Wednesday, January 13, 2021

全民接種疫苗 與 國際競爭力

 

我的《信報》文章(2010年1月13日A16頁頂) 第三稿

《全民接種疫苗 與 國際競爭力》

 https://www1.hkej.com/dailynews/article/id/2685416

 

當致命且具高度傳染性的病毒流行時,對社交行為不予規管、對輕病情者不予檢疫,是變相把政府用作懲罰專有的「免責損害權力」普及化(演繹自法國「生命政治」哲學家福柯(M. Foucault 1926-84)的《必須保衛社會》1975-6) 。

[Note 1]

 

但在新冠病毒流行初期,眾多西方社會都以保護個人自由和權利為藉口,避免實施嚴格檢疫、規限社交活動。

 

蘇黎世大學教授Philipp Sarasin 認為,部分歐美政府「為了保護經濟,容忍老人死去…」;以「潛藏背後」(lurking in the background) 的掩眼法,實際使用「痲瘋病治理模式」(leprosy model)應對疫情(有政府顧問倡議,讓人民染病、部分死亡,從而自然達至群體免疫) 。

 

而中國則採用「瘟疫治理模式」(plague model),封鎖武漢及其他區域,可救盡救。近似的是摩洛哥,政府在首宗新冠病例兩週後,以軍用裝甲車於街道布防,實施宵禁。

[Note 2]

 

經常把人權、人道主義掛在嘴邊的歐美官員,竟然採用草菅人命的方法來處理致命流行病毒,在危難中不自覺地暴露其真面目,令人作嘔(nausea)。

 

無論各地治理疫情的得失有多少(例如美國得的是股市指數創新高;瑞典得的是經濟迅速反彈、第三季GDP增長4.3%、老弱死後節省大量福利金等等;失的是面子),隨着踏入接種疫苗的階段,彼此之間的競爭出現新形式。

[Note 3]

 

香港大學流行病學教授Ben Cowling,在12月29日接受訪問時提示,如果疫苗能有實效幫助接種者清除入侵的病毒,區內有60-70%的人接種,便足以達至群體免疫;但倘若疫苗只能減輕患者病況,則仍然很有可能繼續傳染他人,故必須全民接種,方可切斷傳染鏈。

[Note 4]

 

由於疫苗的效用在一至兩年內未能確定,較穩妥的做法是盡快完成全民接種。可是,在一眾自由(任意)社會中,許多人傾向(至少在短期內)觀望。

 

根據近月的訪問調查,法國只有40%的人願意接種疫苗,荷蘭有51%,德國和英國有三分二,美國搖擺不定,介乎50%-66%之間。但是由於幾乎所有的跨境公共交通工具,例如航機、郵輪、鐵路,均會要求乘客持有疫苗接種證書,因此絕大多數人最終都會接種疫苗。換句話說,各地達至全民接種(或全民免疫) 只是時間問題。

[Note 5]

 

唯這個時間先後差距現象,至少有兩點在國際競爭方面值得深思。

 

第一,這個先後差距將為快速完成全民接種疫苗的社會,帶來短期(約1-3年)的優勢。最明顯的,也許是「人員流動優勢」及「場所聚集優勢」。

 

具參考價值的例子是電影票房。中國由於疫情迅速受控,影院去年收入逾二百億元,全球第一。今年首日票房更突破六億,創元旦檔單日最高紀錄。

[Note 6]

 

倘若進展順利,中國大陸很有可能成為首批完成全民接種疫苗的社會之一;可以像往常一樣,舉行各類跨境活動,包括外交論壇、會議展覽、學術交流、旅遊購物、體育比賽、劇藝表演、電影拍攝等等。

 

優勝之處是能夠掌握主動,既可增加主場舉辦、招待外賓,亦可頻繁作客拜訪、宣揚國粹。

 

關鍵之舉不是促進經濟貿易,而是利用競爭對手困於未完成全民接種疫苗的境況,在較少的干擾下,加強一帶一路地區民間面對面的溝通和聯繫。

 

值得深思的第二點是,時間的先後差距反映較早和較遲完成接種疫苗社會的民智差異。因為必須在緊迫時間內完成缺乏過往參考經驗的接種,對民智是一項嚴苛的考驗。分三個層面討論。

 

首先是對科學及知識更新的態度。自大流行始,假新聞、陰謀論、錯誤信息等,充斥於各類媒體。由於情況惡劣,聯合國秘書長在2020年4月親自向全球發出警告,將其描述為「全球錯誤信息大流行」(global misinfo-demic) 。

[Note 7]

 

多倫多大學兩位學者更迅即進行「反智」的研究,三到七月調查了27,615加拿大人,發現反智的態度,「強力地抑制」(powerfully dampen) 人們響應專家建議而改變(戴口罩這類)行為。此等態度不僅會延誤疫苗接種的完成,長期來看,還反映這類社會的整體競爭力正在下降。

[Note 8]

 

第二是民智的積累基礎。養兵千日,用在一朝;公務員、公職醫療人員均來自社會的公民群體,其組織、實施等能力,反映這個社會的民智達到哪個水平。而通過是次全民疫苗接種運動,這個社會和領導菁英可以學到多少?競爭能力又可以提高多少?

 

第三是民智對病毒肆虐的反省。疫情下,生命政治在歐洲成為熱話。

近例是德國學者Jörn Ahrens 12月文章,論述病毒流行對年輕人來說,「…最嚴重的影響是鬱悶(boredom)…最大的擔憂是Netflix結業…」;並憂慮一旦政府轉向採用生命政治的治理模式,年輕人很難適應這種新常態。

[Note 9]

 

復旦大學教授莫偉民是推動生命政治在中國發展的學者之一。他指出此學說的倫理,是從「認識自身」的健康(要有所節制),到「關切自身」的治理(不肆意享樂),進而「關切別人」的福祉(2005: 頁238-52)。用古老的智慧來解釋,要成為免疫社會,不是堅持「享樂的滿足」,在疫中參加狂歡派對,而是「經一事,長一智」。

[Note 10]

 

在北京師範大學做研究的新西蘭學者Michael A. Peters 和Tina Besley,觀察到國人在疫中明白事理、中國官民合作順暢,通過「生命政治」的治理模式,成功控制疫情。

[Note 11]

 

這項民智省悟的能力,將有助中國快速完成全民接種疫苗,進而以此成就構建一套政治語言,於應對未來的環球健康醫療、氣候變化、生態平衡等問題時,掌握話語權、壯大競爭力。

 

新冠病毒教舉世驚悟,哪一個民智長進的社會有能力自助、助人,做到保護人口健康、改善生態環境,才會贏得尊重和信任。

 

Notes for Reference

[Note 1]

Wiki, Michel Foucault

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

 

Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana (ed.) David Macey (transl.) (2003), ‘Michel Foucault “Society Must Be Defended” Lectures at the College de France 1975-76’, New York: Picador.

“… everyone … had the power of life and death over his or her neighbors …”

  

[Note 2]

2020 Mar 31

University of Zurich ‘Foucault blog’

Understanding the Coronavirus Pandemic with Foucault? 

Philipp Sarasin (born in  巴塞爾1956) 蘇黎世大學歷史學教授

DOI: 10.13095/uzh.fsw.fb.254

https://www.fsw.uzh.ch/foucaultblog/essays/254/understanding-corona-with-foucault

“… the leprosy model is lurking in the background … let old people die to save the economy, or it becomes factual reality when retirement and nursing homes are abandoned and their inmates die locked up and alone …”

“… the plague model… in Morocco the corona-related curfew is imposed with tanks in the streets and harsh military measures

 

[Note 3]

Statistics Sweden 2020 Nov 5

GDP indicator: Rebound in the third quarter

https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/national-accounts/national-accounts/national-accounts-quarterly-and-annual-estimates/pong/statistical-news/national-accounts-third-quarter-2020/#:~:text=Sweden's%20GDP%20increased%20by%204.3,GDP%20decreased%20by%203.5%20percent.

Sweden’s GDP increased by 4.3 percent in the third quarter of 2020, seasonally adjusted and compared with the second quarter of 2020, according to the preliminary compilation of the quarterly national accounts.

 

[Note 4]

TVB Straight Talk 2020 Dec 29

https://programme.tvb.com/news/straighttalk20160001/episode/20201229/

"How worried should we be about the mutations of the coronavirus?" Guest: Professor Ben Cowling, Professor, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong

 

[Note 5]

Yahoo News 2020 Dec 26

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/french-resistance-covid-vaccine-grows-150922196.html

The percentage of people in France who plan to get vaccinated against Covid-19 has continued its downward trend, according to the latest government health survey, with just 40 percent now saying they would likely get the injection.

 

2020 Dec 9

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/covid-19-will-infodemic-prevent-europeans-from-getting-vaccinated/2070629

In the UK, the first country to roll out the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine this week, one in five people (21%) are unlikely to take the vaccine, although just 8% of those say they are against vaccines in general.

Two-thirds of the public (67%) say they are very (42%) or fairly (25%) likely to take the vaccine, according to a YouGov poll.

In the Netherlands, only 51% of participants in a July survey said they were open to getting inoculated. As many as 35,000 people responded to the study, done by current affairs TV show EenVandaag.

 

2020 Dec 25  DW News

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-two-thirds-of-germans-willing-to-receive-covid-vaccine/a-56058868

Coronavirus: Two-thirds of Germans willing to receive COVID vaccine

 

2020 Dec 10 ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/americans-increasingly-covid-19-vaccine-poll/story?id=74632280

A new Gallup poll published Dec. 8 shows that Americans' willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine has ticked up to 63%.

While the height of American willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was 66% in July, it continued to drop to a low of 50% in September following an announcement by AstraZeneca that its vaccine trials had been halted due to adverse reactions in its participants.

 

[Note 6]

2021 Jan 4  星島日報

std.stheadline.com/daily/article/2322778/日報-中國-元旦電影票房破六億史上最高

(星島日報報道)受疫情影響,中國電影院去年收穫逾兩百億票房,成為全球第一。今年伊始,內地影院再迎升溫,元旦單日電影票房突破六億元人民幣,刷新元旦檔單日票房影史最高紀錄。截至昨日上午十一時許,元旦檔累計電影票房已超過十一億元,現階段仍在持續增長中。

[Note 7]

2020 Apr 14  United Nations news

Hatred going viral in ‘dangerous epidemic of misinformation’ during COVID-19 pandemic

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1061682

Secretary-General António Guterres describes the impact of the coronavirus as “the most challenging crisis we have faced since the Second World War”, leaving millions scared, and seeking clear advice on how best to protect themselves and their families.

While it is a time for science and solidarity, a “global ‘misinfo-demic’ is spreading”, he said in a video message.

 

[Note 8]

2020 May 15   Center for Open Science

Anti-intellectualism and the mass public’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Merkley, Eric, and Peter J. Loewen

Department of Political Science, University of Toronto

 doi:10.31219/osf.io/agm57.

https://osf.io/agm57/

We find that anti-intellectualism is linked to lower levels of COVID-19 concern and risk perception, social distancing compliance, as well as higher levels of misperceptions about COVID-19.

Moreover, anti-intellectualism appears to powerfully dampen behavioural change in response to expert communications

 

[Note 9]

2020 Dec 23

The European Sociologist Issue 45 PANDEMIC (IM)POSSIBILITIES Vol. 1

‘Theorising — Praise of Biopolitics? The Covid-19 Pandemic and the Will for Self-Preservation

Jörn Ahrens

Professor of Cultural Sociology

Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany

https://www.europeansociologist.org/issue-45-pandemic-impossibilities-vol-1/theorising-praise-biopolitics-covid-19-pandemic-and-will

“…Thus far, the most serious effect of the pandemic is the rise of boredom while people are stuck in their homes … …  the greatest concern is that Netflix could collapse.

 

[Note 10]

《莫偉民講福柯》

作者 莫偉民

出版社 北京大學出版社  2005年09月

ISBN 9787301092378

https://www.cp1897.com.hk/product_info.php?BookId=7301092377

第十講: 福柯”關切別人”的倫理學,  頁238-254

 

2011-11-21

另一種政治哲學:福柯的“生命政治”

作者:莫偉民    來源:《中國社會科學報》

https://www.sinoss.net/2011/1121/37810.html

 

[Note 11]

Educational Philosophy and Theory by Taylor-Francis Online

2020 May 28

Biopolitics, conspiracy and the immuno-state: an evolving global politico-genetic complex

Michael A. Peters ORCID Icon &Tina Besley

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1772026

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2020.1772026

China as immune-state demonstrated the role of a strong socialist state that could act quickly to provide social and geopolitical isolation of neighbourhoods, towns and cities, as well as an enforcement regime. Generally Chinese people welcomed and understood the need for such measures in the collective good…

 

 

Tuesday, December 8, 2020

充其量僅被半數國民認同的拜登

 我的《信報》文章(2020年12月8日A17頁) 投稿前第二版本

《充其量僅被半數國民認同的拜登》

https://www1.hkej.com/dailynews/article/id/2655855

為了使讀者較易理解,編輯將文中“common good”的翻譯,從我的「共同善意」改為「共同利益」。我沒有異議,因為「共同善意」的哲學意義較重。

Common Good在當時(17-18世紀)當地的意思是,所有參與者都有達成一項能夠滿足基督教道德要求,並為有關各方帶來善果的協議的「共同願望」。

因為那時基督道德教義的氛圍和壓力十分沈重,St. Thomas Aquinas(1225-74), Dante (1265-1321), John Calvin (1509-65)的道德影響力強大且壓倒性。因此,重點是為善的共同意願,故此我中譯成「共同善意」在哲學上比較合適,但較難理解。


《充其量僅被半數國民認同的拜登》

「拜登不是我的總統」的衣服、口罩、貼紙,在亞馬遜及各大網店熱賣,款式五花八門,有滑稽諷刺,也有惱怒憤恨。

[Note 1]

一項票站出口民意調查顯示,投票給拜登的選民中,有多達44%只因反對特朗普,而非擁護拜登。以此簡單計算,實質支持拜登的選民只佔總數 (約1.577億)的三成。

[Note 2]

投票數據還顯示,儘管大部分主流媒體持續負面報導、評價特朗普,但與2016年相比,支持他的選民在2020年增加了超過900萬。更令民主黨人驚訝的是,他不僅從非裔、亞裔、拉丁裔獲得更多選票,且在少數族裔婦女選民比例上,縮窄了與民主黨對手的差距。民主黨期望的「藍潮」(Blue Wave)大勝利非但沒有出現,還淨失七個眾議院席位。

[Note 3]

對於近年國內的撕裂現象,來自11所大學(包括哈佛、史丹福)的15位社會科學學者,10月於《科學》期刊(Science)發表聯合研究論文,稱美國這種前所未有的新型兩極分化為「政治宗派主義」(Political Sectarianism);當中的三個核心要素是:異他者(Othering) 、厭惡感(Aversion)、道德化 (Moralization) 。簡言之,彼此憎恨的兩個陣營均認定對方,在政治道德上已經破產,毫無妥協的空間。

[Note 4]

較明顯的例子是,偏左一方將特朗普標籤為種族主義、性別歧視、污染地球,是十惡不赦的壞人。右傾的一方(包括一些黑人、南美裔人) 則認定民主黨的支持者,若非貪婪的華爾街大鱷,便是依靠福利生存的懶人,是美國傳統價值的背叛者。

在這種情況下,縱使拜登可在明年1月順利接任總統,美國的外交將隱含至少三個弱點。

首先是難以調和外交諾言與國內分裂。首當其衝是環保議題,如果拜登政府重新加入《巴黎氣候協定》,積極推動減碳排放,且建立具體目標,類似法國的「黃背心運動」(反對提高燃油稅)的強力抵制很可能會出現。因為2019年,美國的電動汽車累計量為140萬輛,但多達一半限於民主黨控制的加州;而石油行業更是不可動搖的重鎮。倒過來說,倘若拜登拖泥帶水,倡導「綠色新政」(Green New Deal)的激進左翼肯定不會放過他。

[Note 5]

醫療是另一個燙鍋。受廣泛疫情影響,世界經濟論壇倡議建立全新的環球醫療經濟秩序,稱之曰「大重置」(Great Reset),聯合國秘書長與國際貨幣基金組織均表支持;但美國進步和保守陣營對各種形式的醫療改革一向互不相讓。因此,拜登政府的國際承諾可信度成疑。

[Note 6]

第二個弱點是介入別國事務舉步維艱。1950年以來只有兩位美國總統沒有發動新的戰爭,一是卡特(1977-81在任) ,另一就是特朗普(除非他突然襲擊伊朗) 。原因之一是奧巴馬做得太糟糕了,他支持所謂的阿拉伯之春及推動敘利亞內戰,但虎頭蛇尾,造成數百萬難民湧向歐洲,除了導致經濟問題,還有文化衝突、流血慘案。

[Note 7]

特朗普既沒有派軍到委內瑞拉,又促成以色列與阿拉伯國家建交,深受其支持者的認同、讚賞。假如拜登意圖出兵國外,尤其是中東,不僅歐洲會反對,且難以迴避特朗普信徒的非議。

第三個弱點是拜登的「健康狀況」。各國領導人都幾可肯定,已經78歲的拜登是單任總統,他(11月底摔倒後腳部有細微骨折)能否完成這四年任期也是一個疑問。

拜登考慮競選副手時,黨內激進左翼已限定人選必須是非白人女性。當選後考慮政治任命時,激左除了提交一張400人的候選名單,還猛烈批評不合意的異他者(例如有報導指耶倫被提名為財長,因拜登初始考慮的 Gina Raimondo 受激左反對) 。

[Note 8]

須知道,拜登是民主黨溫和派、反特朗普共和黨員、商界…等,為了壓制傾向於社會主義的桑德斯,共同協調出來的台前者。但左翼於幫助拜登勝選確實有汗馬功勞,因此,一旦拜登無法駕馭白宮內部氣勢洶洶的激左,「突然重病」,讓賀錦麗替代總統,不足為奇。而賀錦麗的上任很可能會深化國內分裂,外交政策亦當然更難預測。

換句話說,無論拜登的國際承諾有多美麗,它可能無法獲得國會通過;而毋須國會確認的承諾,又可能被下一任總統推翻。

如何應對這個深陷分裂的超級大國?歷史也許不會重演,但鑒古有助知今。

16世紀中葉,位於現今荷蘭、比利時一帶的17個貴族領地,因不滿宗教壓迫、貿易徵稅,反抗西班牙的統治。最終7個北部領地成功脫離帝國,組成聯盟,名為「荷蘭共和」(Dutch Republic 1588-1795) ,管治理念以Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) 倡議的「共同善意」(common good)及「賢德君主」(virtuous princely rule) 為綱。

[Note 9]

由於波羅的海貿易昌盛,地理位置極佳的荷蘭共和擁有2000艘船舶,超過當時英法兩國船隊的總數。並通過成立荷蘭東印度公司和荷蘭西印度公司,航行到全球各地,從事貿易及軍事活動,包括台灣島的殖民統治(1624-62) 。

於整個17世紀傲視全球的這個聯盟,在語言、種族、文化、宗教各方面幾乎一致,但最終因內亂成為弱國,乃源於政治取向的鬥爭。一方堅持繼續賢君統治,另一方則要求建立聯邦國會式的政府,兩個陣營都拒絕妥協,多次兵戎相見,結果是在國際舞台黯然退幕。

[Note 10]

英國能取代荷蘭共和的國際地位,原因之一是內部各方願意妥協。而這項意願植根於對「共同善意」的信念。根據歷史學者Peter N. Miller的考證,當時許多英國政論家、參政貴族, 深受西塞羅(Cicero公元前106-43,古羅馬共和首席執行官)的哲學所影響。

西塞羅對「善」(拉丁文 honestum)與「利」(utile)之間平衡關係的看法,演化成共同善意的務實觀念,推動英國政治跟隨國際形勢逐步改革,實現長期穩定(見 Defining the Common Good 1994) 。

[Note 11]

展望未來,難再有單一國家能主導環球事務,亦不可能有真正的全球合作。北京倡議的「合作共贏」、「命運共同體」觀念,雖然會繼續受阻,被妖魔化…

但若能沉着、堅毅,一個充其量僅被半數國民認同的美國總統,妨礙不了一帶一路的成功。

 

Notes for Reference

[Note 1]

 search for “Biden not my president”

 

 


[Note 2]

Wiki: 2020 U.S. presidential election “as of Dec 2, 2020”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

Biden popular vote 80,934,359 – 40% against Trump voting = net 48,560,615

實質支持拜登的選民48,560,615 / total 157,766,781 x 100% = 30.78%

 

[Note 3]

2020 Nov 4,  Massive

https://www.masslive.com/politics/2020/11/44-of-biden-voters-casted-vote-against-trump-rather-than-in-support-of-the-democratic-nominee-exit-polls-suggest.html

“…Recent exit polling data from Morning Consult suggests 44% of Biden voters cast their votes for the Democratic nominee as a vote “against” Trump, rather than in support of the former vice president. …”

 

2020 Nov 14, The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/14/joe-biden-trump-black-latino-republicans

Overall, comparing 2016 and 2020, Trump gained 4 percentage points with African Americans, 3 percentage points with Hispanics and Latinos, and 5 percentage points with Asian Americans. The shifts described in Edison’s exit polls are verified by AP Votecast, which showed similar movement among black and Hispanic voters this cycle.

 

Updated 2020 Nov 7, CNN

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/11/politics/election-analysis-exit-polls-2016-2020/

Democrats didn’t get the landslide win they’d hoped for, but their efforts to rebuild the party’s “blue wall” paid off with Joe Biden winning Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, according to CNN projections, and securing the presidency.

While the full picture of how Biden won the White House is not yet clear, we do know a little bit about how the country changed during four years under President Donald Trump.

For starters, we know that turnout this cycle far exceeded 2016. But that didn’t signal a blue tidal wave as some Democrats expected. Rather, Trump’s supporters kept pace, defending the President from Democrats motivated to defeat

 

2020 Dec 3, CNN

https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/house

 

Democrats gained 3 seats, lost 10 seats,

Controlling a total of 222 seats, barely exceeding the 218 majority requirement

 

[Note 4]

‘Science’  30 Oct 2020:

Vol. 370, Issue 6516, pp. 533-536

DOI: 10.1126/science.abe1715

 “Political sectarianism in America”

Political sectarianism in America | Science (sciencemag.org)

Eli J. Finkel1, Christopher A. Bail2, Mina Cikara3, Peter H. Ditto4, Shanto Iyengar5, Samara Klar6, Lilliana Mason7, Mary C. McGrath1, Brendan Nyhan8, David G. Rand9, Linda J. Skitka10, Joshua A. Tucker11, Jay J. Van Bavel11, Cynthia S. Wang1, James N. Druckman1

1Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.

2Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

3Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.

4University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.

5Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

6University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ, USA.

7University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.

8Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.

9Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.

10University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

11New York University, New York, NY, USA.

 

Summary

Political polarization, a concern in many countries, is especially acrimonious in the United States (see the first box). For decades, scholars have studied polarization as an ideological matter—how strongly Democrats and Republicans diverge vis-à-vis political ideals and policy goals. Such competition among groups in the marketplace of ideas is a hallmark of a healthy democracy. But more recently, researchers have identified a second type of polarization, one focusing less on triumphs of ideas than on dominating the abhorrent supporters of the opposing party (1). This literature has produced a proliferation of insights and constructs but few interdisciplinary efforts to integrate them. We offer such an integration, pinpointing the superordinate construct of political sectarianism and identifying its three core ingredients: othering, aversion, and moralization. We then consider the causes of political sectarianism and its consequences for U.S. society—especially the threat it poses to democracy. Finally, we propose interventions for minimizing its most corrosive aspects.

 

2020 Oct 29, Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-hatred-and-othering-of-political-foes-has-spiked-to-extreme-levels/

The Science paper addresses the rise of political sectarianism—the growing tendency of one political group to view its opponents as morally repugnant.

 

[Note 5]

Data: Electric Car by country

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Electric_car_use_by_country

 

Green New Deal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

 

[Note 6]

 World Economic Forum, The Great Reset

https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/

 

IMF, Global Reset

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/03/sp060320-remarks-to-world-economic-forum-the-great-reset

 

United Nations, Global Reset

https://news.un.org/zh/story/2020/06/1058872

2020 年 6 月 3 日

聯合國秘書長古特雷斯今天在世界經濟論壇下屆年會主題發布會上表示,全球必須建立更具抵禦力、更平等、包容和可持續的經濟和社會,以應對大流行、氣候變化和許多其他全球挑戰。

 

KHN, “A Biden Win and Republican Senate might lead to Gridlock on Health issues”, 2020 Nov 4.

https://khn.org/news/no-winner-for-president-yet-and-health-care-hangs-in-the-balance/

Without a Democratic majority in the Senate, Biden as president could not likely advance many of his top health agenda items — including lowering the eligibility age for Medicare to 60, expanding financial assistance for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and creating a “public option” government health plan.

 

[Note 7]

2020 Nov 6, APAC News

https://apac.news/no-wars-trumps-positive-legacy/

Brian Toohey reports on only the second US president since 1950 not to lead America into a war.

Unlike almost all of his predecessors Donald Trump fully understood that every US war of the past 70 years ended badly. Apart from his ideological aversion to foreign conflicts, his leadership style would not translate well to a military campaign which ensured he would not drag the US into armed conflict.

 

[Note 8]

Boston Globe, “Biden must choose a black woman for vice-president”, 2020 July 28.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/07/28/opinion/biden-must-choose-black-woman-vice-president/

 

CNN, “Progressives turned out for Joe Biden.  Now they want a big role in his administration”, 2020 Nov 17.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/17/politics/biden-transition-progressives-pressure/index.html

The Progressive Change Institute, an organization with ties to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, sent a letter to the Biden transition team and made public a list of 400 names, each with a brief biography, that should be considered for key personnel roles at every level of government.

Progressive groups Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement have also released a roster of preferred names for key leadership roles in the administration, along with a call for the creation of a White House Office of Climate Mobilization.

 

The Guardian, “What do progressives make of Joe Biden’s cabinet picks so far?”, 2020 Nov 28.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-cabinet-administration-antony-blinken

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/24/biden-cabinet-picks-progressives-440463

Progressives don’t love Joe Biden’s first round of Cabinet picks. But they can live with them.

Though there are many positions left to fill, Biden’s Cabinet announcements so far fit a pattern: The former vice president has chosen people for top positions who haven’t sparked bitter or protracted fights with the left — without giving progressives any major wins. None of Biden’s nods have been wildly off the mark to the left flank of the Democratic Party. And the president-elect has also selected leaders who, despite being moderate, have spent time building relationships with progressives.

“It could have been a lot worse,” said Rebecca Katz, a progressive strategist who advised incoming left-wing Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s campaign, adding that things could still change. “He’s not picking any lefties. He’s just picking people who haven’t alienated the left, who are listening.”

For Treasury, the fear was that he might go with Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo, a former venture capitalist who is disliked by labor unions because she cut pensions.

 

[Note 9]

Martin van Gelderen (1992), “The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt 1555-1590”, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

See p.180-7 re Justus Lipsius’impacts on the formation of the Dutch Republic.

 

[Note 10]

Wiki, Dutch Republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic

The income from this trade allowed the Dutch Republic to compete militarily against much larger countries. It amassed a huge fleet of 2,000 ships, larger than the fleets of England and France combined.

 

…tension between political factions: the Orangists favoured a powerful stadtholder, while the Republicans favoured a strong States General. The Republicans forced two Stadtholderless Periods, 1650–1672 and 1702–1747, with the latter causing national instability and the end of Great Power status.

 

[Note 11]

Peter N. Miller (1994), “Defining the Common Good: Empire, religion and philosophy in eighteenth-century Britain”, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

p.21-87 Chapter 1: The figure of Cicero

p.89 “… in this British reshaping of the language of common good, Cicero provided the model for the squaring of this very circle: the patriotic minister …”

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero

zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/西塞罗