Tag Archives: politics

Utterly Frustrating: Another Meeting on Democracy without Result

Leave a reply

An assessment and a proposal

Where do we go from here? How do we move towards constructive steps? And how do other people feel about the outcome of the meeting?

Yes, on the positive side, what was great and encouraging about our democracy meeting last week, was that it offered the possibility to meet so many people concerned about democracy, about the fate of society and the world, people with different approaches to working on democracy. It is amazing that some attendants had even travelled hundreds of miles to take part. This shows that there is a dire need for constructive exchange. I wonder whether these people think their efforts were worth their while.

On the negative side it was again an utterly frustrating meeting, costing energy, and leading to no tangible results, while democracy in our nations and the world appears to be in an increasingly bad state.

The meeting had been termed by the organiser as a “strategic collider”. And yes, finding an effective approach to solving the problems of our democracies appears to require the frank exchange of different perspectives on the matter. Asked about our views at the outset of the meeting, I had, therefore, reluctantly suggested that the problems surrounding society, democracy, and the state of the world were so complex that our efforts would lead to nothing unless we would aim for highly structured thinking and apply what is known as “Systemic Problem Structuring Methodologies”.

To me society is an organism in which we all (can) benefit from the impulses we provide to each other. So many people are offended by “opinions”, but ultimately it is not the opinion what counts, but reality. The question is whether we see reality correctly and whether we are ready to learn from it. One advantage of democracy is the possibility for the exchange of perspectives it offers. My perspective on the outcome of the meeting is that it proved the point: It did not lead to any tangible results, because it was completely unstructured.

The basic steps necessary for result oriented problem solving, which the mentioned problem structuring methods suggest, are:

  1. Creation of a joint understanding of the problem situation: “What’s the problem?” This is how LSE professor Jonathan Rosenhead pinpoints the essence of this necessary first step in the problem-solving process.
  2. Identify a joint goal of action based on a joint understanding of the problem situation.
  3. Identify all factors and developments affecting the achievement of the joint goal.
  4. Design and implement strategies incorporating all these factors, at least the most relevant ones.

Measured against the yardstick of these logically necessary problem-solving steps, the meeting was highly unstructured, like so many democracy events and initiatives. One problem appears to be that our minds are not naturally made for structured problem solving. We need tools to help us in designing sound solutions. (In preparation for the meeting the organiser and I had discussed the fundamental principles suggested by the problem structuring methodologies already. But for a “systemic mode of thinking” to sink in appears to require more time.)

After a time of informal conversation allowing to get to know each other, the official part of the meeting began with a lengthy introduction of himself, valuable to get to know a person, but which did nothing to define the problem we were supposed to be dealing with.

The organisers then implemented all kinds of “fancy” ideas about how to run the event, such as taking photographs of each other, writing one single question of personal interest on a sticky note. Then somehow the fifty or so participants were split up in groups to discuss certain questions which appeared to be more or less randomly selected. Barely had the table groups started to grasp the topic and began the conversation, when the members were asked to change tables to join another conversation. A participant confirmed the observation that this process was evidently ineffective by stating that in his personal field of engagement in democracy he regularly encountered the same problems.

Another part of the meeting then started in which participants were asked to declare which topic they would like to discuss. Those interested in the mentioned topic were asked to form a discussion group with that person.

At some point in these debates, I suggested as sort of a hypothesis to one participant that we needed a new citizens’ organisation in our political system, a “Citizens’ Association for Effective Democracy”. He, running a democracy organisation, replied with the question, whether there were not already enough organisations of that kind around, to which I suggested that they were not effective. To establish whether my claim was correct, further specific debate would be required on the issue how we could measure the effectiveness of democracy organisations. Unfortunately, the evening did not leave any room for clarifying such a crucial issue. More time is required.

Another participant had declared her interest to discuss how to get more “deliberative” and “participatory” elements included in our democracies. From my perspective, movements demanding this, have been around for decades and not generated any progress. One reason to me from the yardstick of “structured problem solving” appears to be that those concepts are fuzzy. A newspaper article this week suggested that democracy was a “space for deliberation” (not one for Elon Musk’s algorithms, article in the New York Times). “Space for deliberation”? The term reveals the problem: If we “deliberate”, then it cannot be in an unstructured “space”. To generate results, we must deliberate on clearly defined issues, and the deliberation must be structured in such a way that it leads to concrete results, ideally to the “best” solution for a given problem. Of course, we must deliberate on what “best” in the context of democracy would mean.

Also the demand for “participation” must be specified for it to be able to make a constructive contribution to the solution of the problems of society and the world. Systems Thinking tells us that the purpose of our endeavours must be precisely defined for them to generate satisfactory results. I failed to get this message across in the short exchange on deliberation and participation. Matters are complex. The well-known formula proposed by my discussion partner “to agree that we disagree” from my perspective does not hold: We seem to need to agree with great urgency on suitable and effective measures to make democracy work.

Proposal for Joint Steps Forward

  1. On the necessity to make our democratic government systems perform as effectively and efficiently as possible

“What’s the problem?” That question appears to be the necessary starting point for our endeavours.

From my perspective the overall and most pressing problem concerning democracy and society is that the situation of our nations and the world is becoming increasingly difficult and desperate.

While we would need highly effective democratic “leadership systems” to cope with the problems of our societies and our world, they fail. US democracy has decayed into an utter mess harming the people in the US and the world. Governments in other democracies do not seem very effective either. Discontent with government performance is high in many democracies. The UK government has been committing severe blunders over many decades as Anthony King and Ivor Crewe describe in their book “The blunders of our governments”.

Presently the most disturbing and evident failures of the UK government appear to be the “Water Crisis”, the failure to set up a water treatment system which does not pollute much of the British environment and operates at an adequate price for the citizens. Then there is the “fly-tipping” crisis, in England alone around 1.2 million of fly-tipping events per year, costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds per annum and causing great harm to the environment and people in England (in addition to the water pollution crisis). What makes the “fly-tipping” crisis even more disconcerting is that it could be understood as a first symptom for a society in disintegration, in which people partly for reasons of egotism and greed for profit do not care about others and the “common wealth”, they harm society, and this in a time when society definitely cannot afford to waste funds and needs to co-operate to the greatest extent possible to remain sound and healthy.

A third government failure discovered more recently and indicating that there is something severely wrong with the overall performance of the government system is the “Post-Office Scandal”. If we understand the task of a democratic government as supporting the well-being of society and of citizens, then this case is especially appalling, because here rather than supporting the well-being of people, government itself destroyed the livelihood of a thousand or more people through its ineffective organisational structures.

Democracy is government by the people.

It is a privilege for which people have fought thousands of years. But it also is an obligation. It means that we as the citizens ourselves are responsible for the way government operates.

Systemic thinking tells us that no system works effectively unless it is controlled effectively by the stakeholder behind the system. What this means is that for our democratic political system, for our governments to work effectively, we as citizens need to take the initiative and form an effective driver to make our democratic governments effective. Concretely: We need a “Citizens’ Association for Effective Democracy”.

The logic is clear: History has always developed and, from time to time, exposed humanity to huge challenges. If we want to be able to deal effectively with the challenges of our time and age we need highly effective democratic political systems, more concretely highly effective democratic governments. To get such effective governments we as citizens must form them and supervise their work. Effective democratic steering systems are crucial for the survival of us as human beings and for the survival of our societies. If we as citizens do not understand the privilege democracy offers us and if we do not make our democratic political systems effective, then we and the world are (perhaps or probably – what is your assessment?) entering a time of serious chaos and destruction, for various reasons far more destructive than at any time in the history of humanity.

Figure: The Need for a “Citizens’ Association for Effective Democracy”

What’s the problem?

In my understanding our central problem is that we lack democratic governments capable to deal with the gigantic problems of our world. This lack of effective democratic government systems threatens our societies and the world in an existential fashion.

What needs to happen?

From my perspective, we need to join forces around this understanding of our situation and discuss how we can ensure that our democratic political systems and especially our democratic governments operate as effectively and efficiently as possible.

If we do not join forces and do not make our government systems effective, then our societies and our world will be in great trouble.

Can we agree on this view of our problem situation? What is your perspective on democracy, society and the world and on what needs to happen to maintain our societies and the world in a “decent state”? We need to discuss and clarify these issues urgently to move to concrete and effective measures.

  • On the need to learn about “Systemic Problem Structuring Methodologies”

Diversity is beautiful. And that so many people approach the problems of society and democracy from their own angles is enriching. Diversity, participation, deliberation, the human factor, community building, data driven attempts to enhance strategy and decision-making in democracy, citizenship education. All of this is highly valuable.

From my perspective all of these aspects appear to be elements in a puzzle describing our democracies and our societies, our world.

One element in our puzzle must be the systems and processes with which we organise society and our world, the ways and means with which we find effective solutions fulfilling our aims and needs in the most satisfactory way for everyone possible. To find solutions we must understand in which way the elements are interconnected and which effects they exert on each other. One crucial step in finding a solution appears to find the driving force in the puzzle, the central element driving the solution.

The reason why our efforts in creating better democracies and better societies seem to fail so far is our inability or unwillingness to deal adequately with this complexity. We make our politicians responsible for our problems instead of seeing that the privilege of democracy means that we ourselves are the cause of the problem. We fail to make our government systems effective and to select politicians who have the necessary integrity to run our nations and the professional qualifications to make huge government machineries work effectively.

Understanding complexity is a crucial element in our puzzle. Scientists have put much thought into devising methodologies how we can better handle complexity and come to effective problem solutions in complex environments.

To solve the complex problems of our nations and our world we need to study these methodologies. To get to effective solutions we need to identify the very best methodologies for problem structuring and problem solving. This includes methodologies for weighing preferences and for decision making in societies in which people have at least party different or even opposing preferences.

A major reason why our efforts for making democracy work do not generate the necessary results so far appears to be that our efforts and endeavours do not comply with structural necessities.

Our ability to solve complex problems is a foundation for the success of a society and for humanity as a whole. For society to become better at problem solving we all need to learn about methods for structured problem solving. Creativity, developing our own ideas and approaches, is good. But to verify the rationality and the value of our concepts we need to check them against these methods. From my perspective (and the perspective of the authors) everyone in policy making needs to understand and apply methodologies for systemic problem structuring in their work, so solutions are feasible. I suggest that we need to train every politician in systemic problem structuring methodologies. It is of decisive importance for our societies that we discuss and evaluate this proposal.

The two books I recommended in the meeting as an introduction to problem structuring methodologies are:

  • Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty, and Conflict, Edited by Jonathan Rosenhead and John Mingers, 2001

And:

  • Hans Ulrich, Gilbert J.B. Probst, Anleitung zum ganzheitlichen Denken und Handeln, Ein Brevier für Fuehrungskraefte, („Introduction to holistic thinking and action – a breviary for leaders“) Haupt, Bern and Stuttgart, 1991. The book so far seems available only in German. In my view it urgently needs to be translated into English. The book appears to be of fundamental value to every policy maker and person concerned with politics.

And then there is a shorter article with the mentioned crisp and concise title:

These publications take a lot of time to read and digest. For those who do not have the time to engage with them it seems sensible to begin with the four steps to effective problem structuring described above:

  1. What’s the problem? Create agreement on the understanding of a problem situation
  2. Identify a joint goal
  3. Identify all aspects relevant for goal achievement
  4. Design strategies which incorporate all or at least the most relevant aspects for goal achievement.

One problem standing in the way of an effective way forward is that people appear to have their own views and pet projects in mind for the way forward in saving our democracies or strengthening them. The problem appears to be is that if these views and projects do not yield to the rational principles described by these methodologies then they will lead nowhere and must fail. Joint projects must be based in structural logic for them to be convincing and effective.

Conclusion

If we want to solve the problems of our societies and our world, we urgently need to engage in creating effective democratic government systems. Our next meeting ought to focus on how we can achieve this aim.

Systems Thinking suggests that we need an effective driver, a “Citizens’ Association for Effective Democracy”, if we want to make our democratic political systems effective.

To move forward, we need to assess the rationale behind these suggestions in more detail. We need to discuss how we can create such an Association and what its detailed tasks must be.

On a general note

To solve the problems in their societies people in any democratic nation need to think about how to make their democratic government systems as effective as possible.

Our world desperately needs effective democracies which cooperate in dealing with the problems of our world and societies. To get there, we now need to create “Citizens’ Associations for Effective Democracy” in all democratic nations.

All in all, for some the above thoughts on structure and effectiveness might appear too mechanistic.

We need in fact the human element in our world, our world would be terrible, if we would all be rational machines only.

But then, to maintain our nations and the world in a humane state and to organise the lives of millions or billions of people in a cooperative and productive manner, we need effective forms of organisation, and rationality.

Our world needs both: most of all humanity – and rationality.

Every country on earth now needs a Peace Minister

Leave a reply

You personally must engage in demanding it.

In our increasingly tense world, why should  all our governments have “Ministers for Defence”, perhaps even for “War”, but not for “Peace”? It does not make sense, does it? Peace is the matter of prime importance for the well-being of people everywhere in the world. The horrible pictures of homes destroyed by bombs and drones tell us that without peace everything suddenly falls apart. As the global news tell us, it can happen to all of us, from one day to the next.

So, can you imagine 193 global “Peace Ministers” from each nation – 193 is the current number of member states in the United Nations – to proactively work together to create and maintain peace in the world?  They would be wisest people picked from each nation. They would check what the ultimate interests of people and nations are and how these interests can be balanced, so that instead of war, destruction, and suffering, peace and cooperation are created.

Presently much of the world talks about considerably upgrading their military investments. But, given the predominant importance of peace for our well-being, why not also double our efforts to create and maintain peace? Having 193 wise people in the world working for peace would costs us only very little money in comparison to all the billions of expenditures for military equipment, but it would be of extreme value for humanity, for everyone on earth. Presently the world is becoming increasingly tense. Having “Peace Ministers” from all over the world working for global peace will change our focus, it is likely to make this world a far better place.

The key issue is: Without you, without all of us engaging and jointly putting this demand forward, it will not happen.

So, if you want peace in the world, you must now take action. You must join forces with all people devastated about the tension, the wars, and conflicts in the world. Why not talk to your friends and colleagues, why not demand and, if necessary, protest for the creation of the position of a “Peace Minister”, or more precisely perhaps, a “Minister for Peace and Cooperation”, in your nation? Peace in the world depends on you, on all of us taking joint action.

The world clearly should have 193 Peace Ministers, shouldn’t it?

_____________________________________________________________

According to the great American president Abraham Lincoln democracy is  “government of, by, and for the people”. (He exhorted us not to let democracy die to honour the many fallen for democracy and for our own sake.)

If we start from this fundamental definition, then the question posing itself and which we must answer is, what the exact purpose of this system of “government by the people” should or must be?

If we assume (we need to discuss and agree on this) that the prime purpose of the democratic political system is to support the well-being of the people, next to the second goal of maintaining our societies and our world in a sound state for future generations, then a systematic analysis of the factors affecting our wellbeing makes clear that not only the ability to defend ourselves is important for our well-being. “Creating and preserving peace” rather is a far more crucial, a central precondition for the well-being of everyone on earth. There can be no well-being at all without peace.

But amazingly, despite this crucial role of peace for the world and for the well-being of people, so far most governments on earth have a “Defence Minister”. But that does not help us much.  As we now see, when those drones start flying above our homes at night and bombing our homes, then it is too late, our well-being is finished. To preserve our well-being, our efforts must start far earlier. It is far more useful and sensible to proactively engage in creating and maintaining peace than simply spending (or wasting) 5% of all our public income on weapons. After all, our resources are already scarce, the money we are spending on military equipment around the world is so desperately needed for other purposes, such as social support or for maintaining our planet. Ultimately, the Bible has a reason, when it calls for “beating swords into plowshares”. This is plainly far more sensible for ensuring human well-being then to pour scarce resources into weapons. Certainly, we may have to be able to defend ourselves, but our prime focus must clearly be on creating and maintaining peace.

So, on the situation in Palestine: Let us assume we have Peace Ministers from all nations jointly investigating together with the Peace Ministers of Israel, of Palestine, Iran, and neighbouring Arab nations, how to create peace in Israel and the Palestinian people. Basically, the Ministers could start their endeavours within four weeks’ time.  (It does not take longer to find the wisest people in our societies and to appoint them for the task, does it? It is a matter of the highest degree of urgency.)

What could those Peace Ministers achieve?

The crucial thing they would realise is that it really does not make sense at all for two nations and other nations involved, to be at war for seven decades, to keep killing each other, to keep destroying resources, homes and towns, and to spend billions if not a trillion on weapons. Had these funds been spent over the decades on building two co-operative and friendly nations, then life for the people both in Israel and Palestine would be utterly better. The Peace Ministers would also make it clear that humanity cannot afford such conflicts at all in our world when we are apparently in the process of destroying the earth as we know it. For humanity to lead wars in this critical situation is utter madness.

The Peace Ministers would, therefore, now help to finally create peace in Palestine and initiate what should have started seventy or so years ago, the building of two neighbourly and cooperative nations. They would convince the Arab nations that the Jewish people needed a refuge after six million were killed during WWII, that, as we all know, the Jewish people have a historical connection to the area, and that there is enough space to build two neighbouring nations. They would finally point out that making space for others, when it is available, is a matter of good will and that Islam, like other religions as well calls the believers to help their “neighbours”. For the sake of the people in Palestine and for the sake of humanity, it is now high time to finally create a peaceful and co-operative situation in Palestine.

What could the Peace Ministers do for creating peace in Ukraine?

First, if all nations supporting Ukraine would appoint Peace Ministers offering to investigate and to negotiate options for creating peace in Ukraine that would make a significant public statement about the constructive intentions of the West.

The measure would set Russia under pressure to follow suit and to appoint a Peace Minister too. So far, the motivation of president Putin to lead war in Ukraine appears largely incomprehensible. What really are the interests of Russia and its people? And how can we do them justice? The Peace Minister would make the goals of all parties and the options for arriving at a peaceful cooperative arrangement publicly visible and engage the people in the process of creating peace and cooperation.

As it appears, also in Ukraine, leading war does not make sense at all, it kills people and destroys resources, it substantially compromises the well-being of people not only in Ukraine but also in Russia. Ultimately leading a war in Ukraine is a crime against humanity in a time when humanity needs to use all resources it has only available for stopping Climate Change and the destruction of the planet as we know it. Instead of leading wars, we humanity must work together with the highest degree of urgency and use all resources available on earth with the greatest degree of effectiveness and efficiency to protect the planet.

All over the world, the Peace Ministers the Peace Ministers would analyse the factors driving conflicts and, together with the people, search for solutions. For all people in the world, the Peace Ministers would create a different focus in the world, away from all the bad news about conflicts and wars, to something positive, to humanity thinking about how we can live together in peace and taking the required steps. 

Yes, ultimately, we and our nations may have to be ready to defend ourselves. But the more we  focus on creating and maintaining peace, the better for us. The less need will there be for wasting global resources on military equipment. This shift in priority must be reflected in the fact that all governments in our nations make both, “creating and maintaining peace” the prime concern of their foreign policy, and that each government now appoints a highly respectable personality ideally from outside of established politics as their “Peace Minister”.

Ultimately, as Lincoln declares,  democracy is government by us, the people. This means that every citizen, we all jointly, you personally, must now ensure our governments now appoint a, in the official title, peace and cooperation are tightly connected, “Minister for Peace and Cooperation”.

So, if you want to preserve, or to create and maintain, a peaceful and cooperative world, send letters to your government. Join in peace protests demanding that your government makes a wise person of proven integrity and standing a “Minister for Peace and Cooperation”.

Not only peace in the world, but its entire existence depends on you taking the necessary action for your government to appoint a Minister for Peace and Cooperation.

Unhinged: A situation of chaos in the world

Leave a reply

What our governments and we ourselves must now do to have a chance to cope effectively with the situation.

Presently there seems to be great chaos in the world. People everywhere are depressed about what is going on. Everything is enormously complex. It is difficult for us to identify and agree on the necessary steps forward. Also our governments seem overburdened.

How do we get out of the chaos?

It appears that the guiding principle must be to look for the key parameters driving the solution.

I suggest there are two such parameters: First, the optimal performance of our governments, and second, more decisively even, our effective control as citizens over our governments.

I. Our governments must optimise their performance.

Our governments are the systems, the tools, and the institutions, with which we as societies, national or even as global society, develop, and implement the solutions for our political problems.

A key step for us is to recognise that we only then stand a chance to solve the extremely complex problems which our societies and the world are facing, if our problem-solving systems, our governments, are working optimally.

This means that our heads-of-government, must now optimise the performance of the governments, which they lead for us, they must as soon as possible introduce a “Government Performance Optimisation System”.

Answering the question, how to govern optimally, cannot depend, however, on the personal whims and convictions of a single person or a limited group of persons. The optimisation of government performance rather necessitates taking recourse to all know-how distributed in the nation and the world. To ensure the optimisation of government performance heads-of-government must arrange for an open and comprehensive consultation with society on the issue and implement its conclusions.

II. We, the citizens, must exert effective control over government.

Since governments will either not be aware about such fundamental suggestions on their performance – there is  a huge amount of information out there for them to digest – , or they will simply ignore them, perhaps because they are overwhelmed by the day-to-day necessities of governing, it is indispensable that we as the citizens realise that democracy is “government by us, the people”.

This is a privilege and a responsibility. “Government by the people” means that we, as the people, must exert effective “control” over the systems with which we govern, it means that we need to ensure that our governments operate as effectively and efficiently as only possible. Concretely, we must ensure that our governments establish the required “Government Performance Optimisation System”.

Of course, we as individuals largely have no say in the work of governments. For us to exert effective control over our government and to ensure that government operates optimally requires joining forces and resources. Concretely this means we must create and join a “Democracy Society” in our nations.

Participating in elections every four years or so or even not-participating in them at all does not suffice or measure up. Maintaining a functioning society and a functioning democracy rather requires active citizenship. We need to get together once a week, perhaps a Friday afternoon, and consult about how to build and maintain functioning societies and democracies. Together we need to assemble the optimal know-how on how to ensure the optimal functioning of our democratic governments. Since government is “all about systems”, systemic problem structuring methodologies appear to be a precondition for getting to sound results.

Conclusion

Of course there are many more detailed issues to tackle on how to ensure the optimal performance of our government systems. Clearly, to achieve this goal, our politicians must be qualified “optimally” (we need to define what this means and create suitable systems to ensure they have the require qualifications). Moreover, all systems and processes in the government must function optimally as well, such as strategy and decision making, implementation, communication with the citizens, and many others.

Concretely we desperately also need effective Citizenship Education Systems, one issue our governments fail in addressing in perhaps all democracies, a failure which seems to be responsible to a large degree for the problems of our democracies.   

At the same time there is no use in submitting proposals in the public debate when we do not have effective systems in place for the assessment of such proposals and for making sure they are implemented if deemed beneficial.  For this we clearly need the proposed “Democracy Societies” in our nations.

Certainly, depending on their state, in some nations it will be more difficult than in others to implement the proposals made here. If society is suppressed by the rulers it might be impossible, at least for now.

In any case, for us to deal effectively with the huge challenges our world is facing, we need optimally functioning governments.

It seems that our governments would be obliged to install effective Government Performance Optimisation Systems now, without delay, if they do not want to be responsible for the collapse of our democracies and the world.

In our critical situation it appears necessary that we rethink our role as citizens in our society. It appears to be our responsibility as citizens to make sure that our governments perform optimally. The indispensable starting point appears to be to get together on a regular basis to discuss and clarify how to move forward to an effective solution for the chaos in our world.

Dear Trump Supporters, Dear Undecided Citizens of the US

Leave a reply

If you really want to make America great again, your strategy must be to vote for Harris and then to make the government work for all American people.

Voting for Trump in contrast threatens to utterly destroy America, and all the values America stands for in the world.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Presently the world is crazy and unhinged. New power relationships are emerging. Dictators all over the world are inflicting havoc and destruction, they are causing suffering and death for other and their own people. Whether we believe it or not, there is at least a risk that we actually are destroying the world. Basically, all people in the world need to work together to protect it.

Now the world is looking to America, a nation which has in the past had a leading role in maintaining peace, order, and democracy in the world. Still today, Europe is grateful and indebted to the US for having under the leadership of one of its greatest, longest serving, and most cherished presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt, played the leading role in liberating Europe from fascism. Many Americans gave their lives in this awesome battle for freedom and democracy. This to me is what the real America stands for.

Now your goal is “to make America great again”.  That is a highly valuable goal. We, all citizens around the world, should be aiming to build great, healthy, and fair nations, we all should work together to make this world  a better and more just place to be.

But what kind of leader does a nation need to become truly “great”?

It seems to me that the Founding Fathers of America themselves, when striving to build a new and prosperous nation, have already provided the clue to this question.

About 200 years ago, at the start of the US as a nation, Alexander Hamilton, a young active leader who eventually died in a duel because of his extremely high ethical principles,  and Thomas Jefferson, who later became the third president of the United States, serving  from 1801 until 1809, intensely discussed the qualifications required by the nation’s politicians and leaders. In connection with the election of a president for Columbia College, Hamilton states: “It is essential that he be a gentleman in his manner,  as well a sound and polite scholar, that his moral character be irreproachable: that he possesses energy of body and mind, and be of a disposition to maintain discipline without undue austerity; and in the last place, that his politics be of the right sort.” If a president of a college must have such qualities, they would certainly be required for the president as the top leader of the nation. Thomas Jefferson in his writing puts forward the need to find officers to work in public administration and politics “whose talents, integrity, names, and dispositions, should at once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind, and ensure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public business”. 

Anybody who wants to make America great again, a healthy, strong and sound nation,  must look for leaders who possess these exact qualities. The fate of the nation depends on having a leader of high moral values.

Nobody is perfect. But if you look closely, you will see that Donald Trump does by no means at all fulfil the criteria specified by these two Founding Fathers. To the very contrary, if you look closely, you see that he is a man of the vilest character. Even many people who once were prepared to work under him confirm it. The one thing Donald Trump is extremely good at is manipulating people for his own aims. Please, look behind his façade, you do not want to be led astray by the pied piper. A down-to-earth gentleman from Maine, I know well, ninety-six years of age, a man of a generally traditional outlook on life who served in the Air Force and studied engineering on the GI bill, plainly and simply calls Donal Trump a “jerk”. Trust in the old man. Electing a person of such dubious and low character as Trump involves the greatest risk to utterly destroy the nation.

Clearly, a person who boasts about “grabbing” women by their genitals is despicable and no gentleman at all. One might consider such statements pub talk. But a person of that standard is by no means  suited as a leader of a great nation, he is by no means suited as a role model for the young generation of a great nation. Do you really want the great United States, the first democracy of the world in modern times, with this astounding Declaration of Independence to be represented in the world by a person of such manners and abject, low character?

If we want to build great and sound nations, if we want to build a better and fair world, we need leaders of true and high integrity.

Jefferson emphasizes the need for leaders “whose talents, integrity, names, and dispositions, should at once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind, and ensure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public business”. 

If you check these demands, it becomes clear that Donald Trump does not match any of them at all. Even if you were to disagree with this observation, the criterion “names”, i.e. the reputation of a person, would tell you that you cannot vote for him. If half of the US population and the citizens around the world looking on get into a state of the greatest panic in fear of Trump being elected, if they completely doubt his suitability and qualification, that would at least need to make you worried; you cannot elect him. That is what Jefferson says.

The large majority of US citizens loved Franklin D. Roosevelt. “By God, if it ain’t old Frank“, shouted a worker in a Detroit tank manufacturing firm, when Roosevelt surprisingly drove though the factory on a visit during WWII. “The President laughed with delight and waved his hat at the man”, describes Doris Kearns Goodwin the scene. Donald Trump divides the nation instead of unifying it. Such a conflict arising out of the election would weaken and harm the US. If you want to make America sound and healthy, you need a leader who unites the nation.

How then to make government work for the people?

This is the second crucial and decisive issue for the country, next to voting for a leader of high integrity.

Presently you may not trust government, you may not trust the so called establishment. But the solution cannot be to vote for a single person who promises us to believe that he is the great man who can fix everything for us. Our world of eight billion people is far too complex for this. New developments occur in the world which are hard to control and influence for any government. Anybody who promises us to be able to fix all our problems is instantly highly suspicious. He is either an absolutely dangerous fool or a criminal aiming to mislead us.

The thought of people voting for Trump reminds me of people in Germany suffering in the terrible economic crisis of the 1930s. They voted for Hitler, a person who painstakingly practiced his way of seducing the people in front of a mirror and who in rousing speeches made people believe that he could fix all their problems. People did put their hopes in him, but as a result of the chaos and utter destruction he unleashed over the world, much of humanity suffered and more than fifty million people died. Currently the world is under threat. We cannot afford such havoc. We need cooperative leaders and most importantly government systems of the highest capacity to bring the world back on track. We as citizens must demand governments of such high performance and quality.

What is the way to make America great again?

Dear Trump supporters, dear undecided US citizens,

To make America great again, vote for a leader of high integrity, and then work with that leader to make the American government work truly and effectively for all American people.

Let history, Hitler and his madness to make Germany the most powerful nation on earth be a terrible warning sign for you. Such madness will destroy America.

If you want to make America great again, vote for Harris and Walz, a man of the people. You must change from being actual or potential Trump supporters to being Harris/Walz supporters.

Give them a chance, strike a deal with them!

Tell them, if we vote for you, then you must promise to make the American government the best government America ever had in its history. A government which truly works for all American people.

Ask Harris, whether she promises to make her government the best America has ever had in its history.

Then vote for Harris and Walz.

This is the right strategy to make America great again.

It is decisive for America and for America’s standing and leadership role in the world.