BOOK REVIEW Civilization is at stake The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror by George
Soros
Reviewed by John Dowd
Among the changes that September 11, 2001, brought to the United States was the
realization that there are those in the world who don't like Americans a great
deal, much less wish to emulate them.
The policies of the Ronald Reagan and George W Bush presidencies have
immeasurably worsened this situation. At least that is what George Soros argues
in his latest book, The Age of Fallibility.
The rise of what Soros calls market fundamentalism, which he attributes to
Reagan, and the neo-conservatives' mistaken
assumptions about the uses of power, have seriously damaged the United States'
moral standing in the world. Moreover, because the US is still the only real
superpower, there is no other candidate ready to take on the role that it has
abdicated.
That
does not bode well for the planet's future. When combined with the problems of
nuclear proliferation and global warming, Soros argues, it means we are in
critical condition. "I don't want to sound bombastic," he says, "but the future
of civilization may well be at stake." It sounds serious and, as one might
expect, this is a serious book.
The Age of Fallibility starts with Soros outlining a conceptual
framework that he says informed his own financial success and the Open Society
Foundation that he created. This framework also forms the basis for his concern
about the current situation both in the US and in the world.
Soros studied under the eminent philosopher Karl Popper (1902-94), who was
teaching at the London School of Economics when Soros attended. Soros says The
Age of Fallibility is based on Popper's philosophy of science.
Popper claimed that for statements to have scientific validity, they must be
falsifiable. This means that at least the possibility exists that they will be
false. Then, turning the problem of induction on its head, Popper went on to
say that theories are strengthened by testing because, as they fail, knowledge
about their limitations is gained and they can be reconstructed to be more
useful (eg, better predictors). This process of incremental criticism advances
knowledge, according to Popper.
Popper's philosophy of science shows that it is not possible to have complete
knowledge; it is always incomplete. This is inherent in the nature of reality
itself, and due, in part, to the influence our thinking has on what we are
studying (what Soros calls reflexivity). This is particularly the case with
human endeavors. No one has "the answer".
This cycle of changing theories repeats itself again and again. Even though a
theory may hold sway in a given period, it will change, and the challenge to
society is to ensure that it is open enough to these changes and that they
represent improvements as they come along.
An open society is one in which human activity operates according to these
principles. That is, society improves as a result of this critical process of
testing and changing theories. This idea of the open society was first proposed
by Popper and has been taken up by Soros. His personal foundation is the home
of the Open Society Institute.
The exposition of this conceptual framework occupies the first third of the
book. He has covered this ground before in other books, and each rendering is
clearer and more concise.
It should be pointed out that although the
framework is in essence philosophical, Soros does not spend a lot of time
on definitions. For example he uses the words "reality" and "fact" as though there
is common agreement on his definition, and there is not. Although the avoidance
of tedious sections more clearly specifying words' meanings makes the book more readable,
it also opens it up to some criticism. Criticism of Popper's critical
rationalism might also be an area of concern with this framework.
The next three chapters of the book are devoted to a long list of problems with
the United States and the world. The book closes with some speculation as to
possible alternatives and an interesting, if somewhat "tacked on", discussion
of the global energy crisis. It is this crisis, among other things, that makes
the outcome in Iraq so crucial.
The chapter "What is Wrong with America" could be considered by some to be
harsh. Soros reaches the conclusion that the US has become a "feel good"
society where citizens don't want to deal with difficult issues or complex
questions.
He attributes this unwillingness to confront difficult issues to a political
process driven by the principles of consumerism. It is this combination whereby
people are coaxed into settling for simple answers to difficult questions.
"It's almost as if people are clamoring to be deceived," he says. And, later:
"The American public has shown a remarkable indifference to being deceived."
This is a key criticism because it focuses the responsibility for the
distortion of truth on the public in their "begging to be deceived". Consider
the following Soros quote:
The entire construct of open society is
based on the assumption that the truth matters. The ultimate truth is beyond
our reach, but the closer we get to reality, the better. In dealing with
nature, the truth is paramount. In human affairs, there is a shortcut to
success. We can impose our will on other humans directly [without] going to the
trouble of pursuing the truth.
But how is this the fault of
those who are deceived? At what point was the American public supposed to know
that Bush was not being truthful about Iraq's lack of weapons of mass
destruction? The question was still being hotly debated as he was elected to a
second term. The effort to mislead the public was widespread and non-stop. And
it is still going on as this is written.
If there is apathy among the electorate in the US or "indifference to being
deceived", it arises from the understanding that deception is such a common
factor of every life in the business world that there is no hope for a more
ethically elevated political process. There isn't anything particularly
American about that. Since when hasn't telling people what they want to hear
elected politicians?
There is a special irony that Soros, who has become wealthy beyond
imagination trading in the US business marketplace, can say: "The untrammeled pursuit of
success provides an unstable basis for society." What does he think Wall Street
is all about if not the untrammeled pursuit of success?
But ironic or not, there is merit in his observations. And at the end of the
day he is talking about how a society as open as America's makes decisions.
What is interesting about the situation in Iraq is that it happened in the
first place. Invading Iraq was a blunder of historic proportions in ways too
numerous to mention. How was it that this decision was made? How can we improve
the process by which such decisions are made? That, at heart, is what this book
is about.
Soros says it well. "But underlying the political debate there must be some
agreement on the principles governing the critical process that is at the heart
of any open society. Foremost among those principles is that the truth matters.
Absent agreement on that principle, the political contest deteriorates into a
shameless manipulation of the truth ... Respect for truth can no longer be
taken for granted; it has become a matter of values. Intellectual honesty and
integrity are the values that America needs to rediscover if it is to recover."
He says, "In a democracy it is the electorate that has to keep the politicians
and the political operatives honest. That is where America is failing."
But again, my question is, how are people to know that they are being lied to?
That information must come from the media. That is why the First Amendment to
the US constitution (which guarantees freedom of the press, among other things)
is so important, and it is that freedom that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney
et al have attacked so vigorously. They consistently attack the patriotism of
those who question them. The "Swift Boat" attack on Senator John Kerry, Bush's
Democratic opponent in the 2004 presidential election, was but one of many
scurrilous examples. Where was the press?
"The media merely [serve] the market," says Soros, but the role of a free and
independent press is one of the cornerstones of US democracy. Like other
cornerstones, it has been so badly eroded that the entire edifice is in
jeopardy. Some of the other cornerstones of US democracy are free public
education and libraries, and the division of powers among the three main
branches of government.
And probably the worst problem of all is that the legislative branch that is
supposed to keep the executive in check has been bought off. The legislators
are completely co-opted by the Washington money and power game. Getting
re-elected is what the vast majority live for.
The United States is in trouble all right, and if the US is in trouble then the
world is in trouble, and that is where Soros goes next. He pursues a long
discussion of various trouble spots around the world. It is interesting to get
his viewpoint on these issues, but the discussion adds little to the main
thrust of the book.
If, as Soros asserts, the United States has abdicated its role as moral leader
of the world, who will take over that role? Soros looks to the European Union
and points out that there is much to be learned from it, but at the end of the
day it is not suitable. He proposes, instead, a community of democracies. He
also suggests that the vehicle could be a kind of civil society, a collection
of non-governmental organizations. The NGO community has already been
successful in a variety of human-rights and environmental issues.
The last chapter is about the global energy crisis, and it is apparently a
stand-alone chapter because Soros thinks it's that important. Clearly the war
in Iraq and US attention to the region are because of the oil there. Nobody in
the United States is talking about overthrowing the tyrant in Zimbabwe.
But while Soros' analysis of the energy crisis is acute, it is not revelatory.
Perhaps more interesting to the philosophers among us is the Appendix, "The
Original Framework". It is basically in support of Popper's critical
rationalism and argues, once again, for the need of society to be aware that it
is engaged in a process of continual change and that a critical process should
inform that change.
The Age of Fallibility is an interesting book. It views the problems
besetting the US (and, therefore, the world) from the perspective of the
sociology of knowledge. For that point of view alone, it is worth reading.
The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror by George
Soros. PublicAffairs, June 12, 2006. ISBN:
1586483595. Price US$24, 259 pages.
John Dowd has been teaching and consulting in the area of productivity
and quality improvement and strategic planning and industrial statistics for
more than 25 years. He was designated by W E Deming as a "master" and has
worked in more than 25 countries.
That
does not bode well for the planet's future. When combined with the problems of
nuclear proliferation and global warming, Soros argues, it means we are in
critical condition. "I don't want to sound bombastic," he says, "but the future
of civilization may well be at stake." It sounds serious and, as one might
expect, this is a serious book.
