’s supporters have one of the most distinctive demographic form of any in recent election history.  Trump’s supporters are America’s aging white majority, who look back to the 1950s and 1960s as their template for what the country should be.  This demographic group is still strong, but it is fading in significance with every passing year.

Caveats and Conclusions

To be fair, neither individuals nor societies are strictly optimistic or pessimistic.  I know a man who is a classic pessimist in most things.  He arrives at the airport two hours before flight time; he is very conservative about investments and spending.  However, he climbs mountains – technical climbs of thousands of feet, alone, in winter!  Clearly, this is the behavior of an optimist!  

Likewise, the apparently optimistic culture of Athens had pessimistic traits.  The democracy of Athens convicted Socrates of heresy and corruption of youth, and sentenced him to death for his crimes, in 399 BCE.  This is not what we expect of the tolerant society described by Pericles.   Sparta, also, was not completely pessimistic.  Spartan culture granted more rights to women than Athens, including the right to own property and the right to divorce.  These are values we associate with progressive, optimistic societies.  So there are no pure endpoints in the optimistic/pessimistic spectrum.

Further, to reiterate a point I made at the beginning of this post, neither optimists nor pessimists are necessarily correct.   Sparta conquered Athens in 404 BCE, ending the Athenian enlightenment.  Deutsch describes several examples of optimistic cultures through history, all of which advanced civilization but subsequently failed.  [Deutsch writes, "If earlier experiments in optimism had succeeded, our species would be exploring the stars, and you and I would be immortal."]  Our current period of enlightenment has lasted than any other, but optimism does not have a good track record for sustained dominance.

I do believe that human progress is necessarily tied to optimism.  Cultural and scientific advances occur slowly, if at all, in a conservative, authoritarian, static society.  Human progress requires openness to foreign influences, globalization of the economy, acceptance and tolerance of cultural differences.  So count me as a citizen of Athens and an optimist!

------------------

References:

David Deutsch, 2011, The Beginning of Infinity, 487p.; chapters “Optimism”, pp. 196 – 222, and “A Dream of Socrates, pp. 223 – 257.

Plato, Apology, 399 B.C.E., a retelling of Socrates unsuccessful oral defense at his trial for impiety and corruption, in Five Dialogs, trans. by G. Grube and J. Cooper, pp. 21 – 44.

Pericles, 431 B.C.E., Funeral Oration,

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/people_n2/ppersons2_n2/oration.html

Xiao-Yu, 2016, in a free-write piece on Ari’s Blog.  I particularly liked Xiao-Yu’s choice of illustrations contrasting the cultures of Athens and Sparta.

http://blog.ssis.edu.vn/104380/2016/02/18/athens-vs-sparta-where-would-i-live-free-write-6/

Thomas Cahill, 2003, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea; Why the Greeks Matter, 304 pp.

Primary Election Reform

America is in a situation of political division which is unprecedented in my lifetime.  Our government processes are paralyzed by partisanship.  The tone of political rhetoric in the media and in public life has reached levels of ugliness that I never before experienced.  Politicians in office increasingly represent the extremes of our political spectrum rather than the middle.  The presidential candidates chosen by both political parties are viewed unfavorably by a majority of the public.

We need to reform the process by which we winnow the field of potential candidates to nominees who participate in the general election.  Our political parties administer these processes, with party rules that are wildly inconsistent and unfair.  It is time for the government to take control of these processes, and to make changes in the interest of better government and a healthier society.

 A simple change to our election processes would address many of these problems.  If we replace our system of closed party primary elections and caucuses with an open general primary, it would force candidates to seek support from the middle of the political spectrum, rather than the extremes.  I believe this would set the country on the course of solving our problems.  

Primary Election Reform

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are poised to compete for the Presidency of the United States as candidates of America’s major political parties.  The candidates will set a record as the most detested presidential candidates for as long as public opinion has been recorded.  It is an indication of the increasing polarization of American society, and an indication that our political system is broken.

How did we come to be in this situation in a democracy, where people choose the very candidates that they dislike?  The problem is in our system of winnowing the field of candidates through primary elections and party caucuses.

Our system of primary elections is partly to blame for our political dysfunction and gridlock.  The system divides the electorate into partisan camps.  Each camp tends to select a candidate who epitomizes the most partisan views of that camp.   The process produces a government which lurches from extreme to extreme at the highest levels, and a government which is locked in acrimonious and dysfunctional gridlock at lower levels.  We have created a government in which the willingness to compromise is seen as a fatal flaw.  The judicial system, which is the strongest stabilizing force in American government, has likewise become a battleground of ideology.   Political discourse has become increasing bitter over the past 25 years, and political conflicts increasingly violent. 

The major political parties, Democratic and Republican, are essentially private clubs, who presently dominate the processes of winnowing candidates for all political offices.  The parties dictate the processes of winnowing the pool of candidates in a mind-numbing morass of differing primary election and caucuses, with different rules in every state. (The process is detailed at the end of this article for readers unfamiliar with the American system).   The process rewards corruption, and allows established political powers and wealthy political donors to strongly influence the selection of the party candidates.  It is in the interest of the nation to remove that power from the parties, and institute primary elections which are fair and equal for all citizens.

Primary election processes must be reformed.  A reformed process of winnowing the field of candidates would necessarily force candidates to compete for the middle of the political spectrum.  Politically extreme candidates would be eliminated from contention in general elections.   Reforming our primaries would improve the policies that govern the nation and allow the smooth functioning of government.

Reform Proposal – Simultaneous Open Primaries and Negative Votes

Winnowing the slate of candidates for office is far too important to be left to the whims of political parties.  There is ample justification in the Constitution to overturn our current system, and establish a new system, which will provide of equal rights to all citizens in the selection of our political candidates. 

The solution to our problem is remarkably simple.  We must establish general primary elections, to be held simultaneously in all states.  Candidates would compete for votes from all citizens, decreasing our tendency to elect extremists from the ends of the political spectrum.   Candidates would be less bound by party orthodoxy, and able to express a range of opinions, which would be healthy for our general political discourse.  The top two candidates in the general primary would compete in the general election, eliminating the problem of a three-way race, in which two candidates with similar views split a majority vote, allowing a candidate supported by a minority to win an election.  The process should be applied at every level, from President to mayor of the smallest hamlet.

I would propose a further variant.  The power to say “NO” is an important element of decision-making, embodied in the President’s veto power over actions of Congress, and in Congress’ power, with a super-majority, to override the President’s decisions.   That power should also be given to the voters.  I would suggest, that in any primary election with more than three candidates, each citizen should be given three votes: two positive votes, and one negative vote.   In a field of many candidates, such as we had in this Presidential cycle, the “NO” votes would eliminate extreme and unpopular candidates.  I think a system which gives citizens a veto would produce a government more accurately of the people, by the people, and for the people. 

When candidates compete in an open primary, by necessity, they must learn to represent all of the people.  Success will depend on winning over the middle of the political spectrum, rather than the extremes.   Candidates will be empowered to express views on some issues which are outside of their party orthodoxy, and they will be empowered to compromise with their political opposition

We are at a political crossroads in America.  We are on the edge of collapse of the two-party system which has generally governed our country since its inception, and in the current form which has existed for over a century.   We have the opportunity now to make it better, and we may never have another chance.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following section is added for readers unfamiliar with the American system of Primary Elections.

The American System of Primary Elections and Caucuses

In general, America has a two-party political system.  In the American system, candidates for political office compete for nomination by the political party of their affiliation.  The candidates chosen for nomination then compete in a general election against the candidate of the other major party.  Occasionally, there are candidates from minor political parties, or independent candidates, but these are rarely significant in the general election.  

Each party sets its own rules for winnowing the field of candidates to determine a nominee, for both national and local offices.  In fact, the parties set different rules in each state, resulting in a patchwork of irregular processes depending upon location.  

In most states, the nominee is selected by the result of a primary election.  In some states, the primary is restricted to only party members; in some states the primary is open to independent voters; in some states open to all voters.  Some states employ another variant.  Instead of an election, the nominee is selected through local meetings termed caucuses.  The caucuses require several hours of time.  Caucuses are attended by only about 5 percent of the population.  By comparison, about 35 to 40 percent of the population participate in primary elections. 

Primary elections are held according to an arbitrary schedule, at various times in various states.  The process gives the states with early voting a disproportionate influence on results, by directing additional media attention and political donations to the winners of the early contests.  Those early results tend to reflect the parochial interests of those states, rather than the broader interests of the nation. 

The Republican Party (ironically) has a more ‘democratic’ system than the Democratic Party.  Republicans have given more power directly to the voters in the system of primary elections.  Essentially all of the Republican delegates are chosen by primary election results, and those delegates are bound to vote according to primary election results on the first ballot at the party convention.  The Democratic Party allocates about one-eighth of the delegates to existing party officials and office-holders. 

The parties also have processes which give considerable power to established political interests.  Both parties have “rules committees” which are able to change the rules for nomination, even after the conclusion of all primary voting.

In the current presidential election cycle, Donald Trump prevailed over the established powers of the Republican party, riding a wave of populist rage and racist rhetoric to overwhelm the establishment candidates.  In the Democratic Party, the establishment candidate Hilary Clinton called upon a deep well of political obligations owed to her husband, Bill Clinton, from his eight-year presidency.  Even so, she narrowly prevailed against a more articulate and extreme candidate from the left side of the political spectrum, Bernie Sanders.   Neither partisan racist mob-rule, nor entrenched political dynasties serve our country well.