Saturday, 24 November 2018

"If I were King or Queen for the day..."




If I were queen for a day, every city would have to spend one hour in utter silence: no music in shops and restaurants, no honking of horns, no conversations on mobile phones. Only birds would be allowed to sing. - Ann Widdecombe (UK politician) ~ her explanation and readers' comments HERE




Under my rule, everyone under 30 would be required by law to have one of their best selfies turned into an age-enhanced photo, wrinkles and all. It would be automatically established as an immovable Facebook and Twitter profile picture for the duration of my reign. - Hilary Devey (UK businesswoman, television personality and entrepreneur) ~ her explanation and readers' comments HERE.



If I were queen for a day, cuddles would be mandatory. I would counter the epidemic of human encounterlessness with cuddle centres for those who never get a proper hug. - Amanda Palmer (Punk-cabaret performer Amanda Palmer rose to prominence with her band The Dresden Dolls.) ~ her explanation and readers' comments HERE.





If I were king for a day I’d ask everyone to abandon their car. Imagine the joy as my people reclaim the streets, running, walking and cycling. - Jon Snow (UK Newscaster) ~ his explanation and readers' comments HERE.





If I had the power to impose my will, I would get people to walk more. We walk only when we have to, hurrying between places where vehicles can’t take us. - Ben Okri (Nigerian novelist and poet) ~ his explanation and readers' comments HERE.







If I were king for a day, I’d end the blight of poverty. Whether it be the relative first-world kind, or the absolute developing-world kind, poverty is a shameful stain on our common humanity. - Kwame Kwei-Armah (actor and playwright) ~ his explanation and readers' comments HERE.





If I were queen for a day, I’d abolish sex education. I know it sounds improbable. But calling it gender education would let us expand the subject and stop all the embarrassment. - Jenni Murray (journalist and radio presenter) ~ her explanation and readers' comments HERE.





If I were king for a day, I would ban Coca-Cola. This sugary drink neither quenches thirst nor increases energy. It damages teeth, thickens waistlines and lightens purses. - Alan Johnson (UK politician) ~ his explanation and readers' comments HERE.





If I were king for a day, I would ban open-plan offices. Such offices tell us what our bosses think of us – that we are employed to fulfil a mechanical task and we are interchangeable. - Jeremy Paxman (UK broadcaster, journalist and author) ~ his explanation and readers' comments HERE.




What about you?


What if YOU were king or queen for a day?

Don't use any of the ideas above and try to avoid repeating the ideas of classmates who post their comment here before you. 

Tell us about your favourite foreign TV series

Is it the beginning of the end for men?



Clad in a striking red jacket, the woman tapped away busily on her laptop. But as the train clattered towards East Croydon, she suddenly stopped typing.

"Sorry," she blurted out to me. "I know it's terribly un-English to talk to strangers on a train but you can't say women have a stronger pull to their children than men; my husband used to be a blacksmith but now looks after our children full-time and they have a massively connected bond. That yearning is not just felt by women."

Her passion was contagious. Soon several others joined the fray, determined to tell me - and each other - their contrasting points of view.

Boris Johnson marvelled at the "Olympic effect" and how it had made Brits talk to each other on public transport; well, in this case, it wasn't Mo Farah's heart-stopping race that got my fellow passengers going but the knotty issue of the new roles men and women play in a world where traditional notions of gender are being challenged every day.

The woman in the red jacket was an academic and her family's breadwinner, while her husband stayed at home. A young woman with long red hair said she'd just returned to work after her first maternity leave and was worried she was seen as less of a player. Another passenger said his wife had just given up work to stay at home full time "and I've never seen her happier".

This mesh of perspectives was offered up because I had been talking on the train - obviously louder than I'd intended - about two new books that claim Britain and America are in the grip of a power flip between the genders.

The books, The End of Men and the Rise of Women, by Hanna Rosin, and The Richer Sex, by Liza Mundy, claim the future is female: men, not women, are losing out and being left behind. Women, rather than men, will rule the world.

The guts of the argument is that girls do better than boys at every level of education and study in ever greater numbers at university (about 58 per cent of UK students are female), and women increasingly enter the professions in greater numbers than men (60 per cent of newly qualified solicitors are women, 56 per cent of new doctors are female).

We are now entering an era, the authors say, where women, not men, will be the top earners in their households. That economic shift, says Mundy, will lead to a fundamental change in the way men and women "date, mate, marry, plan, cook, clean, entertain, talk, retire, have sex, raise children and feel happy (or fail to do so)".

As I heard on the train, life is not quite that easy to predict. But there is no doubt that a new generation of young women have their own ideas about how to resolve the eternal dilemma of work-life balance.

The trigger is the great financial crisis and its effect on traditional employment patterns.

Rosin, an editor on The Atlantic magazine, argues that women are "plastic" and can adapt easily to change. Men are "cardboard" - stiff, resistant to new ways of doing things, particularly if that means taking on more of the domestic roles traditionally played by women.

The "mancession" in America (so-called because male sectors such as car manufacture and steel production have been worst hit) has forced millions of men onto the employment scrapheap while women have forged ahead, their superior qualifications landing them jobs in expanding sectors such as education, healthcare and customer services.

The same is true in Britain. Julia Margo, a British authority on the advantage of female skill sets, says: "In order to do well in the modern economy, emotional intelligence and communication skills are more important than brawn. And from the very beginning of school it is clear that girls concentrate, apply themselves and work harder than boys do. By the time they leave education they are far more employable."

This can involve some bleak moral compromises on the way. In a hair-raising chapter on the "hook-up" culture of casual sex at university, Rosin writes that "for an upwardly mobile, ambitious young woman" hook-ups are a way to dip into relationships without disrupting her self-development or education. She can "find her way to professional success and then get married".

Single-minded self-improvement is not restricted by class. Rosin describes a mother of three who works on a till to feed her family and studies at a community college at night to improve her prospects. She is so exhausted that she falls asleep in the lift to her classroom.

Nor is it by any means restricted to America. Research on young British women by the Centre for Talent Innovation in New York finds their levels of ambition are "off the scale".

Kathryn Parsons, 31, co-founder and director of Decoded, a tech firm, is part of this toiling sisterhood. "For the next three years I am married to my career. I am putting my life on hold to build the business. I am madly passionate about what I do, I need to be focused but I love it, my work is my life."

Carrie Mathison
Claire Danes stars as Carrie Mathison in the show 'Homeland',
where she plays an educated, driven investigator
with a challenging personal life.
A new survey for Marie Claire magazine (conducted with Everywoman, a female business network) questioned 1,000 British working women in their twenties and thirties. The findings reveal a breed of driven women, 75 per cent of whom rank work as the "most important thing in their lives" - ahead of friends, family and relationships. Their heroines are such television workaholics as Carrie Mathison in Homeland and Sarah Lund in The Killing.

Among some women entering the workforce, the extreme work ethic has a surprisingly traditional cause: the prospect of motherhood. They are in a hurry because they are aware that time is short. Trish Halpin, Marie Claire's editor-in-chief, who commissioned the survey, says: "Their ambition is being driven by the pressure they feel to pay off student debts, save enough to buy a home and climb the career ladder before they have a baby."

Gemma Godfrey, a former quantum physicist and now head of investment strategy at Brooks Macdonald, a wealth management group, agrees with that diagnosis of the reasons why some women overtake their male peers in their twenties.

"Women have to plan their career goals over a shorter time horizon than men," she says. "Time pressure is driving them forward. They want to reach a senior position by the time they wish to start a family so they are able to return to a 'dream job' rather than a slug to the top."

Things may not go according to plan, however. The emotional armour required to climb the greasy pole and deal with the casual attitude to sex in the workplace - Rosin describes a terrifying American dating scene, where super-tough, sexually experienced career women trade pornographic insults with their male peers - is hard to shed when the Amazon warriors finally decide the time has come to get hitched.

The tough-minded ambition and the dearth of male graduates compared with women make finding a spouse with similar academic qualifications difficult. Recent studies have shown increasing numbers of professional women are "marrying down" - choosing men who will support their careers; 36 per cent of the women in the Marie Claire survey "see it as a benefit to have a stay-at-home husband who would look after the kids".

Mundy cites research by Aviva Insurance and Oxford University that found in 25 per cent of British couples women are the main breadwinner. The Office for National Statistics says only 30 per cent of families have two working parents.

In the Marie Claire survey, 40 per cent of those in a relationship say they earn more than their other half and 90 per cent claim to be more ambitious than their man (though 16 per cent say they lie about how successful they are so as not to put men off). Certainly the number of breadwinner wives is on the rise; but to see them as the norm of the future seems premature for a trend that is in its infancy.

"We're still the transition generation," says Margo, who works full-time while her husband stays at home with their two children. "We're doing it, but we are pioneers, we didn't grow up with this kind of model. Lots of couples I know have been forced into this arrangement because the men were bankers or estate agents and have lost their jobs while their wives are still working."

Some women, of course, opt out of motherhood. Recent research into Generation X by the Centre for Talent Innovation in New York found that 40 per cent of educated women born between 1965 and 1975 were childless and expected to remain that way. Many cited career ambition: they wanted "to do one thing well" rather than be pulled in several directions at once.

The ambitious younger generation should note that among those successful women who do have children, the dilemmas of motherhood are not necessarily resolved by wealth, success and a man at home.

Helena Morrissey, chief executive of Newton Investment Management and chairwoman of the 30 per cent Club (which campaigns to get more women on FTSE boards), has nine children and a Buddhist house husband (he'd need to be). But many female high-flyers now trade traditional status - the corner office, legions quivering at their command, salary - for time autonomy, being in charge of their own schedules so they can fit their work around their children.

The new buzz phrase for this is "work-life merge". Its natural home is Silicon Valley, where Katie Stanton, head of international strategy for Twitter, tells Rosin: "I consider myself incredibly lucky because I can do this job really well and have a family. It's great."

The rest of us might not think so. "Great" in Silicon Valley means leaving at 5pm to get the kids fed and into bed, but then logging back on every night, often until past midnight. Stanton can't remember the last time she went out for dinner.

"These women work flexibly but they work all the time," writes Rosin. "The merge means that work and play and kids and sleep are all jumbled up in the same 24-hour period."

At a recent women's leadership summit organised by a tech behemoth, one of their senior women buttonholed me after my talk. She wanted to ask about work-life balance. Then, with tears in her eyes, she told me it was her son's fifth birthday - but he was in California; her guilt and grief were etched all over her face. Later I saw her crying as she talked into her mobile.

ONE glitch in the plan for female world domination is the shortage of women coming into the high-tech industries of the future.

At present the digital future is geeky and male; currently in Britain 92 per cent of teenage girls rule themselves out of a career in the booming technology/engineering sectors by not taking all three sciences at GCSE. If women are really going to rule, that has to change.

One young female tech entrepreneur tells me: "The vast majority of the young entrepreneurs I meet are male. Indeed, too much of the technological future at the moment is being written by men. We need more women to learn to write computer code and be a part of it, as everything in the future is about technology. I wouldn't say this is a female space, though I would like it to be and women, when they learn to code, are really good."

But the real trouble with the thesis about women taking over the world because they are doing better in education and in the first 10 years of their careers is it ignores much evidence to the contrary.

Last year Lord Davies published a government-commissioned report into why there are not more women at the top of Britain's companies. In it is a memorable diagram, a pyramid that shows equal numbers of male and female graduate entrants to the workplace at the bottom, but where the female half of the pyramid empties towards the top. While women may be entering the workplace as a mighty, enthusiastic, hardworking wave, as they hit middle management - and their mid-thirties - they drop out in droves.


Last week, I spoke to one of the rare female mountaineers who have made it to the summit: a female chief financial officer of a global corporation, who is about to quit. What did she make of the End of Men thesis?

She laughed. "Not much sign of that up here - it would be more accurate to talk about the End of Women. There were three of us at this level two years ago; when I go, there will be one - she's the last woman standing."

So why is she leaving? "I came from a modest background, I've earned enough to pay off my mortgage, money alone isn't a motivator for me and I feel burnt out."

Part of that exhaustion is fuelled by guilt. "I've worked really hard, I've got a six-year-old daughter whom I rarely see. I know she is happy and I have a wonderful supportive husband and a live-in nanny but I have been getting increasingly stressed and I just have got to the point where I think life is more important than work."


Knowing she was a role model and a trailblazer made her stick at the job but she says: "I know Sheryl Sandberg [chief operating officer of Facebook] said that women should just suck it up and keep going like the men do, but it is incredibly difficult to manage a high-powered job and balance that with any kind of family life. I came back to work when my daughter was five months old. I've never taken her to ballet, or seen her recitals. I never pick her up from school. I don't know any of the other mothers.

"That's been okay - I made the choices I made and there is no reason why women shouldn't make them, too. But I have reached a point where the status and the money are just not worth it. The men run on huge egos, they are competitive, they want to win, they are much more driven by that, but also much better at taking time for themselves to recuperate.

"They are just wired differently. If I have an hour off, I want to spend it with my daughter; if the men do, they go to the gym. I haven't had a moment for myself for the last four years - I don't even go shopping, I do everything online. It is so stressful it's just not worth it, I just don't want to miss out on my daughter growing up. I'm choosing not to have it all."

Taken from The Times (U.K.)

Older voter glut helps politicians avoid long-range problems

Japan faces structural problems that threaten future generations, including snowballing government debt, swelling social security costs, a low birthrate and a rapidly aging population.

But politicians just sidestep vital decisions and shelve necessary reforms, allowing the state to keep spending rampantly by issuing vast government bonds that will make the burden on future generations even heavier.

One figure might explain why these problems aren't being addressed: the high average age of people who actually vote.

With the society turning grey and the turnout of young voters remaining low, apparently due to apathy, the average age of those who voted in the 2010 Upper House poll was 56, a research paper published in July by the National Institute for Research Advancement think tank shows.

Internal affairs ministry data show that in the 2010 election, the 20-29 age group accounted for only 7.6 percent of all people who cast ballots.

Hiroshi Yoshida, a Tohoku University professor and expert on fiscal science, pointed out that the turnout rate was only 33.68 percent for eligible voters aged 20 to 24. In contrast, among those aged between 65 and 69, 78.45 percent cast ballots.

"For political parties, discussing issues elderly people find unpleasant would just bring disadvantages in an election," Yoshida said during a recent interview.

The situation is predicted to get even worse for young generations. If the turnout trends continue unchanged, the average age of adults who vote will keep rising to 60 years old in 2030, according to the NIRA paper.

"Elderly people have greater impact on election results, so politicians just push for policies preferred by elderly people," Manabu Shimasawa, an NIRA researcher and one of the coauthors of the paper, told The Japan Times. "Actual election policies advocated by parties are exact reflections of this."

Indeed, the future for younger generations — including those not yet born — is already bleak.

Minoru Masujima, a senior official in the Cabinet Office, estimated in 2008 the benefits each generation will receive from government spending and the financial burden they will have to pay, including social security costs and taxes, throughout their life.

If the social security system and other conditions remain the same, people now aged at 60 or older will enjoy a net benefit of up to ¥39.62 million per household over the course of their life.

But people not yet in their 20s will see a net loss of ¥83 million per household, given snowballing government debt and the worsening state of the social security framework, most notably the ailing public pension system.

But for Sunday's poll, not one major party is pushing steps to ease this growing benefit/burden disparity among generations.


The Liberal Democratic Party, which polls indicate could win by a landslide Sunday, has called for massive public works spending, which might temporarily boost the economy but is likely to leave even more government debt for generations to come.

The LDP's campaign pledges unveiled Nov. 21 make no mention of steps to curb state spending, even though Japan has the world's highest ratio of public debt to gross domestic product.

Nippon Mirai no To (Tomorrow Party of Japan), whose members are loyal to ex-DPJ leader Ichiro Ozawa, has advocated an annual allowance of ¥312,000 to support households with young children.


The party's platform, however, neglects to state where the money would come from to pay for this spending increase.

NIRA's Shimasawa has pointed out that if such an allowance were financed by issuing more government bonds, it would only add to the financial burden that future taxpayers will face.

Yoshida of Tohoku University laments that no parties have advocated substantial social security reforms with a long-term view to correct the benefit/burden disparity between generations.

"Currently, there's no one in politics who represents the interests of future generations," Yoshida said. "If you had a time machine, you could bring such people from the future, but that's not possible."


The Japan Times: By REIJI YOSHIDA - Staff writer. HERE.

Yomiuri Shimbun: Troubleshooter Part 2

TROUBLESHOOTER / Customer's lavish gift makes me uncomfortable

The Yomiuri Shimbun

Dear Troubleshooter:

I'm a woman in my 50s. I work part-time as a supermarket cashier and need advice about a male customer in his 80s.

He came into the shop for the first time about 18 months ago and encouraged me by saying, "Hang in there." At the time, I was still getting used to doing such busy work. I had also just lost my beloved father, so I was moved to tears.

He comes into the shop once a week and each time visits me at my cash register to chat briefly. He sometimes comes with his wife.

One day, he began asking me to lunch. I declined his offers, finding a good excuse each time. But finally, I accepted his offer after he stopped by twice on a hot day to invite me to lunch.

When he said goodbye, he handed me an envelope, saying: "You've been kind to me for the past year and a half. It's just a modest amount of pocket money." I declined the gift many times, but he put it into my bag.

When I opened it at home, I found it contained 200,000 yen. I tried to return it to him the next time he came into the shop, but he wouldn't take it.

Another customer gives me candy each time she comes into the shop, but his gift is too much! As a result, I've been unable to concentrate on my work. What should I do?

S, Kanagawa Prefecture

Dear Ms. S:

One of your customers gives you candy each time she comes to your store. I suppose you are kind to people and that puts them at ease with you.


Some elderly men are not good at understanding other people's feelings. My father was that way too. The money was probably meant as gratitude for the pleasant time he had talking with you over the past 18 months.


He probably never thought that inviting someone to lunch and giving them a great deal of money as a gift is an embarrassing and thoughtless action. He seems to be wealthy.


He won't take the money back--and if you insist, it may hurt his feelings. You could return it to his wife, but it would probably cause trouble, so maybe it's better not to do that. Why don't you put this issue on the back burner and keep the money for a while? Also, treat him as you normally do.


Meanwhile, report the matter to a superior you can rely on and ask if he or she can keep the money on your behalf. When you have a chance, tell the elderly customer: "The money has weighed on me mentally, so I have kept it at the company. I want to stay friends, so can I return it to you?"


Don't take this too seriously. Keep the money untouched in the envelope and wait for the chance to return it to him.


Megumi Hisada, writer


(from Oct. 28 issue,
HERE)



TROUBLESHOOTER / My son doesn't want to attend Boy Scout activities

The Yomiuri Shimbun

Dear Troubleshooter:

I'm a housewife in my 30s and my husband is about 20 years older than me. I have a problem with our son, who is a third-grade primary school student.

He behaves appropriately at school, but when he comes home, he behaves like a baby and always clings to me. He can't even greet our neighbors. So, at my husband's insistence, I enrolled him in the Boy Scouts to take part in outdoor activities.

People involved in the activities are all nice, and the atmosphere is good. But my son doesn't want to go to them.

Nevertheless, when I take him to the activities, he doesn't shy away and seems to enjoy being with other members.

He's probably just lazy and doesn't want to be bothered.

My husband also sees this, but he won't allow him to quit the activities. As he is busy at work, I always have to take my son to and from the activities and attend events that require parents' participation.

As my husband will soon hit mandatory retirement age, I'm thinking about starting work myself.

My patience with forcibly taking my son to his activities has almost run out. But I can't find a way to make my husband understand the situation. What is your advice?

C

Dear Ms. C:

I understand it's very tough for you to take your son to his activities against his will.


You may feel like getting angry over his negative attitude.


But before doing so, you have something to take a look at.


Your husband has insisted it's important to participate in the activities, but has not provided support to you. You have been exhausted by dealing with your son alone. Under the circumstances, it's unreasonable for your husband to insist on your son's participation.


The problem is that you can't openly discuss the matter with your husband. As he is much older than you, I imagine he has decided policies of your family life and you have just followed him. But you and your husband need to discuss your son's upbringing openly.


You want to start working after your husband retires. From the beginning, why don't you try to build a relationship where you can talk equally?


If you can't talk face-to-face, you can tell him your feelings in a letter. By writing them down, you can make your thoughts clear and also be relaxed enough to listen to him calmly.


For your son, seeing his parents seriously discuss his upbringing and future is a precious chance to learn about life.


Masami Ohinata, professor


(from Oct. 22 issue,
HERE)

TROUBLESHOOTER / My daughter-in-law is too cold-blooded to me, my wife

The Yomiuri Shimbun

Dear Troubleshooter:

I'm a man in my late 70s, and live with my wife on annual pension and bank savings. However, I feel lonely as I'm unable to communicate with our eldest son's wife.

My son is completely under his wife's thumb. I was shocked to hear that she told our second daughter, "I'll take care of my parents, so I want you to take care of your own parents."

When my son and his wife took out a loan to buy a condominium, I assisted them financially. However, as soon as they finished paying off the loan, she sold the condominium. Now they rent an expensive condominium, and I heard they've decided to live with her parents at their condo in the future.

She usually comes to our house only once a year, on Jan. 1. She always eats New Year's dishes at our house, expects us to give New Year's gift money to our two grandchildren and leaves. That's it.

We grow vegetables in our garden, and I used to give some to her very often. But now, I don't want her to eat them.

She came to get some congratulatory gift money when our granddaughter entered high school. She'll probably ask us to give some money when her daughter marries or has babies. But I don't want anything to do with such a cold-blooded family anymore. How should I cope with this matter?

I, Hyogo Prefecture

Dear Mr. I:

From the viewpoint of a man of your age, I understand why you're angry. When I was young, a married woman was supposed to give top priority to her husband's parents.


But these days, a majority of people support the idea that a husband's parents should be taken care of by his family members, and a wife's parents should be taken care of by her family members.


According to the Cabinet Office's 2012 Annual Report on the Aging Society, spouses are the most likely to care for the elderly, followed by their children and their children's spouses. The report indicates more elderly people are taken care of by their own children than by their sons' wives.


It's not a matter of mindset, but math.


People around 80, including you, have an average of five siblings, and your generation gave birth to an average of two children. This means all children need to care for their parents, regardless of gender or if they are the eldest child.


Caring for elderly parents by oneself is too much, so there are social support systems in place, such as nursing care insurance.


I do think that visiting once a year at New Year's is not enough. But if she thinks that you view them as a cold-blooded family, she'll probably stop visiting altogether.


Next New Year's Day, tell her, "It's good that you came," with a welcoming smile. You could start practicing it now.


Lastly, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask your son and his wife to return the money you gave them to buy the condominium.


Keiko Higuchi, critic


(from Oct. 20 issue,
HERE)

A template for global culture?


SHOULD WE REJECT THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE?

AGREE: 

Moving towards the American way of life necessarily means the slow decay of individual national cultural identities. As these valuable and historically significant cultures vanish, the world will lose cultural diversity - such as in art, music, and literature - that has so enriched humanity’s history. In a world where the borders between states are becoming increasingly symbolic, the loss of diversity between countries will also mean a loss of choice for human beings with the desire to settle in a country that suits their tastes. As America’s culture becomes universal, Americans and others lose their ability to choose, even in the context of that great patriotic American slogan: “America: love it or leave it!”
 

Differences in ways of life between countries can have positive economic consequences. The economic theory of comparative advantage states that efficiency is maximized when those countries that can produce goods or services at the lowest cost do so. The entire concept of comparative advantage depends on major differences between countries and their respective ways of life. Convergence to the American way of life will mean the loss of some of the distinctive differences that are fundamental to maintaining countries’ comparative advantage in the supply of particular goods and services. For example, French culture is closely tied up with the idea of “terroir” - the special qualities of the land in particular regions, and this contributes strongly to its production of speciality foods and drinks - many of which are major exports. 

The American way of life is itself unhealthy for people everywhere. Defined by a taste for salty and greasy fast foods, an overloaded work schedule, and an inactive lifestyle, the American way of life is one of the most important reasons that the American population is among the world’s most unhealthy, in terms of stress, fitness, and body weight. By soundly rejecting this unhealthy way of life in favour of more sensible and healthy routines, the world does a credit to its collective health and wellbeing.
 


The American way of life is naturally un-diplomatic. Lacking trust in other countries and certain of its own rightness, the United States swings between isolationism and outbursts of violence, rather than consistently engaging with the rest of the world on equal terms. This arrogant impatience has historically made it a difficult ally and an intractable foe. The American way of life is marked by a strong belief in the superiority of American institutions and values, and an intolerance of alternatives. This intolerance is what has lead the United States to boldly accept the title of “world policeman,” much to the discomfort of other nations, while at the same time refusing to be bound by international agreements (e.g. on nuclear testing, climate change or the International Criminal Court).


The American way of life should be rejected because the attitudes that define it make diplomacy difficult or impossible. America has developed its unique set of cultural institutions during its more than 200 years of nationhood. As the world’s oldest democratic republic, the United States has the advantage of having developed its culture along with its own history. Like all cultures, America’s culture is tailor-made. It addresses the particular needs - present and historic - of its home country. As such, the American way of life cannot be assumed to be transferable to other parts of the world, with different histories and realities. As experiences in Vietnam in the 1970s and Iraq in the 2000s demonstrate, attempts to spread the most basic constituent of the American way of life - democracy - often end in failure.If the desirable elements of the American way of life, such as democracy, are to be adopted by people in other parts of the world, the necessary foundation must be laid organically by the country’s own experience. That is, the country must become democratic not by adopting the American way of life, but rather by proceeding through national experiences of the sort that shifted America’s own political culture toward democracy in the late 1700s. 

America’s culture should be rejected because it is inferior to those of many other nations. In film, music, art, sport and many other aspects of life, the American way is childish and simplistic. Hollywood only makes movies which appeal to the lowest instincts of the mass audience, delivering violence, dazzling special effects and simplistic story lines. Popular music is loud, aggressive and unsophisticated. Sports are designed for showy spectacle and constant celebration of frequent scoring, rather than as a prolonged examination of skill and strategy. Even clothing is garish and utilitarian. Such a culture has nothing to offer the rest of the world.
 

DISAGREE:


No culture in the world can survive if unchanging. In order to survive, the cultures of the world have always - and must always - adapted to new conditions and realities. As America’s global authority increasingly becomes a reality, cultures will begin to slowly move towards the American way of life not as a product of force, but rather as a natural consequence of increased contact with America’s dominant culture. Some cultural institutions will be lost, others will survive, and still others will become altered in reaction to it. Resisting the evolutionary impact of the American way of life would only serve to counteract an extremely important process in the histories of the world’s cultures.

Rejecting the American way of life denies the world’s people important economic advantages, especially in terms of mobility. The more similar countries’ cultures are, the more likely one is to be able to move between them, seeking economic opportunity and advantage. Many economists believe that mobility of labour (that is, the ability of workers to move across international frontiers) is an important ingredient of economic growth. As cultures move towards the American way of life, they will be better able to make easy the free movement of people to fill specific demand for their labour or skills, because many of the most difficult barriers to movement, in particular those that deal with adjustment to new  cultural surroundings, would dissolve.


The American way of life may well be unhealthy, but it is also delicious. Americans are not the only people who flock to the purveyors of freeze-dried, deep-fried, sugary, salty, and greasy foods. W The reason that so many indulge this way is that fast food, for all its faults, is tasty. If we are to accept the virtues of an individual’s choice, the American way of life must not be rejected.

Sparks only ever fly between countries when their foreign policies are at odds. These potentially dangerous foreign policy differences reflect deeper differences between the cultures of the countries concerned. As countries move toward the American way of life the differences that would otherwise increase the potential for foreign policy conflict will diminish. Values will become shared, institutions will become similar, and ideas will become consistent, leading to an increase in harmony between peoples and countries. It has been said that no two countries both possessing branches of MacDonalds have ever gone to war!

As far as ways of life are concerned, the American is a pretty strong choice. The American way of life boasts an emphasis on hard work, self-sacrifice, equality, and democracy. Cultures converge toward this particular set of traits because they are uniquely desirable as a way of life. Convergence between cultures is a necessary consequence of an increasingly interconnected and globalized world. And if cultures are to converge, then the American way of life, with its admirable values and great institutions, is a strong option. In other words, when it comes to cultural evolution and diffusion, one could do a lot worse than to converge towards the American way of life.



It is a mistake to see American culture as all of a piece - there are many different aspects to US popular entertainment, including jazz, blues, indie film-making, experimental art, cutting-edge architecture, demanding literature, etc. Most Americans enjoy the diversity of cultural options available to them, and it is this, as well as the individual art forms, which the rest of the world can learn from. But at its best, all American culture is possessed of a democratic spirit and accessibility, which marks it out from the elitism of art, music, etc. in much of the rest of the world.

Compulsory Voting

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST MAKING VOTING COMPULSORY?

In many countries around the world individuals can choose to vote, or not to vote, as they see fit. In some countries (Australia, Switzerland and Singapore, for example) it is compulsory to vote in elections. The proposition in this debate must advocate some sort of punishment as an enforcement mechanism - a fine equivalent to about 100 US dollars is the norm. In some countries a no-vote box is available on the ballot paper, which can be crossed by those who do not wish to vote for any of the candidates standing.

The Argument For

In all democracies around the world voter apathy is highest among the poorest and most excluded sectors of society. Since they do not vote the political parties do not create policies for their needs, which leads to a vicious circle of increasing isolation. By making the most disenfranchised vote the major political parties are forced to take notice of them. An example of this is in the UK where the Labour party abandoned its core supporters to pursue ‘middle England’.

A high turnout is important for a proper democratic mandate and the functioning of democracy. In this sense voting is a civic duty like Jury service. Jury service is compulsory in order that the courts can function properly and is a strong precedent for making voting compulsory.

The right to vote in a democracy has been fought for throughout modern history. In the last century alone the soldiers of numerous wars and the suffragettes of many countries fought and died for enfranchisement. We should respect their sacrifice by voting.

People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role.

Compulsory voting is effective. In Australia the turnouts are as high as 98%!

Postal and proxy voting is available for those who are otherwise busy. In addition, when Internet voting becomes available in a few years everyone will be able to vote from their own home.

The Argument Against

The idea is nonsense. Political parties do try and capture the ‘working-class’ vote. The labour party shifted to the right in the UK because no-one was voting for it; the majority of the population, from across the social spectrum, no longer believed in its socialist agenda and it altered its policies to be more in line with the majority of the population. Low turnout is best cured by more education, for example, civics classes could be introduced at school. In addition, the inclusion of these ‘less-interested’ voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation becomes more important. It will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype.

Just as fundamental as the right to vote in a democracy is the right not to vote. Every individual should be able to choose whether or not they want to vote. Some people are just not interested in politics and they should have the right to abstain from the political process. It can also be argued that it is right that voices of those who care enough about key issues to go and vote deserve to be heard above those who do not care so strongly. Any given election will function without an 100% turnout; a much smaller turnout will suffice. The same is not true of juries which do require an 100% turnout all of the time! However, we can take a more general view by noting that even in a healthy democracy it is not surprising people should not want to do jury service because of time it takes, therefore it is made compulsory. However, in a healthy democracy people should want to vote. If they are not voting it indicates there is a fundamental problem with that democracy; forcing people to vote cannot solve such a problem. It merely causes resentment.

The failure to vote is a powerful statement, since it decreases turnout and that decreases a government’s mandate. By forcing those who do not want to vote to the ballot box, a government can make its mandate much larger than the people actually wish it to be. Those who fought for democracy fought for the right to vote not the compulsion to vote.

People who are forced to vote will not make a proper considered decision. At best they will vote randomly which disrupts the proper course of voting. At worst they will vote for extreme parties as happened in Australia recently.

The idea is not feasible. If a large proportion of the population decided not to vote it would impossible to make every non-voter pay the fine. If just 10% of the UK voters failed to do so the government would have to chase up about 4 million fines. Even if they sent demand letters to all these people, they could not take all those who refused to pay to court. Ironically, this measure hurts most those who the proposition are trying to enfranchise because they are least able to pay.

Many people don’t vote because they are busy and cannot take the time off. Making voting compulsory will not get these people to the ballot box if they are actually unable to do so.