Yes, there is a hierarchy in an egalitarian ethos.

And let’s hold it right there.

The blog has repeatedly raised our caste system and the inherent hierarchy that undermines nation-building. 

Yet, there is a hierarchy in an egalitarian ethos. For example, leadership isn’t solely downward; it can be horizontal and even upward.

Consider: The story of creation and this universe isn’t a binary concept, best exemplified by the photosynthesis phenomenon’s ecosystem.

How do we navigate this seeming contradiction? Enter: “cognitive development.”

Let’s start with something out of the left field. But not to worry, we will pull things together.

Try the US Constitution.

And in more ways than one, the US Supreme Court added fuel to the fire, although justices are known to have frustrated the working assumptions of the appointing political parties. Unsurprisingly, its approval rating is down to 40%, a new low.

“As might be expected, those who see the court’s ideology as too far left or too far right are less likely to express confidence in the institution and to approve of the job it is doing. Those two groups hold nearly identical views of the court, with just one in three saying they are confident in it and fewer than one in five approve of how it is handling its job.

“Americans’ opinions of the Supreme Court are now the worst Gallup has measured in its polling on the institution over the past two-plus decades.” [“Approval of US Supreme Court Down to 40%, a New Low,” Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup, 23rd Sep 2021]

Consider how the US Constitution has evolved:

“Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution’s operation on 4th Mar 1789. Twenty-seven of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution.

“The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

“The required number of states has not ratified six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states.” [Wikipedia]

But that is not all. “Lincoln Broke Our Constitution, and Then He Remade It,” Noah Feldman, The New York Times, 2nd Nov 2021; he is a professor at Harvard who specializes in constitutional law, is the author of a new book on Abraham Lincoln.]

“The ‘moral’ Constitution made possible by Lincoln’s defiance of the Constitution of 1787 has too often been thwarted. About a decade after the ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments, the segregation and disenfranchisement of Black Southerners betrayed the moral Constitution. It took Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the modern civil rights movement to start redeeming the promise of Lincoln’s new Constitution.

“Persistent inequality still afflicts the United States, including inequality before the law of the kind the moral Constitution prohibits. The reality is that Lincoln’s moral Constitution, like all constitutions, is not an endpoint but a vow of continuing effort. We define our national project and strive to achieve it through that Constitution, even if we never fully succeed.

“The true maker of the Constitution we have today is not one of the founders at all, and it’s Abraham Lincoln.

“Lincoln fatally injured the Constitution of 1787. He consciously and repeatedly violated core elements of that Constitution as they had been understood by nearly all Americans of the time, himself included.

“Through those acts of destruction, Lincoln effectively broke the Constitution of 1787, paving the way for something very different to replace it. What began as a messy, pragmatic compromise necessary to hold the young country together was reborn as an aspirational blueprint for a nation based on the principle of equal liberty for all.

“Today, when the United States is engaged in a national reckoning about the legacies of slavery and institutional racism, the story of Lincoln’s breaking of the Constitution of 1787 is instructive. It teaches us not only that the original Constitution was deeply compromised, morally and functionally, by its enshrining of slavery, but also that the original Constitution was shattered, remade, and supplanted by a project genuinely worthy of reverence.”

What do people call American hypocrisy? “Through that Constitution, we define our national project and strive to achieve it, even if we never fully succeed.”

Question: What undergirds America that is – wittingly or not – consistent with the character of (a) the creation story and (b) this universe?

Answer: They are (a) dynamism and (b) the continual struggle for interdependence – aka egalitarian ethos.

Sadly, that struggle is not about to cease and can worsen if politics blind the nation to the North Star, i.e., the common good. In other words, it is not the ideology of either the left or the right that defines the nation.

And that explains why the Supreme Court’s approval rating is a low 40%, the worst ever reported by Gallup. 

Even worse is the embrace of an alternative universe, which means that America can’t even come to terms with an expression of the common good. 

And that is undermining its ability to lead the world as the hegemon. It was that leadership that made America great following WWII. But if it cannot put its own house in order, it has no claim to such “leadership.”

Recall how FDR responded to Churchill and stepped up to the plate – to save Europe and the world. And how Kennedy preempted WWIII in the Cuban missile crisis.

And to reinforce the values of the free world, America worked to revive the economies not only of Western Germany but Japan too. And again led the world to rebuild Vietnam, and earlier reached out to China and committed money and technology to lift its people from poverty – and then some. China is now an economic and military rival.

The saving grace for America – but it must find the “right” leadership; Biden appears incompetent to turn the ship around – is China is not yet sophisticated enough to take over such global leadership. It is still closer to binary thinking in its cognitive development, and this universe demands a much savvier nation to be the next hegemon.

And it presupposes embracing an egalitarian ethos. Why? 

Great collective minds are a product of free minds — as in dynamism. On the other hand, finite milieus generate finite minds and finite thinking. For example, not Mao’s cultural revolution but Deng’s pragmatism — i.e., he was beyond “binary thinking” — catapulted China into an economic power. And it is Xi’s authoritarianism that could stumble him.

Closer to home, recall how we applauded Duterte’s war on drugs — because it will keep our children and neighborhoods safe. Unsurprisingly, we can’t figure out why freedom-loving nations saw us as a pariah. And we wonder why we can’t attract FDIs? Why does the blog keep raising our lionizing of oligarchy?

There will always be bad players, but the free world through its collaborative efforts has upended despotic regimes. And won’t support with FDIs? And we want to elect Marcos and Duterte? 

Where is Philippine media? Don’t we pride ourselves on our commitment to freedom?

Why are we the regional laggard? 

Our caste system nourishes and perpetuates our instincts: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

In other words, we are yet to internalize that a caste system is a finite milieu and generates “finite thinking.” Why can’t we learn from and benchmark against our neighbors – that keep learning and benchmarking from each other?

For example, after Singapore had topped the US in the competitiveness rankings, it won’t be surprising if Vietnam follows suit.

Did I hear why I can speak to Juan de la Cruz and our instincts a few times despite being an expatriate relocating out of the Philippines over three decades ago? But I can also address Uncle Sam and former Soviet satellite countries – where I have spent most of the past roughly twenty years.

In other words, I found myself walking right through the histories of these settings. And they provided a quick study, experience being the best teacher. And they were supplemented by my visiting and working across all continents, including cultures.

And these experiences were not superficial but pretty engaging, down to the gut levels. Try doing business restructuring where the future of businesses and people’s careers are on the line.

Let’s hold it right there.

In the egalitarian ethos, “leadership” is not characterized by the “swivel-chair syndrome.” In other words, there is no “assistant to the assistant” where there are layers upon layers of bureaucracy. It is hands-on. Leadership doesn’t merely intellectualize decisions, and they come down to the guts. There is a price to pay.

I did not only put together the idea of investing in China, but I also had to negotiate the joint venture for my old MNC-company. And saw through the progress of the project until it was up and running. Those familiar with the blog may recall that the Chinese General Manager’s first thing upon completing the facility was to invite me to the cafeteria. And his pride was oozing.

I had spoken to him before that we could not keep the way they operated the old cafeteria; I had asked him to take a video camera when I invited him to visit New York. And he had a wide grin when I brought him to our cafeteria at the corporate offices on Park Avenue in midtown Manhattan. “This is the benchmark of a cafeteria and is how our Chinese cafeteria will look like.”

And his response, “I will play this video when I’m back in China. And I promise you, ours will be as good if not better.”

And when he later showed me the one in China, he asked, “Is this not better than the one you have in New York?”

That anecdote — coupled with how our Chinese partners mirrored the Deng doctrine — is a microcosm of how China tapped and accumulated such vast knowledge and technology from the rest of the world.

I had a front-row seat and witnessed how China grew and dwarfed the world.

The moral of the story: Recall that the blog keeps distinguishing freedom and democracy from authoritarianism.

See above; finite milieus generate finite minds. Why are we today scratching our heads? After kicking out the US military, China began its WPS adventurism. On the other hand, despite the insults from Trump, wealthy Germany is not about to let go of the US military from their shores.

How should the free world conduct itself in today’s world?

Recall that freedom and the free market are not about rules but principles.

Recall too the character of this universe, i.e., dynamism and interdependence. And that means collectively stepping up to the plate and addressing the world’s problems – from the pandemic to reviving the global economy to climate change, among others.

And that’s why the US if it is to remain the hegemon, must lead the free world in the pursuit of these mind-blowing challenges.

To those familiar with the blog, it is about forward- and lateral thinking. It is in “reflection” mode, not “reflex” mode, which is counterintuitive and why experience matters and those modes are opposing elements.

Consider: Even in Eden, Satan was present. That is an excellent lesson in internalizing that two opposing elements can be the two sides of the same coin. And as profoundly, perfection is not of this world. 

See above; Kennedy preempted WWIII. But Johnson and Bush concocted bogus wars.

And it brings another learning, the science of “thinking.” That logical thinking is not the be-all and end-all – because it is linear and yields incremental outcomes. The other side of the coin is forward- and lateral thinking.

And that beyond rote learning is associative learning or creative or critical thinking.

Unsurprisingly, Steve Jobs – at Yale, they offer a course to figure out what made Jobs, Einstein, and a few others stand head and shoulders above the rest of us – defined creativity as “connecting the dots,” including disparate fields. And as he acknowledged, it is a function of experience. [And if it is not apparent yet, the blog has introduced disparate areas – of disciplines and bodies of knowledge – over the years.]

The bottom line is that I can speak to Juan de la Cruz and our instincts and address Uncle Sam and former Soviet satellite countries – where I have spent most of the past roughly twenty years – because of experience. 

For example, why did I not spoon-feed my Eastern European friends when they had zero experience in freedom and the free market? How often has the blog said that liberty and the free market are not about rules but principles?

And in the case of the Philippines, I even worked for a Philippine oligarchy. But look at us, especially the Philippine elite and chattering classes. We don’t suffer from a lack of “kuro-kuro,” yet we are the laughingstock of the region – because we pull rank and rely on our standings in the caste system.

In fairness, Bernie Villegas, a preeminent Filipino economist, has acknowledged that we blew it.

Experience. Experience. Experience.

And the CEO of my old MNC-company demonstrated it. And my bosses in the Philippines too. In short, the environment immersed me in this seeming contradiction.

And when I was in New York, we developed courses like “Managing with respect,” part of the effort to make up for the shortcomings in US higher education.

At one point, I was doing business restructuring, and I had to manage the contradiction. And the CEO would grill me: “Our values of caring, global teamwork, and continuous improvement aren’t platitudes. How will you respond to the media? How should I respond?” He knew my materials included a Q&A section, yet he took the matter personally.

Many years later, the wife and I were chatting with a priest. He had heard where I had worked, and he related that his brother was the union president in our once New Jersey factory. “And you must be proud. You know what, my brother – who is retired – and sister-in-law were on holiday in Germany. And my brother fell ill and was taken to a local hospital. My sister-in-law showed the insurance card issued by your company, and presto, he had the best medical care and attention in a foreign land.”

[Here is a quick aside: Why do you think I have no respect for US politics? And Trump demonstrated its negatives in spades. And even more recently, an article at Inc. magazine confirmed that the recent slew of job turnovers in the era of the pandemic in the US is not because people want to leave companies but their managers.]

Let’s get to the Philippines and why it is in a downward spiral – with Juan de la Cruz paying a heavy price.

Sadly, our value of hierarchy and paternalism can only keep us sinking deeper into the abyss. See above; finite milieus generate finite thinking.

Of course, we need leadership to lead the way. But an egalitarian ethos is not as restrictive — or finite.

And why the blog addressed our discipline of economics, our economic managers, our think tanks, and even our tycoons. They can all show the way to Juan de la Cruz.

But that means confronting our instincts – which Rizal already did over a century ago.

He who loves tyranny submits to it.

For example, charity-giving cannot be our reflex action to overcome poverty.

We cannot rely on our standings in the caste system to turn a blind eye to the plight of Juan de la Cruz.

It is about the common good.

Recall why the blog picked on an editorial that dissected our money needs but did not recognize (a) where and (b) how we will generate the revenues for these endless needs. It is not rocket science, but an equation has two sides.

And it is insanity to keep to a metric that has failed us, i.e., a 6%-7% GDP growth rate. 

We need more than intellectualize the plight of Juan de la Cruz, and we must take it down to the gut levels. That’s why the blog has posed the challenge of thinking $200 billion in additional GDP to trigger the “reflection” mode.

From the intellectual level, we get down to the “real world.”

The wife and I can only shake our heads every time our plane lands at NAIA. What a friend from New York saw 40 years ago is the same poverty that we see.

This country is in a downward spiral – because we let the nation down.

We don’t have the experience in nation-building that our neighbors have – that they gained by learning from each other. 

Let’s pause and ponder. 

These neighbors keep learning and benchmarking from each other, and they can only keep leaving us behind.

Yes, there is a hierarchy in an egalitarian ethos despite its seeming contradiction.

And that means we can lead – and show Juan de la Cruz – the way.

Gising bayan!