The Art of the Debate

Among the finest arts in which the English-speaking tradition excels perhaps the most revealing is that of the debate. To make my point clear I must ask the reader to watch some video samples that illustrate it along this article.

In the first video above, recorded at the Oxford Union, British MP Daniel Hannan debates defenders of the Occupy Wall Street movement from US and UK. 

Regardless of our opinion on the subject matter -expounded with an unusual clarity by Hannan and his rivals-  three key principles that make the debate worthy stand out:

1. Clear concepts
2. Clear presentation
3. Self-deprecating and reflexive humor

In a good debate done according the English tradition, debaters and public engage actively in exploring, testing and challenging ideas. Debaters might get most of the spotlight, but even those watching a video recorded years before become engaged in a superior mental exercise akin to a fencing match of minds. Even better for those who experience a change of mind as they let the arguments and counter arguments sink in and shed light over different sides of a problem, for that is the ultimate, Socratic intention of the English debate. 

Debaters not only must present their points using clear and compelling examples, analogies and evidence with ease and humor but listen actively to their opponents'. Replies are much more important than assertions. They must be delivered showing respect and empathy for the legitimacy of the rival thought before turning it around or upside down to drive the point in the audience's minds. 

In the second example, taken from Intelligence Squared,   a Catholic Bishop, a Conservative MP, the notorious atheist Christopher Hitchens and gay actor and dramatist Stephen Fry show different ways to argue their extremely opposed views without talking past each other nor losing respect for their opponents.

Finally, the last three pieces from Oxford Union show how radically opposite views can be debated without losing respect for the opponent. 

Three different positions on Occupy Wall Street from 

Cornell West

PM Daniel Hannan

And Anthony Fry

In all the cases, notice how each debater listens carefully to the opposing arguments before addressing them and drives his or her points by turning them around. When that's not possible, the rebuttal fails and the point is conceded.

It takes many centuries to distill a true civil society. And many years of formal education to learn the rules for fruitful disagreement. 

Oxford Union and Intelligence Squared are two of the finest sources to learn more about the art of the debate so sorely missing in our public life today.

Anglosphere vs Eurosphere: the future of EU

The anglosphere has succeeded in bringing together 53 diverse countries much more effectively than the European Union. By respecting their member states "freedom under law" and staying away from Napoleonic central planning, the Anglosphere has been able to achieve the same objectives than the European Union still struggles to accomplish.

I just returned from a trip to a UK where I had time to engage with pro and anti Brexiteers and get a better grasp of what is behind and beyond Brexit.

It is clear to me that beyond the shock of the immigration crisis, terrorism and the loss of blue collar jobs lays a much deeper and ancient cultural gap between Great Britain and the Continent -as they used to call Europe in the old days-.

Well before EU and the process of creating an Eurosphere that started after WWII there was an Anglosphere across the English channel, the Atlantic and in all continents where European and British colonies settled with their mother tongues and culture. 

At a time when Europe and UK contemplate Brexit, is good time to realize about the existence of an "anglosphere" as a non-exclusive alternative to the "European Union" continental project.  It was called Commonwealth and it hsa continually expanded to 53 countries, 26 million square miles and 2,460 million people since its last constitutional update in 1949.

The roots of the Anglosphere go back to 1215, when the Magna Carta established for the first time in human history that rulers should obey their own laws.

"Freedom Under Law" 

remains the core shared principle that serves as a common framework for countries in the Anglosphere.

United by a shared language and colonial past, in which they fought against each other and British rule, English-speaking countries remain and thrive as a de facto global community that has achieved all the goals proposed by the EU in a much more effective way.

The Anglo-speaking nations are the most successful, entrepreneurial, free and innovative nations of the world.  They have risen the standards of living, pushed the boundaries of knowledge and innovation and created the most treasured and successful institutions of freedom.

The Euro zone and the Anglo zone are veering apart, driven by opposite economic, cultural and social models.

• The Euro zone economic model is based on state capitalism, high taxation and regulation, strong and expensive welfare states and shared control over monetary emission. 

• The Anglo zone economic model is based on market capitalism, low taxation (compared to the Euro zone), looser regulation and minimal welfare states with nation governments retaining control over monetary emission.

• The Euro zone cultural model is based on complex, comprehensive Napoleonic-type laws and high levels of labor costs and unionization, with large public employment and government bureaucracies. 

• The Anglo zone cultural model is based on common law (UK has no written Constitution save for the principles), lower levels of labor taxation and unionization, with restrained public employment.

• While in the Euro zone government is viewed as a source of security and social prestige, in the Anglo zone government is viewed as a "necessary evil" and suspicious of red tape, bureaucracy and patronage.

These traits explain why the EU came about as a formal union -with even a formal Constitution and Euro parliament- while the Anglo zone remained a loose "commonwealth" or cultural community and kept strict government independence.

When it comes to trade, the Euro zone is free trade-averse and protectionist -hence the problems with the Irish "backstop" and the default "protective" tariff barriers to non-members- whereas the Anglo zone is more pro free trade and its countries in principle see lower tariffs as a way to stimulate their economies and tariffs in general as barriers to wealth creation.

Brexit in UK and Trump in US have shown a clear preference for one-on-one looser trade agreements. Their condition of members of a cultural and historical Anglosphere  might evolve pretty soon in a regrouping by trade zones across continents and in competition or at least outside the Euro zone framework. 

The Anglo zone countries and economies have been growing at a faster pace than the Euro zone ones and their difference in economic performance and models are pulling them apart.

Brexit and Trump's MAGA are just the first step towards new alliances between US and UK and with the other more dynamic economies of the Anglosphere, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and India.  

The unusual participation of India's PM, Narendra Modi in a Trump rally has sent a strong signal of the acceleration of this process. Thanks to its large English-speaking population and its British and Anglo-like institutions India is better suited to collaborate with US and UK than Communist China.

The Sino-American trade war has provided an opening that both India and US are exploiting to enhance their bargaining positions with China, that remains to a larger extent a less-integrated outsider.

The main reason for this is China's lack or weakness of the equivalent to the Anglo zone key institutions (rules) that Hannan summarizes as three "irreductible elements":

First, the rule of law. The government of the day doesn’t get to set the rules. Those rules exist on a higher plane, and are interpreted by independent magistrates. The law, in other words, is not an instrument of state control, but a mechanism open to any individual seeking redress.

Second, personal liberty: freedom to say what you like, to assemble in any configuration you choose with your fellow citizens, to buy and sell without hindrance, to dispose as you wish of your assets, to work for whom you please, and, conversely, to hire and fire as you will.

Third, representative government. Laws should not be passed, nor taxes levied, except by elected legislators who are answerable to the rest of us. 

We are experiencing a tectonic shift and realignment of the world economy that -in spite of Trump's belligerent rhetoric-  may end strengthening rather than weakening globalization by forcing protectionist and closed economies like EU and China to open their markets and play by the common rules.

As a matter of fact, a recent book on Brexit by Jochen Buchsteiner has recently underscored the existence of two kinds of "Brexiteers": isolationists and nationalists such as Nigel Farage on one hand and those who seek international alliance with other fellow members of the Anglosphere under much more open and free trade-friendly conditions.

Buchsteiner's argument underscores the characteristics of the Anglosphere identified before:

“The Britons have created a strange sociotope for themselves,” Mr Buchsteiner writes, “with a spaceship-like capital city whose international character overshadows all other European metropolises.” Here, “Openness, revolution and tradition are uniquely entangled…In all their urbanity and exceptionalism [Britons] are a strange people.” He suggests that as America turns away from Europe and Asia rises, Brexit might turn out well, though he acknowledges that only time will tell. Mr Roche is less cautious. Brexit, he says, will mean Britain’s rebirth—albeit as a low-tax, low-regulation Trojan horse for American, Chinese and other intercontinental interests at the doors of Europe. “Far from sinking, England [sic] will be renewed. And Elizabeth II will doubtless celebrate her 100th birthday in her revitalised country, confident of itself and prosperous.”

The idea of Brexit as a "Trojan horse" for China and America sounds as exaggerated as the idea of an EU as a "Trojan horse" for the interests of France and Germany. Such distrust and apprehension are the results of centuries of European and World wars between the Euro and the Anglosphere.

It is worth asking whether it would not be more productive to follow rather than opposing those large cultural divisions and seek "soft" versions not only of Brexit but of the EU itself, ditching those elements that are clearly incompatibles, such as trying to combine open borders with welfare states or free trade within with trade barriers without.

Perhaps once Eurocentrists and Anglocentrists have exhausted all other alternatives they might find common ground in common sense.

The Art of the Bluff: Iran loses its hand badly

Bluffing can be a good thing: Iran's overshot fires back, Trump's punt gives US the upper hand 

Moving in a new twist in the bargaining process with Iran, Trump refused for the second time the Iranian bait and gambit by not taking immediate military action.

He also distanced from the Iranian "hawks" by firing John Bolton and distancing from PM Netanyahu. 

In doing so, Trump is trying to find his own path between EU's and Obama's capitulation to Iranian nuclear blackmail and his own hard-right, "neocons" hawks. 

The tactic seems to be working in giving Trump more bargaining power with both sides while keeping his base for the upcoming elections.

Meanwhile, back in Iran the continued sanctions seem to be working by exacerbating internal pressure from the powerful Bazaar on the Iranian dictatorship

while keeping pressure on moderates to come to the bargaining table with concrete and verifiable commitments. By not taking the military option after the drone attacks on Saudi Arabia, Trump has left the Iranians the impopular decision of doubling down with the attacks, which would force the EU to support joint and protective military measures on its own budget.

Trump -who makes no illusions about being popular amongst EU's embattled liberal leaders- is trying to achieve through pressure what Bush 41 achieved by his long-time connections. 

Once again, anti-Trumpism looks disoriented with POTUS 45's moves. They cannot certainly claim that the president is war-mongering like they did with Bush 43 nor criticize him for not attacking Iran -this would force them to align with Israel, something neither EU nor US liberals can do without paying a heavy price with their new electoral base, increasingly formed by anti-Israel, Middle East immigrants.

Trump had his own initiative through his son-in-law Jared stalled a year ago. Although it failed, the plan reflects a more pragmatic approach than the Israeli far right has been proposing.