Cynicism

I was having a conversation the other day and I mentioned to the other guy that I was beginning to succumb to one of the pathologies of journalism: "cynicism". This came up as I explained to him the facts that I came across in my articles about solid waste---specifically with regard to the Keurig coffee pod. Basically, I was referring to the "disinformation campaigns" that were waged to convince the public that these pods were either recyclable or compostable. Indeed, as I pointed out in the series, solid waste policy is absolutely rife with business people---and their willing minions---sabotaging the public good simply to make money. Thinking back about this the next day, it occurred to me that it would useful for my readers to take a look at that word: "cynic". It's not used today the way it was originally. And a lot of people might be really surprised about where it comes from. And the distinction between the old and new meanings is tremendously important to human society---even today.

&&&&

If you asked the average citizen to define "cynic", they'd probably offer some variant of this definition: "a person who believes that all or at least the vast majority of people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons". But the word itself comes from ancient Greek philosophy and originally meant something superficially similar but functionally very different.

Antisthenes, bust from the Villa of Cassius at Tivoli
Photo by Marie-Lan Nguyen, c/o Wiki Commons

"Cynicism" was a school founded by a student of Socrates named Antisthenes. The word itself is based on the Greek word for dog. Dogs are generally thought of today in terms of loyalty, as in "the dog is man's best friend". But with regard to the Cynics, the reference came to refer to a complete lack of concern for the conventions of "polite society". Cynics didn't care about fancy clothes, social convention, etc.

What they did care about was virtue or "doing the right thing". This is a very important thing to remember. Modern definitions of cynicism imply that people don't give a damn about anything except their personal self interest. Ancient cynicism implied that a person didn't give a damn about social conventions or their own material comfort and instead cared only about virtue. In effect, modern cynicism is in some sense the direct opposite of ancient cynicism.

This probably comes out most obviously in only ancient cynic most people have heard about:

Diogenes, painting by John William Waterhouse
Image c/o Wiki Commons

Diogenes. He was a student of Antisthenes who was extreme in his rejection of physical comfort and social convention---to the point where he became a street person who often slept in an abandoned, large tub. He was also famous for travelling the streets during the day with a lit lantern: vainly looking for an "honest man". There is a story that Alexander the Great once met him while he was sun bathing on the street and offered to grant him a favour. Diogenes only asked that Alexander move so he would stop blocking the light. Supposedly the conqueror opined that if he couldn't be Alexander "he'd rather be Diogenes". At that point Diogenes replied "if I wasn't Diogenes, I'd still want to be Diogenes".

&&&&

Cynic philosophers were remarkable in that they actively set out to educate ordinary citizens. To that end, they not only lived on the streets, they preached. All over the Roman Empire it was possible to meet a Cynic philosopher in a marketplace. He would be recognizable from the way he looked:  he had a beard, because all, and only, philosophers wore beards. (On Roman coins only the Emperor Marcus Aurelius has a beard. That's because he was also a philosopher, who wrote the Meditations.) He would also be wearing a cloak that doubled as blanket, was probably barefoot, have a leather bag that held all his possessions, and, a staff to lean on. And he would be preaching.

And what's really fascinating from a historical point of view is how much Cynic philosophy seems to have ended up in the Christian Gospels. For example, compare these quotations.

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:27/Matthew 10:38)
If you want to be crucified, just wait. The cross will come. If it seems reasonable to comply, and the circumstances are right, then it's to be carried through, and your integrity maintained. (Epictetus) 

Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20/Matthew 5:3)
Only the person who has despised wealth is worthy of God. (Seneca EM XVIII 13) 

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those that curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer the other as well... Love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting nothing in return. (Luke 6:27-29/Matthew 5:39-44)
A rather nice part of being a Cynic comes when you have to be beaten like an ass, and throughout the beating you have to love those who are beating you as though you were father or brother to them. (Epictetus III xxii 54)

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. (Matthew 10:28/Luke 12:5
What tyrant or thief or court can frighten anyone who does not care about his body or his possessions? (Epictetus) 

I could go on and on with the quotes, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the people who wrote the "life and times of Jesus Christ" had met and listened to a lot of these Cynic street preachers.

&&&&

Pollyanna statue in front of the
public library in Littleton, New Hampshire.
Photo by Daveynin, c/o Wiki Commons

Some readers are probably thinking "well this is all quite interesting, but how is this important to me?" I want to point out a couple very subtle issues when we talk about cynicism. There's a very useful type of cynicism which stands in contrast to being "Pollyanna", or, the tendency to see good in every person and situation that one encounters. (The word comes from a character in an extremely popular series of children's books written in the early 20th Century.) It might seem to be a good quality to always see the best in people, but if you really do live your life that way you become oblivious to a lot of malfeasance and shenanigans. You take companies at their word when they tell you nonsense about their products---and the world suffers for it.

An ancient cynic would understand that this happens, but he wouldn't stop looking for honesty. He'd keep making a fuss, even if it resulted in him being sued into poverty, being beaten by thugs, or, thrown in jail. That's because he defines the value of life in doing the right thing.

I'm afraid that in contrast a lot of modern cynics use their disgust with what they know of the world around them to justify ceasing to even bother looking for the good. It's as if Diogenes decided that there were no honest men to be found, so he blew out the light in his lantern and put it away. I noticed this a lot during my futile attempts to run for public office. I'd meet people who who'd complain bitterly about how awful politics was and how the candidates were "all the same". I'd suggest that if they really felt that way, they should at least vote for a candidate who was honest---even if they had no chance of getting elected. But invariably these people wouldn't even do that and instead couldn't be bothered to put in even the minimal effort involved in voting. This is a very far cry from the ancient ideal of "If you want to be crucified, just wait. The cross will come". Modern cynicism is an excuse to refuse to engage with the world around you---the ancient form was a call to only engage with the very best parts of being human. 

I can understand people who take on this modern cynic persona. When you catch someone lying to you in order to manipulate you into doing something bad, it can seem like a kick in the guts. But the answer isn't to "play it cool by letting the world grow a little colder", but rather to be more discriminating in where you place your allegiance.

&&&&

If you like the in-depth articles and editorials I write, consider subscribing through Patreon or tossing something in the tip jar. I have expenses and I also support other groups that I use for this blog (things like the Wikipedia and the Linux program on my computer.) At the very least, share the stories you like on social media so other people can find out about the "Guelph-Back-Grounder".  

Political Corruption

You corrupt bastard! ;-)
Phil Alt, from his website

This week I was involved in a discussion on Reddit about Phil Alt's recent attempt to ride the bus for a week to understand how well it works. He gave up after a few days because he found it too slow for him to manage to attend all the different meetings. This led to a conversation about public transit and why it is that Guelph doesn't seem to be able to come up with a better bus system. One person opined that it is important to realize that "all politicians are corrupt", and that that explains a great deal.

&&&&

The idea that politicians are "corrupt" gets thrown around an awful lot. This upsets me because I have known quite a few politicians fairly well and I've never had the feeling that any of them were involved for personal gain. Instead, they were all people who worked very hard at a very difficult job purely because they had an altruistic desire to help others.

So what's going on?

I think that for many people a variety of different issues have become conflated in the minds of people with "corruption". I think it might help the discussion if I first tried to parse out some of them.

Working with the other parties

Among the crowd I hang out with, a lot of folks are very upset about Justin Trudeau reneging on the promise that he was going to change the way we count votes for elections. 

It appeared to us lowly voters that Trudeau favoured a ranked ballot system of voting but the NDP and Greens instead supported a more formally proportional system. (The Conservatives wanted to keep the present system.) Since a consensus wasn't emerging between the Liberals and the other Left-of-centre parties, he decided to "pull the plug" on the whole thing. 

Did Trudeau break his promise? Maybe yes and maybe no. Personally, I'd say that a ranked ballot system would have been a big improvement over first-past-the-post. If you accept this point, then the blame can be just as easily  put on the NDP and Greens for refusing to settle for half a loaf. After all, the Liberals did win the election, so it is reasonable to expect that they would have more say over the reform than the other parties. If you think that Trudeau cynically promised something that he never intended to actually do, then I suppose you could call him "dishonest"---which is a form of corruption. But if you think---as I do---that he offered an opportunity to the NDP and Greens, but they refused to take advantage of it, then it wasn't corruption so much as being naive to think that they would settle for a system that doesn't directly serve their interests.

Settling for the possible instead of doing what's "right"

The Liberals say that they want to get us off fossil fuels but at the same time they are also trying to get a pipeline built that will help the filthy tar sands to overseas markets. Any honest person who has been paying attention to climate scientists has to know that the best option is to leave the oil in the ground. But there are so many people in this country who support the oil industry that it is political suicide to say this. This is why Trudeau feels the need to support the pipeline, as does the provincial NDP. That's what he means when he says he is trying to get "social license" for things like a carbon tax.

Does this mean that Trudeau and the Liberals are lying when they say that they want to take substantive moves towards dealing with climate change? No. It means that they realize that if they move on the file without building a consensus among the community that we need to do this, they run the risk of being clobbered in the next election. And if this happened, they realize that they would not be replaced by the NDP or Greens, but by the Conservatives---who have built their brand around sabotaging any attempt to get off fossil fuels. If you have the opportunity to gain power, you have a responsibility not to throw it away to someone else who would be objectively worse. That's not corruption, it's doing the right thing.

&&&&

Time for "the ask". Support my work as an independent journalist through Patreon or the Tip Jar. Remember that on the Internet if you don't pay for what you use, it isn't because it's free, it's because you are the product that's up for sale. 

&&&&

Being blinded by ideology

This is not the ship of state!
Photo by Topory, c/o Wiki Commons

Politicians often run for office saying that they will "cut red tape" and "find efficiencies". But when this doesn't happen, and taxes don't go down, the people who voted for them often complain bitterly about "all politicians are the same". The problem is that the largest fraction of a government's cost is payroll. And all employees are governed by binding legal agreements, usually through union agreements. In addition, most of the projects that the government undertakes take longer to achieve than a government mandate. This means that any given regime ends up saddled with a lot of the financial undertakings of the previous one. And a government cannot simply "rip up contracts" without suffering severe penalties. (Think about Doug Ford and the cap-and-trade agreement---.) 

The ship of state isn't a nimble laser sailboat, it's more like a giant container ship. And anyone who says that they can do big things like cut taxes without running up huge deficits or dramatically cutting services is probably being ridiculously naive. But being naive is not the same thing as being corrupt. A lot of people in our world have a tendency to see everything through the lens of their ideology. I don't know if this is something hard-wired into their brains or if it was something that was pounded into their heads by society. But the fact is a lot of folks have a very hard time seeing individual facts, connecting the dots, and, coming up with their own take on the world. Instead, they start off with an idea about how the world operates and ignore any evidence that contradicts it. Unfortunately, a lot of people like this have the drive needed to get into high office. Luckily, many of them get somewhat "woken up" by the experience of being sworn in and start listening to their experts. Others find that there is a whole set of "checks and balances" set up to prevent really stupid decisions from being made. But if you are someone from the outside looking in---and you still believe in the ideology that got the guy elected---it can look like the fellow was lying just to get elected. I would suggest that this may sometimes happen, but it's much more likely that they simply didn't understand how complicated government really is.    

This is more like it:  huge, with a turning radius measured in miles.
Photo by Frank Schwichtenberg, c/o Wiki Commons

Confusing the individual with the system that traps them

I would suggest that the real reason why some folks tend to say that "all politicians are corrupt" is because the individuals who say this have a hard time distinguishing between an individual person and the system that they find themselves enmeshed in. I can understand why people look at things this way. Our entire legal system places all the emphasis on the fictional belief that each individual has the choice to "freely choose" one action over another at every point in her life. Many people's religion teaches the same thing: each person is freely able to "choose" whether or not to embrace an imaginary friend---and on that basis either end up in paradise or some sort of eternal Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Most thoughtful people consider this absurd. People are constrained by a whole range of factors:  genetics, the way we were raised, our education, life experience, health, etc. And the institutions we work within have a huge impact on who we are. That's why psychologists talk about long-term prisoners being "institutionalized". It's also why people say "you can't change the system", instead "the system will change you". People who get upset and complain that "politicians are corrupt" are doing so because they cannot see the profound limitations that our society puts on the freedom of individuals in leadership positions. Some of these are no doubt important checks and balances of the sort that have limited Donald Trump's reign of error. Others are more insidious and protect "powers and principalities" that should have had their influence nipped long ago. 

I would suggest that one of the strongest impediments to real change for the better is this tendency by many people to focus on the individual personality of the leader (ie: by doing things like calling her "corrupt") instead of on the way "the system" limits her ability to do some things while making it impossible for her to stop others from doing other things. In other words, we need to stop thinking of politics as psychology and instead think of it as systems theory.