Greek Drama

In perhaps the epitome of that "interest in a boring topic" thing we've discussed, I actually find the whole Eurozone crisis to be pretty interesting. It's probably attached to a more general interest in the EU, and Europe itself for that matter, but the problems and negotiations that come with having a currency union certainly bring no shortage of political complexity. And what’s more complex than the ongoing mess that is Greece? No doubt you’ve seen plenty of mention of it in the headlines.

To make a long story short(er): five years ago in the midst of the big financial crisis, the struggling Greek economy was bailed out by the so-called ‘Troika’ (comprised of the Eurozone countries, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) in a deal worth €240 billion, or about $320 billion. Creditors were also forced to accept a ‘haircut’ of about €100 billion, loosing more than half the face value on all Greek government bonds, on top of lowered interest rates and extended maturity dates.  As a condition of this bailout, strict austerity measures were agreed upon, with Greece essentially agreeing to slash spending and be generally less wasteful. For a number of reasons, things are still a long way from fixed.

Tax evasion has long been a big problem, one that European leaders and the IMF have very clearly told Greece that it needs to address. Almost the entire country seems to share in a fierce aversion to paying the government what they're supposed to. And, unlike in most of the West, little stigma exists around this evasion—something that stems in part from the centuries of Ottoman occupation. According to Aristides Hatzis, professor of law and economics at the University of Athens, "Greeks consider taxes as theft." As he puts it, "Normally taxes are considered the price you have to pay for a just state, but this is not accepted in the Greek mentality." A government can't possibly sustain itself when employers, employees, and consumers are engaged in a culture of collective avoidance of income and consumption taxes whenever possible, without fear of being audited. Add to this the fact that Greece has long spent beyond its means, with its bloated, overpaid public sector, its low retirement age, its generous benefits, and its extensive social programs—to say nothing of massive corruption—and it isn’t difficult to see how it ended up where it has.

More than half a decade since the 2008 crisis, Greece has still yet to the see the signs of economic recovery that most of Europe has—even its fellow basket cases like Spain, Portugal, and Ireland have had some improvement. Its unemployment rate is still higher than 25%, and youth unemployment is upwards of 50%. The forced austerity policies, though considered fair and reasonable “tough love” by the German, are widely hated in Greece as cruel and abusive. The rise of Syriza, the anti-austerity, anti-establishment party that took power in January, with Marxist finance minster Yani Varoufakis, has caused plenty of nervousness in global markets. (Its name might be enough make some uneasy, “Syriza” being an acronym for “Coalition of the Radical Left.”) They won’t soon be taking down the much-derided ‘Troika’ or ending austerity or securing a large debt write-off, despite what they claimed while campaigning, but EU exasperation may let them get further than their predecessors.

The bailout agreement was due to expire on 28 of February, but Greece managed to secure a four-month loan extension last week. In return for the loans, Greece said it would commit to a list of new reforms, including a crackdown on tax evasion, and fuel and tobacco smuggling. It also said it would hold off on plans to implement minimum wage increases. The European Commission has approved this agreement, but now individual states must accept it. What happens if the deal fails?

Well, while Greece's government still has enough to get by for a few more months, its banking system is on the brink of collapse, especially with wealthy Greeks abandoning ship and trying to pull all their money out of the country's banks. More than 18 billion euros have already poured out of Greek banks since December. Failure to agree to a deal could even lead to a Greek exit from the Eurozone--the so-called 'Grexit.' From what I've read, Angela Merkel's camp maintains that Europe now has sufficient defenses in place to let Greece fall out of the Euro-bloc, but at this point the potential repercussions are enough to make both sides think twice. The Bundestag will likely agree to the deal, as will others, but no doubt Germany’s patience is wearing thin from all the inconsistency and posturing. Apparently Varoufakis and Schäuble, his German counterpart, can hardly stand to be in the same room. Earlier in the week, before consensus had been reached, Mr. Varoufakis was calling the EU's offers "absurd" and criticizing their vague, "nebulous promises" concerning flexibility. Immediately after the extension was signed he was back to demanding that a chunk of the debt be written off. The intemperate tone he and Syriza maintain won’t win any friends in the international community. Then again, I suppose that isn’t exactly their first priority.

Frankly, Greece should never have been let into the Eurozone to begin with; their deficit and GDP to debt ratio never met the standards required for entry. That’s an opinion that many, including Merkel, have made quite clear. It was a foolish oversight made possible by naïve sentiments of Greece as the birthplace of Western civilization and democracy, and by the intentional falsification of financial information. Greece was sick man of Europe then and they still are. And with the stipulations of the bailout they accepted, combined with the fact that they don’t have their own currency that they can independently control, largely ties their hands in initiating the sorts of policies they may want to.

This approval from the Eurozone nations may be the first step in allowing Greece to get its act together—it gives them more time, and staves off the threat of a default—but it certainly won’t solve the huge economic problems facing the Mediterranean nation. Unsurprisingly, it seems to fall a great ways short of meeting the many promises Syriza made. From what I heard on the BBC World Service, the people asked on the streets of Athens seemed to be withholding judgment for the time being, still hoping the new leaders can make good and bring some much-needed relief. The Grexit has been avoided, at least for now, but whether or not the cradle of Western civilization is going to be back on its feet anytime soon is anyone’s guess.

(I’m not really sure how many centuries it’s been since it was properly on its feet…)

Admitting Uncertainty

So, false accusations of rape… It’s a delicate issue to cover. One that can easily become distorted into some vague, emotionally charged battle between two opposing, preconceived judgments: the man is a rapist, or the woman is a vicious liar. As a society, which should we be defaulting to? I guess the easiest thing would just be to fall back on that classic mantra of, “Hey, innocent until proven guilty!” That’s American Judicial System101, but still, it does give me reason for pause. While it may sound like a good policy, and is certain preferable to “guilty until proven innocent,” it isn’t difficult to imagine the insidious consequences that comes with it. Certainly you could argue it contributes to the general skepticism and animosity towards women who report being raped; it’s black and white, he either raped her or he didn’t, and if she can’t clearly prove it we should default to considering her a lying, attention-seeking slut. Or possibly crazy. 

Obviously we shouldn’t presume guilt. To suggest we ought to convict people of crimes without having proof would be absurd. The problem, however, with me saying that we should assume all accused rapers are innocent until indisputably proven otherwise is that in doing so we’re inadvertently calling the other side—the women—liars. And unfortunately, concrete evidence is often unobtainable, regardless of whether or not someone was raped. This is a large part of what causes so many victims to not come forward: the fear of being put unofficially on-trial themselves, of being attacked and scrutinized and unable to prove their innocence. With the historical track record in mind, and the unequal power dynamics that still underly sexual relations between males and females, is it any wonder that many people will rush so quickly (albeit blindly) to the side of the woman? Inevitably, these people will want to hastily sweep aside cases of false accusation out of fear that they’ll be taken as some sort of norm, an excuse to trivialize rape or reinforce misogynistic views of women. It might be a good move for women’s rights at large, but on the individual level it’s hard to justify the throwing of innocent men under the bus for a greater socio-political cause. Neither option looks great in this dichotomy of guilty v. innocent.

It might be valuable to look to Scotland, briefly. Scottish courts have long been in the practice of handing out three potential verdicts—even back in the time of our good friends Adam Smith and David Hume. Unlike in the US, they distinguish between those who are guilty, those who are innocent, and those who are not proven either. The legal consequences of “innocent” and “not proven” may be the same, given that in both cases the defendant is acquitted, but in principle it’s an important distinction. Defendants aren’t assumed guilty or innocent when they come in, and there’s no need to default to one of these loaded options when reasonable doubt remains. If a court is to conclusively declare “not guilty” they ought to have evidence to support that, particularly in cases where they're simultaneously declaring the guiltiness of the one that brought the charges.

Thus, rather than a presumption of innocence, perhaps a presumption of potential innocence would be better. The important thing is that we give everyone an equal chance to make their case, and listen fairly instead of jumping to knee-jerk conclusions. And also realizing that we don’t have to make a definitive judgment when we really have no way of knowing.

The Right to Life: inalienable or not?

If you’ve turned on the news in the past couple weeks, you’ve probably seen something about ISIS, who’ve been even busier than usual creating videos that make demands and show the gruesome murders of foreign hostages: first Haruna Yukawa, then his Japanese countryman Kenji Goto, and now Jordanian pilot Moath al-Kassasbeh—the first soldier from the US-led coalition to die. There’d been a lot of back-and-forth negotiations and threats going on, with Jordan threatening to swiftly execute all prisoners affiliated with ISIS if Kassabeh wasn’t released. When he wasn’t, and when a video was released Tuesday showing him burning alive, Jordan quickly followed through by killing two prominent jihadists. Seeing as even al-Qaeda leaders have criticized their “barbaric propaganda,” I don’t think I need to devote this blog post to denouncing ISIS. A better starting point for interesting questions, I think, is with Jordan’s response.

It’s hard to feel particularly saddened by the death of two long-since-convicted terrorists. This may point to a troubling desensitization to the loss of human life, but then plenty of people are killed daily in the Middle East, and many die at the hands of such violent extremists. I wouldn’t really say I’m surprised towards Jordan’s actions, much less resentful. The death of Kassabeh can’t be equated to those of Ziad al-Karbouli and Sajida al-Rishawi, the latter two having sat for quite some time on death row after being convicted by Jordan, a sovereign state—plus, you know, they weren’t burned alive on camera for the sake of internet spectacle. Still, it’s hard not to see some parallel when their deaths were a direct result of his, following immediately. What was Jordan doing if not trying to send a message and intimidate its foes? There’s something at least slightly off-putting about a nation being so willing to manipulate its judicial system in sudden retaliation against a terrorist organization like ISIS. What does trying to meet them in their merciless action accomplish? I doubt fear of execution will do much to prevent terrorism. Rishawi is only alive because her explosive-filled vest didn’t detonate properly.

Capital punishment isn’t something that I think much about, but it is worth considering. They say you can judge a society on the way it treats its prisoners, so... take that to its obvious conclusion. Carrying out the death penalty is clearly an act of vengeful violence, albeit government-sanctioned violence. By its very definition it is legal, so we can’t call it murder, and in theory it occurs only with good reason. But what end does it serve? A recent study from the University of Colorado found little evidence of the death penalty doing much to deter crime; the study found that more than 88% of the near 70 criminologists surveyed agreed with its lack of effectiveness. No apparent correlation suggests a link with lower crime rates. Just looking at the US (since comparing Sweden and Sudan might be unfair), decades of data show states without the death penalty having lower murder rates. But hey, maybe employing the death penalty isn’t strictly about preventing future crimes from occurring. Maybe, instead of practical concerns, it’s about the principle and people getting what they deserve. The answer to that, of course, would be that the right to life is the most basic of all human rights, and human rights by definition are supposed to be inalienable; they aren’t given and they can’t be taken away; we all have them by virtue of our humanity.

When it comes to the philosophical question of whether or not capital punishment is acceptable under any circumstances, I don’t know that I have a strong opinion either way. Despite all the reasons against it, there’s still a primal sense of “Come on, some people deserve it.” If I had to pick a side, I think it would probably come down on the same one as all of Europe, Canada, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, etc. No offense to fine folks like China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Syria, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, or Sudan. You guys do you.    

To be (right and/or left) or not to be...

Youth culture in America is inherently more on the liberal side. This feels so obvious, and so undisputed, that there’s little need to offer evidence or examples. I think we all know at least a handful of raging secularist liberals who’s parents are a part of the religious right, but how often do progressive atheists end up with a little bible-wielding conservative? Personally, I don’t know of any cases. Still, it may be a bit of an exaggeration to make young Republicans out to be some kind of endangered species. The country may be shifting steadily towards the left, at least on many issues (see: gay marriage), and the 18-29 voters have consistently cast their ballots for Democratic candidates over the past decade. But clearly more than a handful of people in this category are voting Republican: in 2012 it was 37%, and in 2014 it was 43% (not to make too much of the rise; it isn’t surprising, given the typical midterm blues of a second-term President).

I think it would have been interesting if John had described a bit more clearly in his post where he falls on social issues, since there was almost a hint of apology for the religion-based, moralistic social policies. The implication seemed to be that youth siding with Democrats do so solely on the basis of social policies, in spite of the party’s economic policy, while people who realize the economy is important know to set these matters aside; same opinions, different priority. The logical extension of this argument seems to be that Republicans don’t necessarily agree with the party’s own social positions, and are just swallowing the anti-immigration, anti-climate anti-choice, anti-gay pill for the sake of our financial security. I’m not sure either side would find this portrait flattering, or particularly accurate.

Anyway, the idea that the right is better suited to handle money, and that the left is too emotional in all its idealism and compassion to be trusted with the keys to the economy, seems to be a perception founded on the most lazily simplified of rhetoric. The only four years of government surplus in the past forty-five years were all under Bill Clinton, and the notion that Barack Obama’s tenure has been an economic disaster isn’t based much on fact. Unemployment is below what it was when Obama took office, GDP is growing at a good rate, the stock market is at record heights, and on the whole the United States did a much better job at recovering after the 2008’s recession than most countries. The negative economic narrative seems so deeply ingrained in the public conscious that most people don’t stop to question it, even a large portion of Democrats. And Obama, for whatever reason, hasn’t shown much willingness to stand up and explain to America why he’s doing a better job than people give him credit for. I think he considers it beneath him… Of course, I’m sure there are fair and reasonable criticisms to be made of him, but sadly I’ve seen very few people take the time to make them.

You know, I’d be curious, actually, to see some comprehensive data on where Furman’s student body falls on the political spectrum. I’d agree that the right probably constitutes a majority at Furman (maybe not so much amongst the faculty), and the atmosphere certainly seems more conservative than at the average liberal-arts college. But I don’t know. The school might be more diverse than people give it credit for, and even among the general conservative camp the traditional values don’t run so deep.

The problem in judging, of course, is how vague, varied, and overlapping ideas of “conservative” and “liberal” can be, to the extent that it’s hard to know if we should put a great deal stock in them—even within this post I’m not sure that I’ve kept my usage consistent. If we could survey each and every student to discover which of the two terms they preferred, it might not tell us much about the specific beliefs they held on various topics. For a lot of people who choose one of these sides maybe intellectual reasons aren’t so important; it’s a social and cultural identity as much as anything else, and they’ve decided it feels right. So good luck reasoning them out of it.

P.S. Apparently Obama won Furman's informal student polls in both 2008 and 2012—take that for what it’s worth.