Soldiers and Carers

Many military people do an admirable job. For whatever country they serve, they tend to be well-organised, disciplined, work well in teams and courageous. In many places they offer a beacon to more corrupt branches of society and they offer comfort to citizens. The military also provides solid jobs and great life training for kids who otherwise might struggle to succeed.

I am also proud to honour those who have died in conflicts. I prefer not to be selective about which nation they were fighting for, and also to extend the honour to those whose lives have been damaged by PTSD or serious physical injury, and even the mental trauma associated with defection. And I would add in those many civilians caught up in conflicts, either killed or displaced or bereaved. Many people suffer from conflicts. Conflicts are bad. We should rejoice that the world has fewer conflicts than at any time in history, although we have such a long way still to go.

So let us indeed honour veterans and active military personnel. It is not a job I would do well, and I’m pleased that others are ready to take it on. However, let us also keep a sense of balance, and look out for the dangers from idolising the military at the expense of other groups.

I am astonished at the revered place the military have within US society. Everyone loves serving military and veterans. I know one family whose entire rationale for voting for Trump was that he said he would do more for veterans. Politically, it is an untouchable subject. No one can run for office without doffing their cap to the military and veterans. Challenging a military budget is political suicide. Even an incident like Abu Ghraib has to be finessed. Guantanamo is still open because most voters want it that way.

Partly this is due to the PR efforts of the military themselves. They don’t miss a trick, with bands in communities and anthems at sporting events. The whole of November is full of military veneration in the NFL, and it is very slick. When I learned that the NFL was paid many millions by the Department of Defense and National Guard for this, and that the total such budget for the DoD was $53m, it gave me pause. After all, this is taxpayer money, as is the money for frequent TV ads. This is fair enough if the purpose is to attract recruits, but I have my doubts whether the motivation is not in fact much wider, a branding exercise that succeeds only too well.

Much of the branding is based around sentimental stories about the sacrifice of soldiers, especially those who give their lives in battle. The premise for these stories is disingenuous. While patriotic, service to country is not the main reason people join up; instead it is to a good job with good pay and good prospects. Then in battle, surveys suggest that going the extra mile into danger is motivated more by supporting a team than a flag.

There are many downsides to an unqualified reverence towards the military. Start with scrutiny. The military are massive procurers of equipment, and massive spenders on salaries and pensions, all from the public purse. Lovers of small government paint pictures of wasteful bureaucrats in offices or lazy welfare scroungers, but far bigger sums go on military spending. In the UK, proper scrutiny found that equipment programmes were very wasteful indeed. Beyond an early sound bite challenging the costs of an aircraft programme, the third-rail nature of the military prevents similar scrutiny of a far larger US budget.

It is a similar story for personnel costs. Veterans have their own (albeit badly run) department for healthcare while many Americans have no healthcare at all. Pension ages and benefits are generous as well. They should indeed be generous, but in keeping with affordability compared with other priorities.

Another downside is that the military tends to do some things well and others badly. If you end up with too many military-minded people in government, it can lead to bad policy. People take comfort from the so-called “adults in the room” surrounding Trump, who are largely ex-military, but that is a dangerous attitude. Previous situations where the military carried too much sway led to Vietnam, Iraq and the continuing disgrace of Cuba. That is just in the US – for the UK, add in Suez, and for France, Algeria.

The reason is that military training tends to emphasise threats, as well as campaigns and secrecy. It can also lead to a blinkered stubbornness and damaging over-simplification. The quagmire of Vietnam and the shame of torture post 9-11 are examples of the former. The recent one-dimensional focus on eliminating ISIS from Syria and Iraq is probably an example of the latter – unintended consequences include strengthening Iran, betrayal of the Kurds, and even endangering the homeland, as ISIS may refocus on terrorist spectaculars.

This connects directly to the third major risk of military veneration, the military mind-set percolating to the general population. This can cause arrogance, insularity, a treatment of foreigners as threats, and an excessive trust in a projection of power as policy. Further, it is patriarchal, and open to propaganda – like Hollywood movies always casting the US military as heroes. It can also lead to domestic militarisation, as seen with the gun culture and the heavy-handed approach of some police.

This is made worse whenever militarism and religiosity are mingled. I hate the hypocrisy of church services using patriotic colonial hymns and nationalist prayers while supposedly preaching an inclusive gospel. The idea that our own side is always right or superior is damaging. Ads lauding soldiers “who died to protect our freedoms” confuse universal values with a nasty sort of tribal jingoism.

I have a small proposal to that could help to start the rebalancing process. In the US, we have Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and, to a large extent, Independence Day as days when military parades and attitudes dominate. The first of these honours a war that ended 99 years ago now, one for whom few people have direct recollection of anyone who died. So let us merge Veterans Day and Memorial Day, and replace the former with Carers Day.

Carers make sacrifices too. Think of the parent of a disabled child or child of a bad-ridden parent, who sacrifices their own prospects to care, with no financial compensation at all. Further, professional carers tend to be paid poorly and have little job security, yet they do a job that we all need and will need even more in the future. Paying for all care, including domestic care, would transform society for the better.

Carers suggest a far more useful set of values than the military as well. Carers highlight the costs of violence rather than its benefits. Carers are more often female. Carers mend things, things often broken by the military. And carers look to humanity rather than their own tribe.

So let us make November 11^th Carers Day. The chances of this happening under the current administration are 0.00%, but in these times we have to dream.      

Helping Places Left Behind

I admire the way The Economist has recently taken on the challenge of supporting globalisation’s losers. Having been a shameless champion of free markets, small government, privatisation and other modern orthodoxies, they have paused to observe the unwelcome side effects, and to try to find some solutions.

The need for action is clear. Inequality is a curse of our times, and neo-liberalism makes it worse by design, in the name of incentive, dynamism and growth. One of the weak spots for Trump that Democrats are not exploiting (being constantly side-tracked into identity issues) is the impact of key policies to exacerbate inequality. Gut healthcare and the poor suffer, and the tax plan will redistribute further to the rich. The main part of this redistribution is due to the love affair the administration has with corporate America. We have already seen the biggest effect, because stock markets have responded to the promises of lighter regulation and lower taxes already. This is touted as a good thing, and in some respects it is, but who is benefiting? Of course it is those who own stocks. That is most of us to an extent, through our pension plans, but it is mainly the wealthy. It was the struggling white working class that elected Trump, and to defeat him the opposition message has to resonate with the same people. That means less talk about civil rights and more about inequality.

The Economist takes this argument a step back, and sees inequality and hopelessness as reasons Trump and other populists get elected in the first place. Hence the need for a story to correct the most glaring negative consequences to halt the tide of populism before it becomes entrenched.

Previous articles have focused on how to help people who have lost out, and recommended the old chestnuts of education and transitional support, as well as help with mobility. The most recent essay instead looked at places. People who lose out are concentrated in rural areas and places where heavy industry leaves. Giving people more weapons to move out from these places is admirable, but tends to make things even worse for those still left behind.

This was an issue even before globalisation turbo charged it. We have hears of Scottish districts populated only be the old and incapable, and of Japanese prefectures becoming older and older. The South of Italy has been a basket place for generations. Now we also have places like Detroit and Baltimore, and smaller districts like parts of north-east Pennsylvania or West Virginia, places where a large employment cluster previous attracted families, and then abandoned them as business dried up.

The symptoms are brutal. Departing people leads to poorer schools, depressed house prices and crime. For those that don’t escape early, there is no escape. The local government has too much infrastructure to maintain and too many pensions to pay, with not enough taxpayers to pay them.

And trends will make this worse, as jobs overall will become scarcer while the old live longer. The slow death of retail will remove more jobs and also civic pride and places to meet. It is no wonder such districts become crime ridden, and readily turn to opioids and populist politics.

Having described the problem, The Economist was disappointing in advocating solutions. Mostly, the discussion centred on enterprise zones or similar initiatives, designed to create new skill and employment hubs. These have a mixed record. I have seen them work myself, while visiting the Algarve and other poorer parts of Europe, where EU structural funds have helped to drag such places upwards.

The article went into lots of detail about which sort of assistance works and which doesn’t, though the evidence is patchy. Just paying subsidies does little, seemingly, and any positive effects vanish once payments stop. Trying to set up new businesses can also fail, unless somehow a cluster emerges, like in South Carolina after BMW elected to build a factory there.

It is no wonder that cities are bidding so aggressively for Amazon’s HQ2. But in a way, that is the problem, because it is another example of corporate power. The bigger winners will be Amazon and its wealthy shareholders, more than the citizens of HQ2.

The Economist’s only slightly radical idea was for the public sector to try create sorts of clusters, for example with research facilities around colleges. This is how things always used to happen. I have submitted paperwork to national vehicle licensing offices in Swansea, Kiruna and Mo I Rana, the last two near the Arctic Circle and all chosen to give stable public sector employment to struggling places.

The must also be mileage in supporting places in efforts at smart rightsizing, as they attempt to get out of the negative cycle of decline with fundamental fixes. Detroit could turn into a positive example here. Key to their latest attempted regeneration is housing, destroying the stock in distressed areas and trying to nudge people into a reshaped city designed for its modern needs. Funding such investment locally is always tough, and the public sector, or some public-private funds, could focus on this.

Linked to this could come some more creative marketing and specialisation of districts. Why does everyone have to have classical employers? Could some cities focus on trying to be ideal places to live for older people, for example? That would imply different priorities in transport, housing, health care and leisure – some rebirth of civic centres perhaps.

However, the real solution might require the Economist and others challenging their real sacred cows. Should the public sector always be reduced, is there a right size for that, and have many developed nations now shrunk it too much? Think of things the public sector usually provides, especially and education and health care. Even if provision is via private contractors, these can be regulated or steered to equalise regional disparity. They offer jobs where wages can be closer to nationally set. And in some areas, like defence or health research, the national government can choose locations to favour regions with other disadvantages.

A universal basic income would help here, and perhaps that will arrive sooner rather than later, as classical jobs become ever more scarce. My alternative to universal income would be paying people for care, an idea that would help reduce inequality even more.

So The Economist and others blame the phenomenon on globalisation, but actually the drive to small central government could be the true culprit. Starving public sector wages and services harm weaker areas disproportionally. You can hardly find a bus in the UK nowadays except on commuter routes.

I am not advocating collectivism or mass nationalisation here, merely a rebalance away from its extreme opposite. Regional hardship is just one of the consequences of the Great Wrong Turning around 1980; indeed almost all the consequences have been negative. We should remember that the Great Wrong Turning was not an inevitable consequence of globalisation, but an active choice by doctrinaire governments. The public have been duped. And that is why we now have the ugly rise of populism. Once The Economist starts to recognise that, then at last the tide might start to turn.  

Two Ears, One Mouth

I often look for advice that can cross over between different parts of my life. Often that turns out to be between singing in choirs and working in teams.

In both contexts, there is great emphasis placed on listening. Often we are told to listen more and to speak less. According to this, God gave us two ears but only one mouth for a good reason, so that we can use our ears more and our mouths less.

I can understand where the advice comes from. In both situations, the loudmouth who does not listen causes the most disruption. He (or occasional she) undermines the performance of the team. In the choir case, the overall sound becomes less blended and unified unless everyone else copies the tone and pitch of the dominant performer. In a work team, its diversity is undermined because valuable inputs are inevitably lost.

I accept this logic. But there is an opposite logic of equal value. What about the player who always listens but never speaks? While not disruptive, this player is contributing precisely nothing to the sound or to the team. Perhaps loudmouths get a bad press that they don’t always deserve.

In singing, specifically choral multi-part singing in small groups, the balance between producing sound and listening is complex and instructive. We usually have a conductor, who gives the tempo and other indications such as for volume, but we have to listen too in order to create a blended sound. By precisely matching vowel sounds and rhythm, a group can create a resonant sound far stronger and more pleasant than the sum of the parts of individual singers. Part of that comes from something called overtones, a feature of the wave physics of sound, in which the listeners hears not just the pitch but also suggestions of higher pitches at the same time. Individuals can make overtones – it is fun to try – but groups can do it far more powerfully.

But there is a fundamental problem with listening while singing, which is that you have to actually produce the sound before you hear the sound of others. If you listen and follow, you are by definition late, and being late eliminates precise rhythm and quality sound. Many singers actually do use this technique in choirs – they sit next to somebody strong and essentially copy their sound, slightly behind.

So, in a small group where there is no room for followers, everyone needs the courage to lead with their mouth and wait until what their ears tell them afterwards. The ears are helping in the background as you sing through a piece, helping the vowels and the blend, but there is no substitute for singing out, following the conductor and trusting your own sound.

There is another wrinkle to this, a trick the body plays on us. The only sound we don’t hear reliably is the one we make ourselves. If you doubt this, consider the last time you heard a recording of your own voice, perhaps playing an answerphone message. We don’t actually sound like we think we sound. So even if we listen carefully, we can only truly blend by using technique and experience, not simply by matching our own sound to that of others. The implication as singers is about a different kind of listening – not of sounds in the moment, but of feedback, from conductors, recordings and fellow singers.

I think all this technical stuff about choir singing has some relevance when working in small teams, especially in a meeting or workshop context. There, we have one mouth and two ears as well, and some of us are sometimes advised to use the mouth less and the ears more.

If this is you, take some comfort. Imagine the opposite, someone who always listened, but never spoke (or wrote, or decided, or acted). Organisations are full of such people, folk who do as they are told, stay out of the limelight, and parrot their leaders. Just like the singer who follows, these people are holding back the group, taking up valuable space, and preventing the magic of overtones, or whatever the equivalent would be in the work context. If you are being told to use your ears, take comfort that you don’t need to be told to use your mouth.

There is a company advertising on the NYC subway just now called the doers. I am not really sure what they do, but I like their attitude and their advertisements make me smile. An example is: “just think it, said no one ever”. Without doers, nothing gets done. If no one has the courage to take the lead in a workshop, no progress will be made.

But then, after taking comfort, heed the advice. The good singer knows that quality sound requires more than following the conductor and producing a note. Listening is required too, so that the vowels and volume and style of the others around us are understood and incorporated into our own effort. We can build on the sounds of others to synthesize a better result.

And, just like in singing, the one voice we hear in a distorted way is our own. So when someone tells us to use our ears they are giving us valuable feedback. Giving feedback is not easy and requires its own courage, so we have to respect it when we receive it, and treat it as a rare jewel. So do as they say, shut up for a while and listen. Ask others what they think, take in the atmosphere and the ideas of others, take stock. But then don’t just become a follower, but instead be a better leader.

All this applied in wider fields, such as in representative office. Am I making an argument for a twittering president? In a way yes, because twittering takes courage and gives clarity. It is better to have a communicating leader than an absent one. Of course, it is one thing to endorse a twittering president, and another entirely to endorse the one we have, or the content of his tweets.

He gets away with his behaviour for a couple of reasons. One is that indeed he does listen – to his base, and to his instinct for a popular position and the potential for re-election. The other is that the rest of his choir is made up of people using only their ears and not their mouths. The Republicans, with pitifully few honourable exceptions, have been reduced to a shameful silent rabble in the face of the demeaning of their country.

So look around you next time you are in a meeting, or even in a choir or other collaborative group for that matter. Who is using their ears, and who is using their mouth? Which group to you belong to? What would be better for the group, more ears or more mouth? After all, God did give us a mouth too, and not just to consume food and drink.