Author Archives: Andrew Brito

Perfect Little Politicians

Posted on by
Reply

The documentary struck me as a commentary on both politics and culture. Starting with the culture, I was shocked by the interactions between the parents and children. Coincidentally, I watch a YouTuber from South Africa who has lived in China for several years, and his assertions (that due to the one child policy, children, especially urban children, are extremely spoiled) echoed in my mind. It was unbelievable to me the way Cheng Cheng literally pushed his mother out of the room, it blew my mind! This led me to think that these children made for the perfect stereotyped politicians—dirty and only in it for themselves. It was the contrast between Cheng Cheng and Luo Lei that spoke most to me (for some reason, I didn’t get much of a vibe from Xiaofei in a political sense). In my earlier Machiavellian phase I would have predicted Cheng Cheng to be the winner. After all, he did everything and anything to get elected (including dirty tactics). I was both surprised and relieved when he lost, but why he lost isn’t fully clear to me. I am also not sure our models of democracy fully apply at this scale, as those were derived from situations with millions of voters, not 30-something voters. However, my theory would be this: Cheng Cheng’s willingness to do anything to get elected was his downfall. To some extent, the appearance of virtue is important to get elected, and with such a small electorate so close to the candidates, it became obvious who was the virtuous candidate, and who was just saying whatever it would take to get elected.

Now, was this a democratic outcome? Although this election clearly was not on a level playing field, as Luo Lei was an incumbent with two years of experience, this does not make it undemocratic. The incumbent advantage is featured prominently in U.S. elections, yet we consider the U.S. to be a democracy (we may not all agree on this). Luo Lei was the reasonable choice, the Hillary Clinton of the class election. In this case, the class wanted continuity and law and order, so Lui Lei won in the democratic process. In the U.S. there was obviously a different outcome, but the theory still applies. Of course there were shady dealings going on behind the scenes, but this is featured in all elections to some extent, and it shouldn’t necessarily mean that the process is undemocratic. The premise of a democracy is that the people decide, and in this scenario, the people picked Lui Lei.

Tentative Optimism

Posted on by
2

In the long run, my own gut reaction is that “democracy” will survive. In the short-term, I think the answer is much more ambiguous. To be clear, in the context of the U.S. I refer to democracy as “democracy,” because full democracy (rule by the majority) has never been implemented in the U.S. until (tentatively) now. If this were the case, the U.S. would have suffered much the same fate as almost every other presidential democracy in the world. As the Fareed Zakaria and Tocqueville suggest, societal institutions and different checks and balances between the government and the people have moderated democracy. While this has prevented “tyranny be the majority” in the past, the rise of populism and partisanship are threatening to overthrow this ideal in the present and the future. Both sides of the political spectrum have contributed to this (Trump for often representing only his constituents in his policies, and the left for attempting to block most of Trump/ Republicans’ proposals, including those similar to previous Republican presidents’). Under the idealized view of the U.S., political parties do not vote along party lines, as their constituents may have wanted, but instead turn to the middle and focus on the long run good of the nation. However, as the stakes of elections have increased (if we don’t win the world is going to end!!!), and the public has become more polarized (as the 6 charts article by Vox showed) the system of moderated democracy in the U.S. is being pushed to its limits. “Democracy” in the U.S. was never meant to and cannot appease two equally vocal, polarized, and fairly large segments of the population. Therefore, if democracy—defined as rule by the majority within moderation—is to survive in the U.S., a shift to the middle must occur, by both politicians and the public. In the long run, I have faith that a moderate, strong leader will be elected to restore the status quo in the U.S., but how long we must wait, I do not know.

Modernity or (and?) Tradition

Posted on by
Reply

Lerner’s account of the Grocer and the Chief draws obvious parallels to Plato’s allegory of the cave and to the experience of many people in small villages all around the globe. On the surface, modernity appears to be the access to material things. This includes new clothes, a car if one is lucky, and other items that make the act of living more comfortable. However, while these are all side-effects of modernity, I do not believe they represent what modernity is. Modernity is the widespread access to knowledge and the freedom to use this knowledge and interpret it as one wishes. By this standard, the village was not “modern” once it had one radio, as the radio was controlled by the Chief and interpreted by him as well. At that point, only those who could venture outside the village had access to modernity, the only example being the Grocer. Four years later, all of this changed. With access to a bus service on the hour, electricity, running water, and over a hundred radios, the village was no longer a forgotten traditional farming town, but a beacon of modernity.

In Balgat, everything is great when it comes to standard of living. However, modernity is problematic for some as it leads to the abandonment of tradition. This is not something to take lightly, especially from the perspective of today when so many traditions are on the brink of being lost forever. Although Lerner sheds some light on this in his account, the underlying theme appears to be that the Grocer righteously won over the oppressive traditional views of the Chief. In reality, I think this falsely portrays the situation, as neither perspective is necessarily right or wrong as much as they are life choices. Furthermore, this is not a zero-sum game, as tradition can be preserved within modernity—Italy is one example among dozens. For these reasons, Lerner is not a reliable narrator. But then again, neither is anybody else except for me—because reliability is highly subjective.

Striving for an Imperfect Truth

Posted on by
1

In Gessen’s “The Dying Russians” two methods for uncovering the truth have been shown. One, by Michelle Parsons, attempts to uncover why Russians are dying so young by focusing on one turning point. The other, by Eberstadt, attempts to do the same by analyzing many smaller factors. Despite their different perspectives, neither manages to determine what is actually causing the poor demographic situation in Russia. The former is a cut-and-dry case as it only points to one change, the fall of communism, to explain the situation in Russia. This falls under the definition of a “hedgehog” according to Berlin. However, Eberstadt is not so clear. While at first glance his argument appears to be that of a fox—analyzing many different elements—they are all of the same scientific nature. In my opinion, this defeats the purpose of a foxy argument (to cover all potential angles). Therefore, neither Eberstadt nor Parsons seem to analyze the situation effectively. Instead of treating cultural, institutional, and historical elements as being interconnected, as they should, they analyze them in independent vacuums. Treating these factors as parts of a whole would put us on the path towards finding the truth behind Russia’s “crisis.” In the end, we can’t find an overall truth. However, we can still find many other smaller truths that lead up to it. By putting these smaller truths together (for example, by acknowledging that both Eberstadt and Parsons’ arguments have elements of truth to them), we can get closer and closer to this greater truth. Although we can never fully grasp what this fully means (like infinity to mathematicians), it does not mean that it is not worth striving for. If it isn’t worth striving for, then we may as well give up on everything now, because by that logic anything less than perfection is worth nothing at all.

Pawns in Burma

Posted on by
3

At first, I thought that the power players in Orwell’s account were the Burmans. However, upon closer examination I find this not to be true. While the Burmans can yell obscenities at Orwell as soon as they in the background and anonymous, this does not represent a significant form of power. Their power comes in the form of perpetuating brutal British behavior, as the British feel that it is expected of them and they will be exposed as weak otherwise. While this certainly represents power, this actually harms the Burmans, therefore making it less valid in my opinion. I also find that Orwell does not have true power in the account, as he acts according to the Burmans’ expectations rather than his own free will. Instead, their is a third variable holding power over both Orwell and the Burmans. This third variable is the British state. Without British backing, Orwell would not be in his position, and the Burmans would not have their expectations of him as a brutal man. Both Orwell and the Burmans experience oppression, as they cannot acknowledge their hidden politics without fear for some repercussion. Thus, the British government had set up in Burma two sets of pawns, creating a political stalemate, perpetuating their power over the region.

Response to “Segregated Schools”

Posted on by
Reply

In responding to Keith, I’ll first state that I agree that the American system of education leads to different results for different people, and oftentimes that occurs along class lines. However, from my own experience and the experiences of my family members, I think calling it “segregated” is a bit strong. The term “segregation” implies a forced separation (i.e. children being selected into different education paths without consideration for their actions as students and human beings). This is something that we do not see in the American education system, at most we see an edge or a head-start given to students in wealthier districts—which is hardly a guarantee of getting into an elite college. Much more important in determining a student’s college future are their actions—their grades, test scores, extracurricular activities—all of which are under their control. To be clear, I agree that this tilted playing field is a problem, however the costs of government stepping in to fix it—in my opinion—are too high to justify.

As for the point of schools serving the wealthy, this is a necessary evil. In recent years, private colleges and prep schools have increased access to financial aid. This directly helps students from low-income backgrounds, who traditionally have been underrepresented in elite schools. However, it is important to note that the increase in financial aid is paid for by full tuition attendees (roughly half of Williams students for context) and contributions from alumni and others. The same, in theory, is true of public schools. In order to increase funding for education to benefit all, towns must attract wealthier residents. Spend too much, and your taxes might be too high, leading wealthier residents to leave. Spend too little, and despite low taxes your schools will probably be crumbling.

A Realist’s Perspective

Posted on by
4

Having gone to public school all my life (until this year) I can say that I understand what Gatto sees in the public school system. However, I disagree with his assertion that that what it accomplishes is problematic. School’s function of training good (obedient/civilized) citizens is not evil, instead it is necessary for a functioning society. Not everyone can be a leader or a revolutionary. If that were the case, the structure of society would fall—and with it the standard of living and people’s peace of mind. I also find fault with Gatto’s claim that one of school’s main functions is to brainwash students to consume more and more. I think this is a classic logical fallacy—just because generations before public schooling consumed less than today does not mean that schooling caused this change. Instead, it is more likely that free education increased the productivity and the incomes of later generations, and their consumption grew to match these. I also found Gatto’s references to George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln as leaders who “were not products of a school system” quite misleading. Gatto’s claim implies that these leaders would have been harmed by participating in a school system, however, given all that they accomplished, I find it unlikely that schooling would stand in their way. If schooling increases the standard of living of those that it supposedly “brainwashes,” and allows those who would have been leaders with or without the schooling to think independently—what is left to fear?