One Eye, Two Eyes, the Needy Other, the Better-Off Other, Envy, a Genie, and the Logic of Voting Decisions

A genie says to a peasant, "I will grant you any wish, but remember that I will give your neighbour twice what I give you." The peasant thinks for a while and responds, "Poke out one of my eyes." (via)

Encouraging resentment of taxpayer-funded benefits flowing to people down the ladder of life's fortune can deliver political dividends (...).
Lewis & Woods, 2014

Here are a few thought-provoking excerpts that shed a light on aspects of voting decisions following the logic of "I don't have health insurance now and can't afford the medicine I need but at least Mexicans can't immigrate." 

Economists have long speculated that envy and malice play important roles in economic decisions. (...) Envy and malice turn out to be powerful motivations with strong differential impacts across countries and relative positions.
Beckman et al, 2002

Why do people support economic redistribution? Hypotheses include inequity aversion, a moral sense that inequality is intrinsically unfair, and cultural explanations such as exposure to and assimilation of culturally transmitted ideologies. However, humans have been interacting with worse-off and better-off individuals over evolutionary time, and our motivational systems may have been naturally selected to navigate the opportunities and challenges posed by such recurrent interactions. We hypothesize that modern redistribution is perceived as an ancestral scene involving three notional players: the needy other, the better-off other, and the actor herself. We explore how three motivational systems—compassion, self-interest, and envy—guide responses to the needy other and the better-off other, and how they pattern responses to redistribution. Data from the United States, the United Kingdom, India, and Israel support this model. Endorsement of redistribution is independently predicted by dispositional compassion, dispositional envy, and the expectation of personal gain from redistribution. By contrast, a taste for fairness, in the sense of (i) universality in the application of laws and standards, or (ii) low variance in group-level payoffs, fails to predict attitudes about redistribution. (...)
By economic redistribution, we mean the modification of a distribution of resources across a population as the result of a political process. (...)
We conducted 13 studies with 6,024 participants in four countries to test the hypothesis that compassion, envy, and self-interest jointly predict support for redistribution. (...) If the mind sees modern redistribution as a three-player game eliciting compassion, envy, and self-interest , then the intensities of those emotions and motives will independently predict support for redistribution. (...) As predicted, the three motives have positive, significant, and independent effects on support for redistribution. (...)
Participants in the United States also reported the political party they most identify with. Consistent with historical survey data, self-described Democrats endorsed redistribution to a greater extent than Republicans and Libertarians did. Democrats also reported more compassion and more expected personal gain from redistribution than Republicans and Libertarians did; envy did not differ by party (...). Thus, compassion and self-interest predict identification with political parties, which are themselves associated with attitudes toward redistribution. In isolation, the emotion/motivation triplet accounts for 28% of the variance in support for redistribution, whereas party identification accounts for 34%; when entered together, they have unique effects of similar magnitude (...). This suggests that emotions and party ideology shape attitudes toward redistribution to a similar extent. (...)
Participants in the United States, India, and the United Kingdom (studies 1a–c) were given two hypothetical scenarios and asked to indicate their preferred one. In one scenario, the wealthy pay an additional 10% in taxes, and the poor receive an additional sum of money. In the other scenario, the wealthy pay an additional 50% in taxes (i.e., a tax increment five times greater than in the first scenario), and the poor receive (only) one-half the additional amount that they receive in the first scenario. (...) Fourteen percent to 18% of the American, Indian, and British participants indicated a preference for the scenario featuring a higher tax rate for the wealthy even though it produced less money to help the poor. (...) Compassion and envy motivate the attainment of different ends. Compassion, but not envy, predicts personally helping the poor. Envy, but not compassion, predicts a desire to tax the wealthy even when that costs the poor. (...)
A taste for fairness had little or no effect on support for redistribution. This is striking, because fairness is invoked in many arguments for redistribution. Notions of fairness are intuitive and compelling—they seem to inspire charity, courageous acts, outrages, wars, and moral crusades. (...)
Sznycer et al., 2017

Envy-freeness (EF) is a criterion of fair division. In an envy-free division, every agent feels that their share is at least as good as the share of any other agent, and thus no agent feels envy. (via)

- - - - - - - -
- Beckman, S. R., Formby, J. P., Smith, W. J. & Zheng, B. (2002). Envy, malice and Pareto efficiency: An experimental examination. Social Choice and Welfare, 19, 349-367.
- Sznycer, D., Lopez Seal, M. F., Sell, A., Lim, J., Porat, R., Shalvi, S., Halperin, E., Cosmides, L, & Tooby, J. (2017). Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, link
- photographs of Audrey Hepburn by Douglas Kirkland (1965) via and via
- interesting read: Two eminent political scientists: The problem with democracy is voters

Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen, by Olympe de Gouges (1791)

Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793) was a French political activist, feminst and playwright. In "Les Droits de la Femme" she stated that the "Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen" was not applied to women. Her devotion to the cause of women's rights, the vote for women and women's education led to her being charged with treason. Olympe de Gouges was arrested, tried and executed by guillotine (via).



The Rights of Woman

Man, are you capable of being just? It is a woman who poses the question; you will not deprive her of that right at least. Tell me, what gives you sovereign empire to opress my sex? Your strength? Your talents? Observe the Creator in his wisdom; survey in all her grandeur that nature with whom you seem to want to be in harmony, and give me, if you dare, an exampl of this tyrannical empire. Go back to animals, consult the elements, study plants, finally glance at all the modifications of organic matter, and surrender to the evidence when I offer you the menas; search, probe, and distinguish, if you can, the sexes in the administration of nature. Everywhere you will find them mingled; everywhere they cooperate in harmonious tpgetherness in this immortal masterpiece.
Man alone has raised his exceptional circumstances to a principle. Bizarre, blind, bloated with science and degenerated--in a century of enlightenment and wisdom--into the crassest ignorance, he wants to command as a despot a sex which is in full possession of its intellectual faculties; he pretends to enjoy the Revolution and to claim his rights to equality in order to say nothing more about it.

Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen

Preamble

Mothers, daughters, sisters [and] representatives of the nation demand to be constituted into a national assembly. Believing that ignorance, omission, or scorn for the rights of woman are the only causes of public misfortunes and of the corruption of governments, [the women] have resolved to set forth a solemn declaration the natural, inalienable, and sacred rights of woman in order that this declaration, constantly exposed before all members of the society, will ceaselessly remind them of their rights and duties; in order that the authoritative acts f women and teh athoritative acts of men may be at any moment compared with and respectful of the purpose of all political institutions; and in order that citizens' demands, henceforth based on simple and incontestable principles, will always support the constitution, good morals, and the happiness of all.
Consequently, the sex that is as superior in beauty as it is in courage during the sufferings of maternity recognizes and declares in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following Rights of Woman and of Female Citizens.

Article I
Woman is born free and lives equal to man in her rights. Social distinctions can be based only on the common utility.

Article II
The purpose of any political association is the conservation of the natural and impresciptible rights of woman and man; these rights are liberty property, security, and especially resistance to oppression.

Article III
The principle of all sovereignty rests essentially with the nation, which is nothing but the union of woman and man; no body and no individual can exercise any authority which does not come expressly from it (the nation).

Article IV
Liberty and justice consist of restoring all that belongs to others; thus, the only limits on the exercise of the natural rights of woman are perpetual male tyranny; these limits are to be reformed by the laws of nature and reason.

Article V
Laws of nature and reason proscibe all acts harmful to society; everything which is not prohibited by these wise and divine laws cannot be prevented, and no one can be constrained to do what they do not command.

Article VI
The law must be the expression of the general will; all female and male citizens must contribute either personally or through their representatives to its formation; it must be the same for all: male and female citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, must be equally admitted to all honors, positions, and public employment according to their capacity and without other distinctions besides those of their virtues and talents. Article VII No woman is an exception; she is accused, arrested, and detained in cases determined by law. Women, like men, obey this rigorous law.

Article VIII
The law must establish only those penalties that are strictly and obviously necessary...

Article IX
Once any woman is declared guilty, complete rigor is exercised by law.

Article X
No one is to be disquieted for his very basic opinions; woman has the right to mount the scaffold; she must equally have the right to mount the rostrum, provided that her demonstrations do not disturb the legally established public order.

Article XI
The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of woman, since that liberty assures recognition of children by their fathers. Any female citizen thus may say freely, I am the mother of a child which belongs to you, without being forced by a barbarous prejudice to hide the truth; (an exception may be made) to respond to the abuse of this liberty in cases determined by law.

Article XII
The gaurantee of the rights of woman and the female citizen implies a major benefit; this guarantee must be instituted for the advantage of all, and not for the particular benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.

Article XIII
For the support of the public force and the expenses of administration, the contributions of woman and man are equal; she shares all the duties and all the painful tasks; therefore, whe must have the same share in the distribution of positions, employment, offices, honors, and jobs.

Article XIV
Female and male citizens have the right to verify, either by themselves of through their representatives, the necessity of the public contribution. This can only apply to women if they are granted an equal share, not only of wealth, but also of public administration, and in the determination of the proportion, the base, the collection, and the duration of the tax.

Article XV
The collectivity of women, joined for tax purposes to the aggregate of men, has the right to demand an accounting of his administration from any public agent.

Article XVI
No society has a constitution without the guarantee of rights and the separation of powers; the constitution is null if the majority of individuals comprising the nation have not cooperated in drafting it.

Article XVII
Property belongs to both sexes whether united or separate; for each it is an inviolable and sacred right' no one can be deprived of it, since it is the true patrimony of natire, unless the legally determined public need obviously dictates it, and then only with a just and prior indemnity.

Postscript

Woman, wake up; the tocsin of reason is being heard throughout the whole universe; discover your rights. The powerful empire of nature is no longer surrounded by prejudice, fanaticism, superstition, and lies. The flame of truth has dispersed all the clouds of folly and usurpation. Enslaved man has multiplied his strength and needs recourse to yours to break his chains. Having become free, he has become unjust to his companion. Oh, women, women! When will you cease to be blind? What advantage have you received from the Revolution? A more pronounced scorn, a more marked disdain. In the centuries of corruption you ruled only over the weakness of men. The reclamation of your patrimony, based on the wise decrees of nature-what have you to dread from such a fine undertaking? The bon mot of the legislator of the marriage of Cana? Do you fear that our French legislators, correctors of that morality, long ensnared by political practices now out of date, will only say again to you: women, what is there in common between you and us? Everything, you will have to answer. If they persist in their weakness in putting this non sequitur in contradiction to their principles, courageously oppose the force of reason to the empty pretentions of superiority; unite yourselves beneath the standards of philosophy; deploy all the energy of your character, and you will soon see these haughty men, not groveling at your feet as servile adorers, but proud to share with you the treasures of the Supreme Being. Regardless of what barriers confront you, it is in your power to free yourselves; you have only to want to....
Marriage is the tomb of trust and love. The married woman can with impunity give bastards to her husband, and also give them the wealth which does not belong to them. The woman who is unmarried has only one feeble right; ancient and inhuman laws refuse to her for her children the right to the name and the wealth of their father; no new laws have been made in this matter. If it is considered a paradox and an impossibility on my part to try to give my sex an honorable and just consistency, I leave it to men to attain glory for dealing with this matter; but while we wait, the way can be prepared through national education, the restoration of morals, and conjugal conventions.

Form for a Social Contract Between Man and Woman

We, _____ and ______, moved by our own will, unite ourselves for the duration of our lives, and for the duration of our mutual inclinations, under the following conditions: We intend and wish to make our wealth communal, meanwhile reserving to ourselves the right to divide it in favor of our children and of those toward whom we might have a particular inclination, mutually recognizing that our property belongs directly to our children, from whatever bed they come, and that all of them without distinction have the right to bear the name of the fathers and mothers who have acknowledged them, and we are charged to subscribe to the law which punishes the renunciation of one's own blood. We likewise obligate ourselves, in case of separation, to divide our wealth and to set aside in advance the portion the law indicates for our children, and in the event of a perfect union, the one who dies will divest himself of half his property in his children's favor, and if one dies childless, the survivor will inherit by right, unless the dying person has disposed of half the common property in favor of one whom he judged deserving.

That is approximately the formula for the marriage act I propose for execution. Upon reading this strange document, I see rising up against me the hypocrites, the prudes, the clergy, and the whole infernal sequence. But how it [my proposal] offers to the wise the moral means of achieving the perfection of a happy government! . . .
Moreover, I would like a law which would assist widows and young girls deceived by the false promises of a man to whom they were attached; I would like, I say, this law to force an inconstant man to hold to his obligations or at least [to pay] an indemnity equal to his wealth. Again, I would like this law to be rigorous against women, at least those who have the effrontery to have reCourse to a law which they themselves had violated by their misconduct, if proof of that were given. At the same time, as I showed in Le Bonheur primitit de l'homme, in 1788, that prostitutes should be placed in designated quarters. It is not prostitutes who contribute the most to the depravity of morals, it is the women of' society. In regenerating the latter, the former are changed. This link of fraternal union will first bring disorder, but in consequence it will produce at the end a perfect harmony.
I offer a foolproof way to elevate the soul of women; it is to join them to all the activities of man; if man persists in finding this way impractical, let him share his fortune with woman, not at his caprice, but by the wisdom of laws. Prejudice falls, morals are purified, and nature regains all her rights. Add to this the marriage of priests and the strengthening of the king on his throne, and the French government cannot fail.

(via)

- - - - - - - - -
photograph via
Description: "On Aug. 26, 1971, thousands of women demonstrated and leafleted in various places in Manhattan, including Wall Street and St. Patrick's Cathedral. The Women's Rights Day activities culminated in a parade of nearly 6,000 people, including this woman, down Fifth Avenue in support of equal rights (Credit: Newsday / Jim Peppler)"

Der Präsident

26th of January was the inauguration day of Austria's president Alexander van der Bellen. In his inauguration speech, which he clearly addressed to Austrians and foreigners living in Austria, he called for tolerance and a diverse nation free of racial hatred, talked about migration, antisemitism, fear, peace, confidence, about being born as a refugee child, called for equality no matter if a person was a man or a woman and loved a man or a woman... or their smartphone, no matter what age and for how many generations one's family had been living in Austria.



Meanwhile, his opponent Norbert Hofer contacted Moby as he seemed irritated to see himself in Moby's video "Erupt & Matter". Moby's reply:

Dear Norbert Hofer,
I'm sorry if my "erupt & matter" video has upset you or caused you grief.

But honestly what's upset me and caused me(and countless others)grief is the 21st century's slide into xenophobic right wing politics and populism. In the 20th century we saw both the rise and collapse of far-right ideologically driven political movements. By the end of the 20th century i had naively assumed that as a species we'd learned from the mistakes of the 20th century, and were ready to leave xenophobic populism and far right politics behind. Sadly, i was wrong, as the politics of fear and hate have come roaring back in the 21st century almost everywhere in the world(including the united states, as we now have a dangerously incompetent xenophobe, donald trump, as our 45th president).

I understand that the complex changes and challenges facing us in the 21st century can lead to fear and uncertainty. But cynically and disingenuously responding to the fear and uncertainty by blaming ethnic minorities and advancing economic populism is both dangerous and wrong. A look at the 20th century clearly shows that whenever a country has blamed it's ills on minorities and retreated into nativist, economic populism the results have been disastrous.

So, i will happily remove you from the video if you renounce the politics of racism, xenophobia, and right wing economic populism.
thanks,
moby

::: Erupt & Matter: WATCH/LISTEN



Excerpts of the speech (in German):

Sehr geehrte Frau Nationalratspräsidentin, sehr geehrte Frau Bundesratspräsidentin, Hohe Bundesversammlung, sehr verehrte Ehrengäste, hier im Raum, draußen von den Fernsehschirmen, vor dem Radio vielleicht. Liebe Österreicherinnen und Österreicher, liebe ausländische Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger dieses Landes.

Ich stehe hier mit bisschen einem Gefühl der Unwirklichkeit. Nicht wegen des langen Wahlkampfes, der war eigentlich großteils ganz vergnüglich, sondern ich stehe hier mit einer großen Freude und Zuversicht. Denn schlussendlich könnte man sagen, jetzt bis du endlich angekommen. Meine Eltern waren ja keine indigenen Österreicher, ich bin als Flüchtlingskind zur Welt gekommen. Von Wien nach Tirol ins Kaunertal transportiert – ich war ja ein Baby -, dort aufgewachsen, in Innsbruck in die Schule gegangen und so weiter und so fort.

Und jetzt darf ich als Ihr Bundespräsident vor Ihnen stehen. Das ist eine besondere Ehre für mich, eine Freude. Und es erfüllt mich, wie soll ich sagen, mit dem Gefühl, dass Österreich tatsächlich ein Land sehr großer Möglichkeiten ist, ein Land – um diese Metapher zu gebrauchen – der unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten. Daran sollten wir uns hin und wieder erinnern und uns nicht kleinmachen.

(...)

Dieses Gerede von der Spaltung halte ich für maßlos übertrieben. Österreich, das sind einfach wir alle. Alle Bewohner und Bewohnerinnen dieses schönen Landes, ganz gleich, woher sie kommen – aus Wien, aus Graz, aus Salzburg, dem Kaunertal, aus Pinkafeld zum Beispiel und anderen Ecken unserer schönen Heimat. Es ist auch gleich, wen diese Bewohner und Bewohnerinnen lieben – hoffentlich sich selbst – aber, ob sie Mann oder Frau lieben, gleichgültig, ob sie nun Männer oder Frauen sind. Ob sie die Städte lieben oder das flache Land, oder ihr Smartphone oder alles zusammen.

Es ist auch gleich – im Prinzip – ob sie ihr Leben noch vor sich haben – und ich werde am Schluss noch einen Appell an die Jugend richten – oder schon hoffentlich auf ein erfülltes Leben zurückblicken können. Und es ist auch weitgehend gleich, ob die Familie schon seit Generationen hier ist oder eben noch nicht. Zumindest sind wir Österreicherinnen und Österreicher gleich an Rechten und Pflichten – bei aller Vielfalt, bei aller Diversität, die ich sehr liebe, aber gleich an Rechten und Pflichten. Wir gehören einander und wir bedingen einander. Wir sind so stark wie unser Zusammenhalt, besonders in diesen schwierigen Zeiten, denen wir entgegen gehen.

Es liegt in der Natur der Sache, wenn drei Menschen mehr oder weniger kurze Reden halten und sich nicht absprechen, dass sich diese Reden überschneiden. Ich bin jetzt auf der Suche nach etwas, was ich abkürze. Wir waren uns einig, glaube ich, die beiden Präsidentinnen und ich, dass wir in einer Zeit der Veränderung leben. In einer Zeit der Veränderung, in der die bewährten Gewissheiten, die bewährten Rezepte, nicht mehr wie in der Vergangenheit zu greifen scheinen und sich etwas Neues finden und bilden muss, aber es ist nicht klar was. Es ist gewissermaßen eine Zeit zwischen den Zeiten, in der wir uns befinden.

Ich zähle nicht alles auf, es wurde schon viel gesagt – die Automatisierung, die Vernetzung, die Flucht- und Migration, auch der wissenschaftliche Fortschritt, der uns teilweise vor ganz neue Fragen in ethischer Hinsicht und moralischer Hinsicht stellt. Und das alles in einem Europa, das angesichts von Nationalismen und kurzsichtiger Eigenbrötelei um seine Akzeptanz, vielleicht sogar um seine Existenz ringt. Erschüttert auch von verachtenswerten Aktionen des internationalen Terrors, die unseren Zusammenhalt gefährden. Last, not least der Klimawandel, die Veränderung des Klimas, des Wetters und mit den entsprechenden Folgen auf der ganzen Welt, auch bei uns in den Alpen.

Diese Veränderungen sind so eine Sache. Viele davon machen Angst. Veränderung ist notwendig, aber sie macht auch Angst. Wenn ich mich erinnere, wie ich in der Schule – ich glaube erste Klasse Gymnasium – zum ersten Mal auf dem Drei-Meter-Brett im Hallenbad stand: Es kostete mich doch eine gewisse Überwindung. Freude hat mir das keine gemacht. Sondern es war schon das Gefühl da, wenn ich mich weiterentwickeln will – also ich behaupte nicht, dass man mit elf Jahren so denkt, aber ich denke, intuitiv war das der Fall -, dann muss ich springen, aber ich weiß nicht, wie das ist. Ist das Hallenbad überhaupt groß genug, dass ich ins Wasser komme und wie tief wird das sein und wann und ob ich da wieder hochkomme.

(...)

Und im Grunde genommen ist das mit der Zuversicht eine einfache Sache: Man muss sich einfach dazu entscheiden, zuversichtlich zu sein. Diese Entscheidung haben wir in der Vergangenheit schon oft getroffen. Und wenn jeder einzelne von uns diese Entscheidung trifft, dann wird uns diese Zuversicht Dinge ermöglichen, die der Zweifel allein nie zugelassen hätte. Poetisch gesagt – erlauben sie, dass ich zwei Zeilen poetisiere: 'Wo der Zweifel nur den dunklen Nachthimmel sieht, sieht die Zuversicht den Sternenhimmel.'

Aber in diesem Zusammenhang ist es wichtig, auch den Blick auf das zu richten, was sich hoffentlich nicht ändert. Nämlich auf unsere Grundprinzipien. Das Fundament unserer zentralen Glaubenssätze unserer Republik, einer Art Credo. Nämlich, dass Freiheit und Würde des Menschen universell und unteilbar sind. Dass alle Menschen frei und gleich an Rechten geboren sind. Dass diese Menschenrechte uneingeschränkt gelten. Immer, wenn Sie über die Rampe ins Parlament kommen, sehen Sie die Erklärung der Menschenrechte auf dieser schönen Tafel. Dass der Privilegierte die Weisheit haben möge, dem Schwächeren zu helfen und seine Position der Stärke nicht zu missbrauchen, dass wir für unsere Mitmenschen auch mitverantwortlich sind. Dass zu einem gesunden Menschenverstand auch ein mitfühlendes Herz gehört. Dass es unserer Menschenpflicht ist, Menschen in Not zu helfen, unabhängig davon ob, sie In- oder Ausländer sind. Aber natürlich, wer bei uns Hilfe sucht, hat sich an unsere rechtsstaatliche Grundwerte zu halten, die nicht verhandelbar sind. -

Mit anderen Worten – ich zitiere ein bisschen 1789: Glauben wir an die Freiheit, die Gleichheit, die Solidarität, und vor allem an Österreichs Fähigkeiten und an das, was dieses Österreich und Europa in der Vergangenheit stark gemacht hat. Auf diesem Wertefundament kann man aufbauen.

(...)

Ich hoffe, dass Einigkeit darüber besteht, dass Österreich im Herzen Europas liegt – und das meine ich nicht geografisch, sondern politisch. Dass Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung Schlüssel sind für die zukünftige Entwicklung und dass wir hier die nötigen Ressourcen und Veränderungen vornehmen müssen. Ich hoffe, dass uns allen bewusst ist, dass Mann und Frau gleichberechtigt sind, aber dass wir noch nicht in der Praxis soweit sind, dass es stimmt, seit hundert Jahren nicht.

(...)

Meine sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Morgen ist ein besonderer Tag, morgen ist der Internationale Holocaust Gedenktag. In Erinnerung an das größte Verbrechen der Menschheitsgeschichte. Der Holocaust ist auch Teil unserer Geschichte. Millionen Menschen wurden in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus ermordet. Österreicher gehörten zu den Opfern, aber auch zu den Tätern. Jenen Menschen, die gerade noch fliehen konnten, wurde ihre Heimat genommen. Wenige der Geflüchteten wurden eingeladen wieder zurückzukommen. Und viele wurden, wenn sie doch zurückkamen, in Österreich nicht willkommen geheißen. Das halte ich für die dunkelste Seite unserer Österreichischen Geschichte. Die dunkelste Seite, die wir niemals vergessen werden.

Meine Damen und Herren! Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg entschlossen sich Europas Politiker und Politikerinnen, waren meistens Männer damals noch, endlich zur Versöhnung und zur Gemeinsamkeit. Daraus erwuchs das Projekt der Europäischen Union. Dieses Projekt ist nicht abgeschlossen. Ich bin überzeugt, dass die Europäische Union ein Raum des Friedens, der Freiheit und des Wohlstands ist und weiterhin sein kann. Es ist ein historisches Ereignis, dass die Staaten und Völker der Europäischen Union die Gewalt aus ihren Beziehungen verbannt haben. Es gibt nicht viele Regionen auf der Welt, wo wir dasselbe sagen können, wenn überhaupt eine.

Aber diese Europa ist unvollständig und verletzlich. Und es ist kompliziert. Das ist auch kein Wunder, wenn 28 hoch entwickelte Demokratien sich zusammentun und ein Drehbuch für ihr Zusammenleben schreiben, dann kann es nicht einfach sein und im Einzelnen nicht unbestritten sein. Aber die größte Gefahr sehe ich darin, sich von vermeintlich einfachen Antworten verführen zu lassen und dabei in Richtung Nationalismus und Kleinstaaterei zu kippen. Das kann schon gar nicht im österreichischen Interesse als im Weltmaßstab doch sehr kleiner Staat sein. Lassen wir uns nicht verführen. Lassen wir uns von der Arbeit an einem gemeinsamen Europa nicht abbringen. Die Erhaltung dieses Friedensprojektes ist aller Mühen wert.

Vielleicht ein paar Worte zu meinem Amtsverständnis. Es ist an und für sich – wie soll ich sagen – auf gut Österreichisch 'eh klar': Nämlich, dass ich nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen versuchen werde, nicht nur versuchen, sondern ich werde es sein, ein überparteilicher Bundespräsident, einer, der für alle Menschen in Österreich da ist. (...)

Ich hoffe, die gute Tradition der Zusammenarbeit mit allen politischen Institutionen und Verfassungsorganen sehr gut fortsetzen zu können, auch die Zusammenarbeit mit den Sozialpartnern, auch den Akteuren der Zivilgesellschaft mit ihren vielen Freiwilligen und den Religionsgemeinschaften, um gemeinsam immer wieder für die Erneuerung des gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalts in Österreich das Meinige dazu beizutragen.

Und selbstverständlich ist der Bundespräsident dazu berufen, Österreich nach außen würdig zu vertreten, zu versuchen Brücken zu bauen. Und ich glaube, eines der Fundamente dieses Brückenbauens ist auch die Neutralität. Diese außenpolitische Tradition in Europa und der ganzen Welt sollten wir beibehalten.

(...)

Also, Schlusswort: Mutig in die neuen Zeiten. Es lebe unsere friedliche europäische Zukunft und es lebe unsere Republik Österreich. Ich danke ihnen!

(via)

- - - - - - - - -

photographs via and via

Women's Suffrage in Switzerland

In 1886, women officially started claiming their right to vote in the Swiss city of Zurich. Decades passed and in 1959, the cantones of Neuenburg and Waadt agreed to introduce women's suffrage by a popular vote. In the 1960s, Geneva, Basel and Tessin followed, in 1970 Wallis and Zurich. In 1971, Switzerland attempted again to introduce women's suffrage on a national level, two thirds of men agreed. But it was only on 27 November 1990 that the last bastion, the Canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden, officially accepted women's suffrage, or rather, was forced to accept (via). Even today, Appenzell Innerrhoden is described as "tradition-conscious", as a canton easily being irritated by changes and new developments. Despite its lowest unemployment rate in Switzerland (i.e. 127 unemployed persons) and although only 1554 "foreigners" are living in the canton with a population of 16.000 inhabitants, populists worrying about "massive immigration" are quite successful (via).


Above: Man in Zurich distributing pamphlets and holding the message "The man = Head of Family. Hence 7 Feb No" on 5 February 1971, two days before women's suffrage was introduced at the federal level in Switzerland


Above: "Men-Brothers-Sons save/protect us from politics. Our world is our home and so it shall remain. Therefore NO to women's suffrage ... Female citizens who trust their husbands." Zurich, 1947


Above: "Not without suffrage", Zurich, 1959


Above: Roof in Zurich, a woman and two children prepare banners for the anniversary of women's suffrage


Above: "Henpecked husbands take revenge at the ballot box", Bern


Above: On 2 February 1966, women protest for the end of "men's dictatorship"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
photographs via and via and via and via and via and via

"And We Shall Overcome." From Selma to Montgomery.

The "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." 

15th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified on 3 February 1870



"The Fifteenth Amendment does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one. It prevents the States, or the United States, however, from giving preference, in this particular, to one citizen of the United States over another on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Before its adoption, this could be done. It was as much within the power of a State to exclude citizens of the United States from voting on account of race, &c., as it was on account of age, property, or education. Now it is not. If citizens of one race having certain qualifications are permitted by law to vote, those of another having the same qualifications must be. Previous to this amendment, there was no constitutional guaranty against this discrimination: now there is. It follows that the amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

The Court, 1876



The Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870 (with a clear limitation: the Court had held that the judiciary did not have the power to force states to register minorities to vote, via). Black US-Americans and other minorities, however, had to fight almost another 100 years for their right to vote which was officially gained with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (via). Voting started with the registration process which again started with an application form that was four pages long. Registering in the courthouse, which was open only every other Monday for a few hours, meant taking a day off. Taking a day off meant asking the employer for permission. And if white employers gave black employees permission to take a day off to register they were driven out of business (via). In 1963, for instance, 32 black school teachers applied to register as voters. All of them were immediately fired by the all-white school board (via). The few hours the registration office was open, the board arrived late and took long lunches (via).




In addition, tactics such as physical intimidation, i.e., violence organised by the Ku Klux Klan, poll taxes, the grandfather's clause and literacy tests kept voting "a white thing". The tax had to be paid in order to vote while the grandfather's clause allowed adult men "whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax" (via). In other words, those whose ancestors had been allowed to vote before the Civil War had the right to vote - practically no black person. In fact, the grandfather's clause was a very effective tool to prevent poor and illiterate black US-Americans from voting without denying poor and illiterate white US-Americans the right to vote (via). Many counties had a "voucher system" which meant that black persons needed a registered voter who vouched under oath that they met the qualifications. White persons did not dare vouch for black persons and black persons did not have the possibility (via). At the time protesters were marching through Lowndes County during the Selma to Montgomery Movement in March 1965, 81% of the county's population was black, 19% was white. Not a single black person was registered to vote at that time (via).



Between August 1964 and July 1965 there were about 100 different so-called literacy tests in order to make sure that applicants could not study for them (via). Last year, Harvard students took the 1964 Louisiana Literacy Test (30 questions in 10 minutes) black voters had to pass before being allowed to vote. Not one of the "bright Ivy League minds" passed the test. According to their tutor Miller, "Louisiana’s literacy test was designed to be failed. Just like all the other literacy tests issued in the South at the time, this test was not about testing literacy at all. It was a legitimate sounding, but devious measure that the State of Louisiana used to disenfranchise people that had the wrong skin tone or belonged to the wrong social class."  The test was designed in a manner that every question could be interpreted as wrong (via).

- Here is the Louisiana Literacy Test: link
- Here is the test used by voting rights pioneer Rufus A. Lewis: link



On 7 March 1965, the day that made history as "Bloody Sunday", about 600 protesters gathered in the little town of Selma, Alabama, to march 87 km / 54 miles to the state capital in Montgomery. The County Sheriff had ordered all white males in Dallas County over the age of 21 to report to the courthouse to be deputised. The protest "went according to the plan until the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge (...) where they found a wall of state troopers and county posse waiting for them on the other side" (via). Edmund Pettus Bridge has, by the way, become a symbol, "a landmark that holds so much significance for the civil rights movement" that civil rights activists believe it is time to change the name of the bridge into "Freedom Bridge" or "Bridge to Hope" and therefore started a petition which is, by the way, not far away from its 150.000 signature goal. The reason why is that Edmund Pettus was a Grand Dragon of Alabama's Ku Klux Klan (via).
Update (March 2017): 189.490 persons signed the petition on change.org, the bridge has kept its name (via).


Photograph: Singing "We Shall Overcome" in front of Brown Chapel in Selma (James H. Barker/Steven Kasher Gallery, via)

On 9 March, Martin Luther King, Jr. led a second march to Edmund Pettus Bridge, the place where the first one had ended with police and troopers brutality (dogs, fire hoses, bullwhips, tear gas, batons, and rubber tubing wrapped in barbed wire) (via). This second march is also referred to as "Turnaround Tuesday" because the marchers turned back after crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
After a nationwide call for supporters, on 21 March, the third and final march started with about 8000 people assembling at Brown Chapel (via). Protesters marched through chilling rain and camped overnight. On 24 March, a "Stars for Freedom" rally was held, with Harry Belafonte, Sammy Davis, Jr., Joan Baez, Tony Bennett, Nina Simone, Frankie Laine, Odetta and Pete Seeger, Johnny Mathis, Anthony Perkins, Mike Nichols, Elaine May, Shelley Winters, Ruby Dee, Nipsey Russell, George Kirby, and Peter, Paul and Mary (via and via). Among the ones who had completed the entire walk and helped other volunteers to erect and break down the tents for camping were Pernell Elvin Roberts (Bonanza) and Gary Merrill (All About Eve) (via). The march ended five days later at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery with a petition for Governor Wallace. More than 25.000 people were there (via).




"Let us march on ballot boxes until race-baiters disappear from the political arena. Let us march on ballot boxes until the salient misdeeds of bloodthirsty mobs will be transformed into the calculated deeds of orderly citizens. Let us march until the Wallaces of our nation tremble away in silence."
Martin Luther King



There had been a great many attempts to gain voting rights before the Selma Voting Rights Movement. Many lost their lives, many were arrested.
The Selma to Montgomery Marches led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. on 6 August. This time, to really enforce the voting rights of minorities.

"Even if we pass this bill, the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause, too, because it is not just Negroes but really it is all of us who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome." President Lyndon Baines Johnson, speech in front of Congress

::: Selma to Montgomery March, film (17 minutes) by Stefan Sharff: WATCH



- photographs: first two ones by James Karales (1930-2002) via and via and Joan Baez with line of state police by Stephen Somerstein via and "Folk singers performing in front of 25,000 Selma to Montgomery civil rights marchers in front of the Alabama State House. Harry Belafonte, Leon Bibb, Joan Baez and Oscar Brand. On March 25, 1965 in Montgomery, Alabama. (descr. via)" via and "The actor and civil rights ativist Harry Belafonte smiles broadly while marching with National Urban League director Whitney Young (1921 - 1971) and NAACP executive secretary Roy Wilkins (1901 - 1981), from Selma to the state capital of Montgomery, Alabama, March 1965. The actress Ina Balin is partly visible over Young's right shoulder (descr. via)" via and "Artist sketching Selma to Montgomery civil rights marchers at City of St. Jude school grounds. On March 25, 1965 in Montgomery, Alabama." via and "Martin Luther King with others via and via and Martin Luther King from the rear speaking in front of 25.000 civil rights marchers at the conclusion of the Selma to Montgomery march in front of Alabama state capital building on 25 March 1965 in Montgomery" by Stephen Somerstein via and "Demonstrators, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., stream over an Alabama River bridge at the city limits of Selma, Ala., on March 10, 1965, during a voter rights march (descr. via)" via and "Marchers cross the Alabama River on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma on March 21, 1965" via and Bloody Sunday via and of police line by Flip Schulke via; all copyrights by their respective owners
- Alabama Voter Literacy Test, Parts B and C: link