Democracy in time of Crisis

We are up to the challenge

In a crisis decisions are complex.  Information is incomplete.  Every action taken will have many different consequences.  Risks have to be matched against benefits. 

In a working democracy citizens should recognize this fact and therefore support their government.  The underlying belief that sustains a democracy is that the government is competent and that it will act in what they understand to be the best interests of the country.

Does that mean that all their decisions will be “right?”  History will make its own judgments.  Does it mean that outside expertise and assessments should not be encouraged?  It is part of the strength of democracy that opposition leaders are welcome at the table and serious debate goes on in society. 

Since information will always be incomplete, and choirs sing in harmony, the weakness of all governments is that a group think mentality may capture decision making.    Openness to criticism is essential. 

What does this mean today?  We should listen to many voices.  Partisan sources of news should be welcomed especially since “partisan” means far more than simply serving the political ambitions of individuals and groups.  Partisanship, as differences of opinion about the nature of the world and a valid recognition that all actions vary in how different parts of the population will bear the costs, sharpens insights and seeks to level the ground of sacrifice. 

And it means today, that we all should trust, subject to verification, that our government will limit the calculus of election advantage in their decisions.  Hard for some of us to accept? It is this very belief that has held our country together in the past. It is a belief essential to the longevity of a democracy. And all know the tragedy that was Civil War when it broke down.

I believe that in America this trust as justified today as it has been in the past, that our present leaders will put the good of their country, as they see it, above electoral advantage. 

I believe that Biden has assembled a team of experienced foreign policy and economic policy professionals and we can trust their sincerity and competence.   That is not to forget that they are human and prone, as are we all, to regarding beliefs as certainties, and following, even enhancing, the narratives that formed their world view.

My strongest hope is that they are aware of their own fallibility. Good, well-intentioned people can be tragically wrong.

There are two specific issues at the present moment that require a nuanced understanding of policy choices, oil and gas embargoes and a no-fly zone over Ukraine.  The more I read about these issues the more complex I see them. 

Why complex?  They involve uncertain balancing of short and long-term objectives, of the likely benefits and the extent and nature of costs.  If our goals are roughly (and here many will rightly question my analysis):

1. the present and future wellbeing of the Ukraine people,

2. the avoidance of a larger and possibly a worldwide expansion of combat,

3. a well-sent message that war as a means of national policy will not be successful,

4. reasonable and necessary costs to the economic wellbeing of noncombatant countries,

5. a long-term positive readjustment of global commerce so that no one nation can hold others hostage,

6. and finally the wellbeing of the Russian people and their search for stable government, international respect, prosperity and peace,

then we need to weigh and balance with the judgment of Solomon how policy choices affect each goal.