Tag Archives: USA

Would you vote for a Camus-style President?

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump is a Camusian by instinct Gabriel Boric is a Camusian by belief

If I were the President of a country and admired Albert Camus, it would likely be because of his commitment to moral integrity, individual freedom, and resistance against injustice. Camus’ philosophy of the Absurd—the idea that humans seek meaning in a world that provides none—might seem nihilistic, but his ultimate conclusion was one of defiant hope: that despite the absurdity of life, we must still act with courage, compassion, and honesty. As a leader, this would mean:

Why Admire Camus?

  1. Commitment to Truth: Camus despised propaganda and refused to be a mouthpiece for ideologies, even when it cost him friendships. A President who admires him would prioritize truth over political convenience.
  2. Resistance to Oppression: Camus was a vocal critic of both fascism and totalitarian communism. A Camus-admiring President would likely reject extremism and authoritarianism in favor of human dignity.
  3. Pragmatic Morality: He wasn’t an idealist but believed in ethical action in a flawed world. His stance on the Algerian War—both condemning French colonialism and opposing nationalist terrorism—showed his refusal to take easy sides.
  4. Empathy and Humanism: His works, like The Plague, emphasize human solidarity in the face of crisis—an essential quality for a leader managing a country through pandemics, war, or social upheaval.
  5. A Rebel’s Spirit: Camus’ notion of the “rebel”—one who resists injustice but does not become an oppressor—could inspire policies that are bold but not tyrannical.

What’s the Downside?

  1. Political Isolation: Camus refused to blindly follow ideological groups, which led to alienation from both left-wing and right-wing intellectuals. A leader like him might struggle to build strong alliances in the messy world of politics.
  2. Pragmatism vs. Idealism Conflict: Camus’ rejection of utilitarianism (sacrificing some for the “greater good”) might make certain hard political decisions—like war, economic trade-offs, or security measures—more difficult.
  3. The Absurd President? A leader embracing the absurd might be perceived as too philosophical and detached from practical governance. Voters and political rivals might not appreciate a leader who openly admits that life lacks inherent meaning.
  4. Rejection of Grand Ideologies: Most political movements rely on grand narratives (progress, revolution, nationalism). Camus’ skepticism toward ideology could make it hard to rally people behind a unifying vision.
  5. Public Perception & Criticism: Being too honest about the lack of absolute justice or meaning could alienate religious and ideological groups. Imagine a President saying, “Life is absurd, but let’s be decent anyway.” Not exactly a rousing campaign slogan.

Would It Be Crazy?

Admiring Camus as a President wouldn’t be crazy—it would be deeply principled. The real challenge would be whether a Camus-inspired leader could navigate the compromises of power without losing their moral core. Camus’ rebel spirit might make for an inspiring leader, but governing requires alliances, tough choices, and sometimes, a willingness to get your hands dirty—something he would have probably hated.

Would you vote for a Camus-style President?

Boric & Trump: Camus in the Mirror?

At first glance, Gabriel Boric and Donald Trump seem like political opposites. Boric, a leftist leader from Chile who proudly cites Albert Camus as a guiding influence, rose to power with the backing of Chile’s Communist Party. Trump, a self-styled right-wing populist, champions economic nationalism, rejects traditional elites, and publicly embraces a “strongman” persona.

But here’s where things get strange: both of them, in their own way, embody aspects of Camus’ philosophy. Boric consciously follows Camus, while Trump, perhaps unintentionally, often acts in ways that align with Camus’ vision of rebellion and absurdity.

1. The Paradox of Their Elections

  • Chile, historically the most economically right-wing country in Latin America, elects Boric, a former student protest leader supported by the Communist Party. The contradiction? A neoliberal stronghold chooses a self-proclaimed leftist.
  • The U.S., a symbol of democracy and establishment politics, elects Trump, a reality TV star and real estate mogul, who destroys traditional Republican orthodoxy and defies political norms.

Both of these elections scream revolt against the system, something very Camusian—but from different angles.

2. The Camus Connection

Camus championed the absurd rebel—someone who refuses to accept unjust systems but doesn’t become a dictator themselves. How does that apply here?

Boric: The Consciously Ethical Rebel

  • Boric sees himself as a moral revolutionary, fighting against inequality but still respecting democratic institutions.
  • He believes in solidarity, a key theme in The Plague—one that emphasizes human cooperation even in the face of existential absurdity.
  • His struggle? The Communist Party’s influence—can he remain a Camusian rebel while aligning with an ideological machine that demands conformity?

Trump: The Unconscious Rebel

  • Trump, like Camus’ absurd hero Meursault in The Stranger, rejects societal norms without remorse. He refuses to play the game, whether it’s political correctness, traditional diplomacy, or even basic decorum.
  • He thrives in chaos and defiance, making his leadership existential rather than ideological. He doesn’t believe in grand narratives—he simply acts.
  • His struggle? Power for power’s sake. Unlike Boric, he doesn’t seem concerned with the ethical implications of rebellion—his rebellion is personal, not philosophical.

3. Boric and Trump: More Alike Than Their Followers Admit

  • Both despise political elites and claim to represent “real people” against an entrenched system.
  • Both are outsiders who unexpectedly won elections, defeating establishment figures.
  • Both have authoritarian temptations: Boric, via his alliance with communists, and Trump, via his disregard for institutional limits.
  • Both struggle with governing after rebellion—Boric faces an economic crisis and institutional gridlock; Trump, during his presidency, often clashed with the system he vowed to dismantle.

4. What Does This Say About Politics Today?

  • Chile, a right-wing economy, votes left. The U.S., a liberal democracy, votes for an anti-establishment strongman.
  • Ideology matters less than existential revolt. People don’t just vote for policies anymore—they vote for rebellion against the status quo.
  • Camus’ idea of the rebel who resists without becoming an oppressor is hard to sustain in real-world politics. Boric tries to walk that fine line. Trump doesn’t seem to care.

5. The Downside of This Comparison

If Camus were alive, he’d likely reject both of them—Boric for allying with ideologues, and Trump for rejecting moral responsibility. But the fact that two seemingly opposite leaders reflect the same existential tensions tells us something:

Modern politics is less about left vs. right and more about rebellion vs. the establishment.
Trump is a Camusian by instinct. Boric is a Camusian by belief.
Both are products of a world where the old political frameworks are crumbling

Would Camus approve? Probably not. But he’d definitely write a hell of an essay about it.

September 11th. a personal journey

Posted on by

September 11th, a date that now carries the weight of two decades, floods my thoughts with an overwhelming surge of memories. A decade ago, on this very day, the world was shaken to its core, leaving an indelible mark on my soul.

I recall that crisp Tuesday morning, ten years past, as I embarked on a journey from Boston to Toronto. The early hours saw me boarding a flight at Logan Airport, a time when Air Canada shared the terminal with United Airlines. Amidst the bustle of travelers, adorned in the light attire of summer, destined for destinations like Los Angeles, an eerie sensation gripped me.

Yet, in the depths of my semi-conscious state, I found myself drifting back in time, to a fateful day twenty-seven years prior. It was a day when news echoed of Salvador Allende’s fall in Chile, a democratically elected leader brought down by the merciless hands of a military “coup d’état.” In my youthful fervor, I held onto a fervent belief that Latin America was in need of leaders who could carve their path through the democratic process, champions of justice and architects of a brighter future for all.

In the wake of that seismic event, my youthful heart ached deeply. Like countless others across Latin America, the demise of Salvador Allende etched an indelible scar across my very being. The names and faces of that movement, which had intertwined with my life, resurfaced in my mind as I stood on the precipice of my flight. Enveloped by the whir of engines and the hum of anticipation, my thoughts cascaded through the corridors of time, a torrent of emotions intertwining past and present.

My ventures didn’t stop there, for destiny seemed to have a penchant for intertwining my path with the ebb and flow of nations.

The evening of November 9, 1989, forever etched in history as the night the Berlin Wall crumbled, holds a deeply personal significance for me. I was present during those tumultuous days, from November 6th to the 11th, navigating a business trip that had abruptly transformed into a front-row seat to history in the making. As I stood amidst the fragments of a divided world giving way to unity, I couldn’t help but reflect on the surreal journey that had brought me to that moment.

In January 27, 2008, I found myself in Jakarta, Indonesia, a witness to the seismic shift that saw Suharto’s regime crumble under the weight of change. My role as the head of the Polaroid Corporation in the country meant I was not merely an observer; I was a participant in the unfolding narrative of transformation. This, after three years of residing in the dynamic landscape of China, where each day presented its own tapestry of experiences and insights.

Yet, the tapestry of my life is woven from threads that span even further. Cast your gaze to March 23, 1994, and you will find me in Tijuana, Mexico, in the company of Luis Donaldo Colosio, who I met in Philadelphia in 1989. Little did I know that our encounter would be a poignant marker in my journey, as Colosio’s presence would forever be intertwined with a momentous period in Mexican history.

These instances, though disparate, form a connective tissue that binds the chapters of my life. They are not mere episodes but rather windows into the transformative power of human events. Through them, I’ve witnessed the collapse of walls both physical and metaphorical, the rise and fall of leaders, and the pulse of change reverberating across nations.

As I reflect on these experiences, I am reminded that life is a mosaic of moments, each contributing its hue to the larger canvas. The events I’ve encountered have imprinted upon me a profound understanding of the fluidity of existence and the resilience of the human spirit. From the fall of walls to the ascent of new beginnings, my journey has been a testament to the enduring force of change and the unwavering human capacity to adapt, evolve, and be present in the midst of history’s unfolding tapestry.

The Thucydides Trap: China and the United States on the Brink

Posted on by

The concept of the Thucydides Trap, as expounded by Harvard scholar Graham Allison, warns of the dangers posed by a rising power threatening to challenge an established ruling power. Throughout history, this scenario has occurred numerous times, often leading to catastrophic consequences. Presently, the world faces a similar situation, with China’s rise challenging the dominant position of the United States. This essay aims to explore the idea of the Thucydides Trap in the context of China and the United States, while delving into potential outcomes and implications for both countries and the global community.

The Rivalry between China and the United States

In recent decades, China has experienced rapid economic growth and development, transforming itself into a formidable global power. Simultaneously, the United States, though still a dominant force, faces challenges to its longstanding supremacy. This shift in power dynamics has led to heightened tensions between the two nations, with both seeking to assert their interests and influence on the world stage.

The Trap Scenario: Escalation to Conflict

If history is any indication, a rising power’s ambitions and a ruling power’s fear of losing their position can lead to a dangerous confrontation. The Thucydides Trap asserts that when the established power perceives its dominance at risk, conflict becomes a plausible outcome. Escalation to military conflict is the most catastrophic result of the trap and has the potential to plunge the world into turmoil.

Potential Outcome 1: War and Catastrophe

In the worst-case scenario, the tensions between China and the United States escalate into a full-scale war. Such a conflict would undoubtedly have catastrophic consequences for both nations and the entire globe. The economies of both countries would be severely impacted, leading to widespread financial instability and recession. Moreover, modern warfare capabilities could lead to significant loss of life and destruction on an unprecedented scale, affecting not only the two countries involved but also numerous other nations.

Potential Outcome 2: Cold War-like Standoff

Another possible outcome is a protracted cold war-like standoff between China and the United States. In this scenario, both nations would engage in a battle of influence, seeking to draw other countries into their spheres of alliances. This prolonged rivalry would fuel regional conflicts, as smaller nations might be forced to choose sides, leading to geopolitical instability and heightened military spending.

Potential Outcome 3: Constructive Rivalry and Cooperation

Despite the ominous warnings of the Thucydides Trap, it is essential to recognize that history doesn’t always repeat itself. China and the United States have an opportunity to learn from past mistakes and engage in constructive rivalry rather than destructive confrontation. Through diplomacy and dialogue, both nations can address their concerns and work towards mutually beneficial outcomes. Finding common ground on global challenges, such as climate change and nuclear proliferation, could foster cooperation and prevent an outright collision.

Conclusion

The Thucydides Trap poses a grave warning about the potential consequences of a rising power challenging an established one. While the rivalry between China and the United States presents real risks, history does not have to dictate the future. Both countries must recognize the dangers of escalating tensions and pursue constructive engagement and dialogue to mitigate conflict.

The world stands at a critical juncture, where cooperation and understanding between China and the United States are vital to maintaining global stability and prosperity. It is essential for both nations to transcend the Thucydides Trap and forge a path towards a peaceful and cooperative coexistence, working together to address common challenges and ensure a brighter future for all. Only through such efforts can we avoid the cataclysmic outcomes that history has so often witnessed in similar power struggles.