Garry Kasparov's Blog, page 38

“Democracy and innovation Garry Kasparov on the need to improve our politics with technology | Economist | 10/12/2020

Democracy, like digital innovations, can be more agile, faster—and better.

Oct 12th 2020

BY GARRY KASPAROV

READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE AT THE ECONOMIST

TECHNOLOGY RACES ahead, propelled by scientists and engineers, giant companies and public investment. Society rushes to embrace it without a plan, just market forces and the insatiable human desire for newer, faster, better. Politics, in contrast, still plods along. At a time when democratic institutions around the world are fraying, the mechanisms of politics—from gauging public opinion to finding compromises and voting—seem unable to adapt to the changes in modern life.

solution is to borrow from the ethos of technological progress and instil innovation into our democracy and political processes, so that they keep up with the demands of the times. With imagination, effort and care, we can upgrade our political systems with technology to improve them.

all, democracy is in crisis. Having watched the death of Russian democracy up close, I know it is not enough to have a well-designed system on paper. Nor is it enough for people to believe in it, as important as that is to engage citizens so they take their civic responsibilities seriously. Democracy has enemies, wreckers who will undermine and destroy it for their own gain. Dark money, voter suppression, conflicts of interest—these are challenges enough, without even mentioning outside interference and outright fraud.

Populism was surging before the pandemic. But covid-19 exacerbates social and economic pressures, exposes government dysfunction and turns citizens’ frustration into rage. People vent their anger online and in the streets. Demagogues and radicals exploit that anger while traditional parties and moderate views founder. Lies and attacks get more attention than co-operation and compromises that would improve the greater good. People are divided into hyper-partisan tribes, self-exiled into information silos and increasingly see fellow citizens as the enemy.

These problems are worsened by digital technology. The internet did to politics what it did to everything else: accelerated and decentralised it. Political polling, advertising and fundraising have become faster and highly targeted. Yet the shift wasn’t so dangerous until the arrival of social media. As everyone trumpets their views, they form groups around their opinions, which encourages tribalism.

When the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset wrote “The Revolt of the Masses” in 1929, he was looking back at the collapse of the world order after the first world war. The old establishment in many countries was pushed aside by new radical movements, from fascists to communists, who promised action at all costs—and delivered horrors.

We aren’t at that point yet. Society is less prone to extremism than it may seem when scrolling through a newsfeed. Research shows that there is public willingness to agree and to compromise, especially when it comes to local and personal issues like schools, crime and health care. This reflects a “silent majority” of moderates. It helps that local politicians have to get things done, instead of spending their time fundraising and attacking opponents on television and social media.

Some believe that since political processes are so delicate, and every new technology entails hidden threats, it is better to make the gentlest of tweaks to our political practices rather than overhaul them. But I take the opposite view. Politics is too important not to change, not to take risks when it is failing us so badly.

We need to experiment with solutions to rejuvenate the political centre, harnessing the same technological innovations that more commonly divide people. If not, the cycle of extremism and discord will continue. Of course there is no digital magic wand. And my expertise is in diagnosing ailing democracies; I don’t come with a tidy plan for how to restore them to health. However three reforms give a sense of the sorts of changes we need to strengthen democracy.

First is “advisory voting”. It is a virtual town square that allows citizens to turn public opinion into a politically tangible thing. It can scale down to the province, state or city level, letting people debate and vote about the issues that interest them most. Fringe candidates and extreme positions often dominate conversation online but fail at the ballot box—a comforting fact, but one that is becoming less true all the time.

Advisory voting offers the advantages of digital deliberation without the heat. It is open to all citizens, topics are proposed by the people, and the votes provide a lens into public opinion to inform policy. But because people are identified and need to participate in order to vote, there is goodwill in discussions, not just anonymous online anger. Even The Economist celebrates one form, citizen assemblies, that have proven effective in Ireland, Spain, Taiwan and elsewhere.

To support advisory voting, governments can create an official body to manage it—the town hall for the digital era. It would have verified accounts and be transparent, nonpartisan and not-for-profit. Eventually, formal government petitions, that typically rely on signatures on paper, could move onto the platform—making them easier and more responsive. Most developed countries already possess the building blocks for this, from driving licences and passports to social-security numbers. It would mark a powerful evolution in supporting democracy to bring those old record-systems up to digital speed to enhance the political process.

Another mechanism to enhance democracy is to foster issue-based coalitions of politicians aligning across party lines. There used to be right-left alliances on national security, for example, or social liberals who were fiscal conservatives, and vice versa, allowing for compromise and bipartisan policies. It is something nearly unimaginable today in America and elsewhere. Adhering to rigid party ideology leaves moderates in fear of challenges from radicals in their own party, should they dare join forces with members of the other.

Hence, instead of striving for a potential third or fourth party to provide more political choice, we need more fluid groupings that put issues and results over any party at all. Technology can be used to identify common issues and form coalitions that have wide public support, in the spirit of Kickstarter campaigns but for policies. For example, environmental issues are associated with the left and pro-business policies with the right—but that misses how companies have reoriented themselves around green industry.

Political coalitions could form to fuse such goals. But it requires an open mechanism for political preferences to be expressed. This is especially important at the local level, which can be a centre of gravity for moderation and compromise. It would help citizens move beyond decaying political parties that represent so many things that they barely represent anyone. Competition for office and power based on parties will remain, but publicly uniting on common ground would push policies towards the mainstream. We want our politics to align with the majority of voters, not the plurality of angry tweets.

Finally, there is election turnout. Making it as easy as possible to vote is an underestimated lever to improve politics (though it isn’t underestimated by those who try to make it harder). Online voting isn’t as easy as it looks. There are prerequisites like national digital IDs that are unpalatable in some countries. Yet eventually, the option for online voting with simpler registration should become a regular feature of elections.

Not going to the polls, be it online or in line, is a luxury we can no longer afford. The more than 100m Americans who didn’t vote for the president in 2016, representing 44% of the electorate, outnumber the votes cast for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Coming from the former Soviet Union, a totalitarian state, I’m hesitant to endorse mandatory anything. But if these digital reforms don’t spur greater political participation, and if people continue to disdain voting voluntarily, the case for compulsory voting gets stronger.

The central point is not that these specific reforms are the right ones: it’s that we need to be open to reforming politics generally—and that we can imagine and invent the improvements. Though technology is a crucial component, the real solutions must come from the human end of the equation. We must begin the hard work of restoring trust in our institutions. We have seen how good the digital world is at tearing things down. It’s time to see if it can also build things up.

______________

Garry Kasparov is the founder of the Renew Democracy Initiative and the chairman of the Human Rights Foundation. He was the 13th world chess champion.

We must break the fever: After this week, defeating Donald Trump is only more imperative | NY Daily News Op-ed | October 4, 2020

by Garry Kasparov

READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE AT THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Last Thursday night, President Trump added a new entry to the long list of tests he has failed as the leader of the United States: a COVID-19 test. Trump’s news came as a shock, but not as a surprise. He and his administration have downplayed the seriousness of the virus from the beginning, flouting basic precautions. Even worse, this disregard for the safety of others was itself contagious and spread like wildfire through thousands of Republican officials and millions of supporters across the country. The catastrophic American response to the coronavirus has not been a technical matter, not a lack of expertise or resources. It has been an act of sabotage to pretend that a virus with no vaccine or cure could be bluffed and bullied and wished into submission.

Trump’s bravado has now reaped its consequences in the White House, and positive tests are coming back from all over the administration and among supporters who have been in close contact in recent days. This localized flare-up confirms that one serious preexisting condition for COVID can be foolishness. Perhaps Trump’s inner circle forwent an ambitious federal coronavirus response because they judged it to be worse for blue states and the cities that house the liberals, the poor and the people of color they deem expendable. But in the political demographic, Republican leadership suffers most. Trump will not repay any pity. Should he recover without a serious case, he will happily continue to downplay the disease that has killed more than 200,000 Americans. It’s hopeless to talk about worst-case scenarios in 2020 or with Trump — they both effortlessly surpass every attempt. That said, Trump leaving his sickbed to tout his invulnerability in the final weeks of a presidential campaign is a script that would terrify even Stephen King.

It will also overshadow the many consequential items we were all worried about before Trump announced his diagnosis. This is an effect of the “crisis every day” model of governance that I warned about when Trump was inaugurated. There is no need for a chess master’s strategy or planned distractions when the natural state of the environment around Trump is chaos. It will require tremendous strength to stay focused on what matters most in the coming month — and months, since Trump will stay in power until Jan. 20 even if he loses on Nov. 3. Tuesday’s presidential debate was several years ago at the speed of today’s news cycle, and that suits Trump fine. His blustering aggression was in keeping with his image, a performance that will only satisfy his most ardent fans. Anyone who liked Trump’s debate theatrics already loved him — and loved him for all the reasons he is such a terrible president and terrible person. The egocentricity, the personal attacks, the constant disruptions that even an experienced journalist like Chris Wallace felt helpless to prevent.

As he did throughout his business life and has with the U.S. government itself, Trump shredded the rules and defied anyone to stop him or make him pay a price for doing it. He didn’t care about the impression he made at the time, only to make a few clips that will play well in an endless loop on Fox News. We didn’t learn anything from the debate that we didn’t already know. This isn’t so unusual with modern political debates, but now the trenches are truly dug deeply, and Americans must begin the process of digging out. When political tribalism is so strong, the issues barely matter at all, only my side and your side. The first televised debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960 are notable not just because they famously showcased JFK’s youthful vigor and Nixon’s sweaty makeup job. Their platforms were very different, but they spoke often of how they shared goals for American prosperity and leadership. They differed on the means, but the ends were not much in conflict. Today, that feeling of a shared mission that would include every American is gone. Trump won’t even agree to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose next month — something that coincides ominously with new polls showing more Americans see violence as an acceptable means to achieving political ends, a jump from 8% to 33% in just three years.

Flouting norms and laws is just business as usual for Trump, as his newly revealed tax returns prove. The real scandal wasn’t even the $750 he paid in taxes in 2017, it’s that he’s in so much debt he’s the ideal target of any kind of influence operation, as long suspected. Someone with that much leverage over him and his family shouldn’t be allowed to mow the White House lawn, let alone speak from the Rose Garden. Vladimir Putin, the Saudis and other dictatorships that work like mafias are always on the lookout for vulnerable companies and business owners they can use to launder their looted billions and to gain influence in the free world. Trump’s fawning over Putin and Mohammed bin Salman would make a lot more sense if they own more of his assets than he does.

Meanwhile, Putin is working hard to get Trump reelected, and Trump is, to quote his former national security adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster, “aiding and abetting Putin’s efforts.” That would be a devastating bombshell in any other administration in U.S. history, but in Trumpworld it barely makes the top 10 scandals of the week. Speaking of aiding and abetting, the GOP, the “law and order” party, is content to ignore these daily outrages. They are now preparing to rush through the nomination and confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s choice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. The Republican control of the Senate means they may achieve this, despite their hypocrisy after blocking President Obama’s nominee in the last year of his presidency. The defense by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Ted Cruz and other Trump enablers is that pushing Barrett through at all speed is constitutional. Not that it will reflect the will of the American people, or the traditions surrounding the highest court in the land, but simply that it’s legal.

The Democrats can then counter with their own “constitutional” moves if they take back control of the Senate and the White House, like adding two more seats to the court and appointing liberal justices to restore the balance. As with rushing Barrett through now, this would be legal. And, as with McConnell’s power play, it would be bad for the government and the country, perpetuating a downward cycle of destroying norms in the pursuit of power. Trump is an incompetent buffoon, and could never make any progress without enablers like Cruz and Attorney General Bill Barr. They aren’t ignorant yes-men or brutish ideologues. They channel Trump’s base instincts and vile self-interest into a constitutional framework to suit their own interests. They understand the damage they are doing, and the risk Trump represents; they just don’t care as long as they can benefit from it in the meanwhile.

To avoid a retaliatory race to the bottom, the Democrats should stand on principle now. They should tell McConnell that they will pack the court if he goes through with ramming the Barrett nomination through. They have to say it now, and should boycott the confirmation hearings if McConnell goes forward. Barrett’s qualifications and background are not the issue; it is the legitimacy of the moment and the man nominating her. Senators may have a duty to attend hearings, but their foremost duty is to defend the Constitution to which they swore an oath, not to serve as props in a charade. They should remember what a liberal lion of the court, Justice Earl Warren, once wrote: “It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive.”

Integrity and the spirit of the law matter because you can never put everything in writing. You cannot predict every loophole, every legal angle and challenge to common sense. There must be a place for norms and precedent and the integrity to uphold them in the public interest or we are lost. Yes, we must patch up the cracks and codify the customs and standards Trump has trampled, but that is not enough. Even repudiating Trump overwhelmingly at the polls will not be enough unless we deter those who would follow in his demagogue’s footsteps. That this White House and its congressional GOP enablers don’t believe in science has now been verified beyond any doubt. But I’m even more concerned about their lack of belief in the rule of law and integrity in American government. The health of American democracy is of far greater consequence than the health of Donald Trump.

Kasparov is the chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative.

“The poisoning of critic who exposed Putin regime’s corruption” | CNN Op-Ed | Aug 27, 2020

by Garry Kasparov

READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE AT CNN.COM

Garry Kasparov is the chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion at CNN.

(CNN)Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny was flown to Berlin Saturday morning. He was in a coma after suddenly falling ill on a flight from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow. Physicians in Berlin confirmed the poisoning of yet another Putin critic, and I very much hope not to lose another brave colleague in the fight against Putin’s deadly mafia regime.

Navalny came to prominence as an anti-corruption blogger, using investigation techniques and public documents to expose the incredible scale of looting perpetrated by Russia’s ruling elite. He went on YouTube with photos of the spectacular yachts and mansions owned by Russian politicians with modest salaries. Earlier this year, he said that the new prime minister and his family owned $45 million in properties, even as the Kremlin disputed the source of income. He branded Putin’s United Russia forever as “the party of crooks and thieves.”

This wasn’t the traditional model of opposition figures like Boris Nemtsov and me and our grand rhetoric about democracy and freedom. It was local and concrete—and it worked. The corruption theme struck a chord, especially with young Russians who never knew the Soviet Union and weren’t motivated by ideology. But they knew they were being ripped off, and they were empowered by Navalny and his team’s use of budget documents and investigative know-how to expose Putin’s gang for what they are. He brought a new, young crowd to our coalition movement’s a decade ago.


Of course, Navalny’s success and popularity put a target on his back, as well as everyone in his family and on his team. He exposed corruption, the lifeblood of Putin’s mafia. Navalny has been arrested over a dozen times, attacked with a chemical that left him with permanent eye damage, and his family’s bank accounts have been frozen. His brother was jailed in what was widely seen as a politically motivated case, his group’s offices are routinely raided, as are the homes of his staff, even those of their parents and in-laws. That’s how mafias work.




But Navalny avoided the worst, at least until now. He wasn’t jailed for the long sentences others suffered, or gunned down like prominent investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya and Boris Nemtsov. He didn’t fall out of a window like so many Russians seem to do—or go into exile like I did. The impression was that the Putin regime was wary of making a martyr of the popular Navalny, that they preferred to harass him and limit the damage.

That uneasy equilibrium ended in agony on Thursday, when Navalny fell violently ill. It may have been something in his tea, but Russian agents have great experience with various methods of delivering toxins. This is the way of dictatorships, of Putin’s in particular, of steady escalation. And please don’t insult my intelligence with theories about rogue elements in a KGB-style dictatorship who may be responsible. As with everything from election interference in the UK and US to a global assassination campaign, no one in Russia would risk attacking such a high-profile target without approval from the very top.

Nor was this a trivial operation. It required real-time information, resources and expertise. The heavy involvement of security forces at the Omsk hospital Navalny was first brought to also suggested direct regime involvement. The doctors initially refused to release him (the head doctor said Navalny was too unstable to be released), and Navalny’s personal doctor said she believed Russian authorities were trying to delay his departure long enough that it would be difficult to detect a substance in his system , which complicates both the patient’s treatment and the investigation into the attack. If the Omsk doctors participated in any unnecessary delaying tactics, they have much to answer for.

Perhaps Putin felt even more impunity than ever after the constitutional changes that confirmed his status as Russia’s eternal supreme leader. Why bother entertaining even token opposition at this point? Maybe Putin wanted to make a big statement in the face of the huge pro-democracy protests in neighboring Belarus, where he is backing his fellow dictator, Alexander Lukashenko. Perhaps he doesn’t think he will face consequences, as with his countless other actions. Dictators don’t stop until they are stopped.





But wondering why Putin might, do this, and why now, is a distraction from the brutal facts and his long track record. I’ve been asked many times, “If Putin is so terrible, why are you still alive, Garry?” My answer, as always, is that anyone asking such a question will simply move on and ask the same of another name, another critic, even if something did befall me. We know what Putin is and what he is capable of. So, don’t ask me or anyone else to explain what just happened to Alexey Navalny. Ask Putin.

And yet, western foreign policy experts and diplomats are still proposing new resets and engagement policies with Putin’s Russia. Last year, we were told that Russia’s return to the Council of Europe would be “good news for Russia’s civil society.” Earlier in the month, dozens of prominent names signed a letter proposing yet another “rethink” of America’s Russia policy after the disastrous Obama-era reset and Trump’s open sycophancy toward Putin. I’d certainly welcome a rethink if it would finally treat Putin’s mafia state like the rogue nation it has become—not one that would recognize Putin as a legitimate leader capable of being a reliable partner in resolving global problems.

Unless you live in a fantasy world in which dozens of critics of a ruthless dictator’s die horribly or fall gravely ill for no special reason, you might see Navalny’s condition as Putin’s response to all these pathetic entreaties. He will do what he wants, kill who he wants, and still expect the leaders of the free world to come back for more instead of isolating him and sanctioning him and his cronies into oblivion.



But he must be worried about the future. Joe Biden’s prompt and strong statement about the attack on Navalny stands out against days of silence from the Trump administration, which belatedly called for a full investigation by Russian authorities. (That is, instead of a full international investigation of the Russian authorities, which would actually be of use.) Putin and other dictators may well be rushing to carry out their to-do lists before someone less compliant sits in the Oval Office.

It cannot happen soon enough, and I pray it’s not too late for Alexey Navalny. In the span of a few months, Putin has confirmed his status as dictator for life and his leading critic has been poisoned. At a moment when everyone is supposed to be wearing face coverings, Putin has removed his mask once and for all.

“A Conversation with Garry Kasparov” | Foreign Correspondence Club | Aug 27, 2020

An exclusive FCC Zoom discussion with the former chess world champion and democracy campaigner, Garry Kasparov. 

We will be asking his views on a range of issues, including the geopolitical stakes in the upcoming U.S. election, his opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin, how he views China’s world role and the political situation in Hong Kong, his thoughts on artificial intelligence, and of course chess. Moderated by FCC vice-president, Eric Wishart.

 

“America’s Mission” | July 23, 2020

by Garry Kasparov

READ ORIGINAL POST AT PERSUASION.COM 

The United States is deeply imperfect. But the country and the world will pay a steep price if we allow its flaws to blind us to its achievements and its potential.

Here are a few of the maxims that describe the current political moment in the United States:

Compromise is weakness.


Flawed good is the same as evil.


The exceptions are more important than the rule.


Telling the whole story is so important that it is worth falsifying the plot.


The sins of the ideologically righteous matter not so long as we hunt for the sins of the wicked.

Under cover of these maxims, the fight against oppression is being hijacked by ideologues whose agenda is power, not justice. The extremes on both sides are uniting to fight the center. And an obsession with American greatness is obscuring the need for American goodness.

The current intellectual moment poses a serious threat to both freedom and justice. The American experiment has always been a mixture of mythology and achievement. It is good and necessary to keep pointing out the country’s flaws. But if we become incapable of recognizing its accomplishments and its potential, we risk throwing away the principles that make America as essential a model for the world as it has ever been.

America, the Adaptable

America’s real triumph has been its ability to adapt and change over the course of nearly two and a half centuries. The Founding Fathers did not come down from Mount Vernon holding the Constitution on stone tablets. They realized that they were fallible, and that their successors would be too. So they created an ingenious system to be run by imperfect human beings, not by an infallible god or monarch.

When they invented the constitutional republic from whole cloth, the Founders did something unprecedented: They created checks and balances, wrote the opposition into the government, and meticulously divided its powers and responsibilities. Then they complemented the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, a document that is all the more remarkable for focusing not on what the government is obliged to do for its citizens, but on what it may not do to its citizens.

Thus was launched the greatest nation on Earth.

From the very beginning, that nation was rife with injustices and contradictions—foremost among them the enslavement of millions and the bloody Civil War that set them free. But as the false idols of the Confederacy finally fall, let us not forget that those who fought to destroy it were also Americans. Let us remember the “willed moral progress” brought about by the slaves and free Blacks who would accept no compromise, only total emancipation. Together, they helped America do away with the hypocrisy of the Founders, bringing their noble words a giant leap closer to reality.

That is the American way. Lurching forward, always in the belief that better is possible because it has proven true for so long. And that is also the reason why millions of immigrants continue to flock to the country: Even as many of those who were born here adopt a mercilessly pessimistic attitude towards their own country, most immigrants continue to believe in the dream of 1776, the dream of the freedom to pursue yet more dreams.

The Danger of False Equivalence

The free world has always contained a large number of people who like to engage in the game of whataboutism. But it is only in the last few years that the drawing of false moral equivalencies has started to dominate the mainstream.

The far right is especially guilty of this. Neo-fascists talk about cultural and ethnic purity, not concentration camps. Trump and other defenders of the Confederacy talk about history and heritage, not slavery and treason. Their ends, not just their techniques, are malign—and they barely try to hide it. When you have power, you don’t feel the need to disguise your intentions.

On the left, the charge is coming in the name of the marginalized and the forgotten, from those who have never had the chance to inscribe their stories in the history books since they have never counted among the winners. After going unheard for so long, they understandably aren’t very concerned that others may be silenced by their fury. But even where history is in serious need of correction, the facts must still matter; otherwise, as George Orwell warned, our memory of the past will forever be determined by the forces that happen to prevail at any one moment.

Take the case of Thomas Jefferson. He is guilty of sins and failings we should make no effort to hide. But he was also one of the key inventors of the universal principles of liberty, helping to write the Declaration of Independence, the French Rights of Man, and the Virginia Statute (which formed the basis of our cherished First Amendment). We should honor Jefferson, like many others to whom we owe so much, despite his flaws.

This is not merely about the statues that some zealots propose to take down. Denunciations of Jefferson the man can quickly morph into disdain for the principles of freedom from which he brought a new nation to life. The jump from attacking the man to discrediting his works may be smaller than meets the eye.

The Founders were imperfect, as was the government they created, and as are all of us. But the system was designed to be improved upon by future generations. To do so is now our duty.

Beyond the Shining Seas

A similarly ambivalent argument applies to America’s place in the world. We must acknowledge the serious mistakes the free world—especially America as its putative flagbearer—has made along the road to deeper and broader liberalism. But that is no reason to pretend that America is morally equivalent to the evil forces that have always opposed those gains, and now seek to roll them back.

(I do not use the word “evil” lightly. There is no absolute good, for decent institutions always contain flaws, and evolve in a laborious process of trial and error. But evil—the disregard for the values of human life and individual freedom—is often clear and present. Where it is appropriate, we should not be afraid to use the term.)

If Americans don’t care about democracy and rights in the rest of the world, they won’t care much about those things at home, either. Conversely, if they no longer take pride in being American, what can the values of the American Revolution mean to the rest of the world?

History has always necessitated taking sides, something that requires defining what those sides are, however uncomfortable that makes us. That is another task now facing us: Trump’s autocratic rhetoric and his open adoration of dictators have stirred a renewed appreciation for democracies, and the alliance between them, among many Europeans and Americans. We cannot squander this opportunity, as I’m afraid these sentiments may not outlast Trump for long.

The best way to promote the advantages of liberalism and democracy is to clean up your own house and lead by example. But that alone is not enough. The open society we cherish has powerful enemies who are only encouraged by America’s retreat from the world—a retreat that began well before Trump started openly fawning over dictators. Millions around the world still hold the United States up as a beacon of hope and freedom, as my compatriots and I once did from behind the Iron Curtain.

We envied Americans because they had the power to make their lives and their country better, something entirely out of our grasp. Today, they are doing it again—in the streets and soon, I’m confident, at the ballot box. America should use that momentum to reassure the world that its fight for democracy and justice does not stop at the border.

Say What Is Right, Not Just What Is Wrong, With America

It’s not surprising that Trump, the talisman of the far-right, epitomizes the moral equivalence—“Well, you think our country is so innocent?”—that has, for decades, been a hallmark of the far-left. As horseshoe theory predicts, the extremes are often united in their opposition to the foundations of a free society. Much as they dislike each other, their real enemy is the moderate majority that, should it stand up for its values, can relegate them to the fringes, where they belong.

We have to be able to say what is right to fight effectively against what is wrong, and what is right about America is that it strives to adapt and improve in the pursuit of freedom and justice. If we do not believe that we are fighting for a better future, apathy will inevitably set in.

In 1774, Jefferson wrote that “the whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.” Since politicians, as a class, are routinely dismissed as dishonest, the importance of this statement has often been underestimated. But the graft of Warren Harding, the criminal machinations of Richard Nixon, and the moral failings of Bill Clinton all pale in comparison to the ceaseless mendacity of Donald Trump’s White House.

Under these conditions, it is easy to see why many Americans are losing patience. Too often, their leaders and institutions have betrayed their trust. When integrity cannot be taken for granted, the entire edifice of democracy begins to wobble. And when the system fails the people, the people understandably take to the streets. The question now is whether they will channel their energies into repairing the system by forcing a stagnant political system to make urgently needed changes—or whether they prefer to tear it all down.

To regain their trust, and lessen the dangerous appeal of nihilism, we must admit that American democracy now faces a deep crisis of integrity. The existing norms and regulations weren’t enough to rein in Donald Trump. Nor will they, most likely, be enough to contain the threat of Trumpism that will persist even if the president loses to Joe Biden in November.

Any effective action to reinfuse the American government with the art of being honest requires that the country deal with its demons, old and new. American lawmakers must stand up against the ingrained habits of lobbying and rent-seeking that have long dominated how politics is done in Washington. They must also get serious about confronting new threats like foreign-sponsored election hacking, dark money laundering and the exploitation of social media data.

But momentous though these tasks may now seem, we will be able to carry them out if we trust in America’s ability to adapt and thrive. Old values can deal with new threats. We must acknowledge the failures and patch the holes. We must center the truth in politics, media and public discourse. We must put caring for our fellow citizens ahead of the right not to.

Freedom From Fear

I look around my new home in the free world, deeply uncertain of the future.

Free speech is taken for granted or dismissed as an outmoded value. State censorship isn’t my biggest concern—despite Trump’s disgusting characterization of the press as an “enemy of the people,” one of Lenin’s favourite phases, you can still change the channel or subscribe to a newspaper that criticizes the president with abandon. But I’m a lot less sanguine about the health of public debate.

Largely driven by social media, that virtual embodiment of the mob, there has been a rush to expand the range of unacceptable opinion. A misplaced word won’t result in the KGB knocking on your door at midnight. But Twitter never sleeps.

The danger of a chilling effect on debate is why I was happy to sign the recent open letter in support of free speech and open debate. My name joined those of 150 authors and academics from the left and the right—including some with whom I would scarcely agree on any other major issue. Since being for free speech is a little like being against crime, the letter should hardly have been controversial; and yet it produced a veritable firestorm of hostility, largely validating its main thesis.

Ideas are made stronger by open competition, and from its adversarial system of government to Silicon Valley, no country has made better use of this than America. If people hesitate to speak because they might be accused of being impure and unworthy, and are afraid of losing their standing or even their employment, then the stagnation of our political institutions will soon find an echo in the intellectual and moral stagnation of our society.

Some ideas merit exclusion from civilized debate. I have no tolerance for intolerance of any kind, and a free society must protect itself from those who would destroy it from within or without. It is well and good for reprehensible ideas to be pilloried. But let us cancel the ideas, not the people who express them.

For fear is the greatest censor of all. And for America to overcome the many challenges that face it, and to play the role it was born to play, at home and abroad, Americans will have to enjoy both freedom of speech and freedom from fear.

Garry Kasparov is the chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative and the Human Rights Foundation. His latest books are  Winter Is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped  and  Deep Thinking: Where Machine Intelligence Ends and Human Creativity Begins . He is a member of  Persuasion ’s Board of Advisors.

What a Chess Grandmaster Can Teach You About Emotional Intelligence | INC. | June 30, 2020

READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE AT INC.COM

Garry Kasparov is regarded by many as the best chess player of all time.

At the age of 22, Kasparov earned the title of youngest world chess champion. He went on to break multiple records and dominated the world of competitive chess for 20 years, before retiring in 2005.

Kasparov’s an amazing chess strategist, but he’s also a brilliant thinker whose insights can be applied to the world of business, and really any type of decision making. This fact became strikingly clear to me as I recently took an online course from Kasparov, hosted by Masterclass.

Reflecting on the course, one lesson especially stands out. It has to do with Kasparov’s approach to mistakes and failure, and we can sum it up in a single sentence:

To truly improve at anything, you must get in the habit of analyzing your mistakes.

“If you want to understand how to get better, you have to look at exactly the moves you made, and find out the nature of your mistakes,” says Kasparov. “Learning about yourself is absolutely impossible without being a thorough analyst of your own games. And you have to be very honest. Brutally honest. Relentlessly honest.”

This absolutely rules out making excuses, says Kasparov, such as claiming a bad move was a result of someone speaking too loudly, or the way an opponent looks at you.

“[The] better you understand the nature of your mistakes,” says Kasparov, “[the] better your chances of making fast improvement.”

This lesson stood out, not only because it is useful in business strategy, but also because it is a major lesson in emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence and analyzing mistakes

Emotional intelligence is the ability to identify, understand, and manage emotions. I like to call it: making emotions work for you, instead of against you.

Kasparov’s advice is so sound because all of us make big mistakes from time to time, what Kasparov refers to as “blunders.”

The question is, what do you do after you’ve made a blunder?

The temptation is to dwell on the mistake and feel sorry for yourself, to fall into a pity party and revel in negative emotions. Or, you might tend to the opposite extreme: Unwilling to deal with negative emotions, you simply ignore your mistakes and go through life repeating them, over and over.

Neither of these approaches is healthy.

Instead, you should get in the habit of analyzing your mistakes. Not to continuously berate yourself for what you’ve done wrong, but rather to identify what you could change to keep this from happening again.

You can apply this to your own business or work life. The key is to use the negative emotion that results from the unwanted situation as a catalyst for change.

For example, Kasparov says the few times he suffered a loss, he would usually win the next day.

“I got really angry with myself,” says Kasparov. “And I could channel this anger into productive energy–to achieve a positive result.”

To illustrate, Kasparov recounts the story of the 1995 Classical World Chess Championship, where he defended his title against rival Viswanathan “Vishy” Anand. Kasparov and Anand drew eight games in a row. Then, Kasparov lost game nine to Anand.

The loss could have destroyed Kasparov’s confidence. Instead, it caused him to regain focus. He analyzed the loss and looked closely for mistakes he could address.

The result?

Kasparov won four of the next five games, eventually claiming the title.

So, the next time you commit a serious blunder, take some time to analyze it. Start by asking yourself the following questions:

Why did I react the way I did?

What may I have misunderstood or have gotten wrong, especially in the heat of the moment?

What would I change if I could do it again?

What could I say to myself next time that would help me think more clearly?

The goal of these questions is to engage your thinking process so you’re more adept at recognizing your emotional behavior and tendencies moving forward. You can then take action to change any damaging behaviors.

Don’t expect to fix it in one try. After all, “we’re all humans,” as Kasparov puts it.

“You still think about it,” he continues. “You cannot make [it] torture you forever … but it’s there. It’s normal human feelings about your own failure. I just knew that I have to live with that.

“And the best way to put it aside is to just prepare for the next game. Ideally, to win the next game. And then, you can just move on.”

“Hong Kong Is the Latest Battle for the Values of the Free World” | June 4, 2020

China’s crackdown on Hong Kong democracy demands a coherent international response.

by GARRY KASPAROV
JUNE 4, 2020 3:07 PM


READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE AT THE BULLWARK

Hong Kong is the new frontline in a clash of value systems—a clash about to be lost if the free world does not act immediately, robustly and in unity. Today is the 31st anniversary of China’s crushing of the democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square, an appropriate moment to sound the alarm about what is happening to Hong Kong.

Last Thursday in Beijing, the National People’s Congress—the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s sham pretense of a parliament—approved a national security law on Hong Kong which would decimate the city’s freedoms and autonomy and break China’s commitments under an international treaty. The resolution vote was nearly unanimous, of course, and thus real democracy in Hong Kong is set to be crushed by a mockery of democracy in Beijing.

When Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997, it was on the principle of “one country, two systems,” enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty lodged at the United Nations and signed by the former colonial rulers and the new ones. Hongkongers had no say in the deal—but they kept faith with the promise of a “high degree of autonomy” and “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong.”

For the first decade or so of Chinese rule the experiment largely worked and Hong Kong continued to be one of Asia’s freest, most open cities—in stark contrast to every other city in China. For 23 years it has been the only city in China to be able to commemorate the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre of June 4, 1989, for example. Today is the first time that vigil has been banned—although thousands of Hongkongers defied the ban to honor the victims and their cause.

In recent weeks we have seen a precursor of what is in store for Hong Kong, with the arrest of fifteen of the city’s most distinguished pro-democracy politicians, including the “father of the democracy movement,” Martin Lee. Under the new law, every activist, every reporter, every ordinary citizen who utters a word against Xi Jinping’s regime will be in danger, as is already the case in the rest of China.

Every non-democratic regime eventually has to choose between economic development and the power structure. Having determined that the democracy movement is too dangerous, Beijing is willing to kill the golden goose in order to bring Hong Kong’s vibrant citizenry to heel. Along with seizing its opportunity in the current crisis, Beijing also learned from the tepid global response to Vladimir Putin’s conquest of Crimea in 2014. China has far more geopolitical leverage than Russia and clearly doesn’t believe the international community has the will or ability to deter it from this latest crackdown. Now Xi Jinping will again watch and learn from the world’s reaction, with an eye on the South China Sea and, as ever, on Taiwan.

And yet what has the world done in the past week? There have been tepid words from Britain’s foreign secretary—even though Britain is a signatory to the treaty that has been brazenly flouted and has a moral obligation to defend its former colony. There have been more robust words from U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, but these days the Trump administration seems more interested in re-enacting Tiananmen Square in America than preventing its repeat in Hong Kong. And there has been a call for action by over 230 senior parliamentarians, former prime ministers and foreign ministers, and public figures from 25 countries, initiated by the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, which I am proud to have signed. But there is a need for more than just words.

For too long the free world has sold out to the Chinese Communists in pursuit of filthy lucre under the guise of a failed engagement policy. Hong Kong, and the over one million Uighur Muslims incarcerated in concentration camps in western China, are the casualties not only of the Chinese regime’s brutality but of Western appeasement.

So what now?

The free world must stop kowtowing to this mendacious, brutal regime whose duplicity led to a global pandemic with untold impact. There must be a coherent international response—bipartisan and multilateral. Britain—as the country with particular responsibility—should work to bring together like-minded allies across the world to coordinate a global response.

We should think about how the free world could collaborate to offer sanctuary for vulnerable, courageous frontline Hong Kong activists who will be in grave danger if this law is imposed. On Wednesday, U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson pledged to admit 2.8 million Hongkongers if China adopts the security law. It’s an admirable if belated move, but no one country can do this by itself, particularly during the global economic catastrophe caused by the pandemic. Surely it is not beyond the ability of democratic nations to coordinate a scheme to welcome Hongkongers in need of protection.

Magnitsky-style targeted sanctions against Chinese officials complicit in violating human rights in Hong Kong—and their family members enjoying the good life abroad—would be welcome, but are unlikely to be sufficient. Consideration must go to announcing the intention of recognizing Taiwan if China refuses to respect Hong Kong’s autonomy. Anything less will be shrugged off by Beijing as a price they are willing to pay. This would require the type of global leadership in support of values that has long been absent in the free world’s relationship with China—which is exactly how we reached this point.

The free world may have lost its appetite for deterrence since the end of the Cold War, but Beijing is already launching preemptive strikes. Massive new Chinese tariffs against Australia are a poorly disguised retaliation for Australia’s leadership in holding China accountable for covering up the COVID-19 outbreak. The CCP hopes its economic might will quiet its international critics the way its police silence domestic ones.

This is a battle between two contrasting visions of the future—freedom, openness, the rule of law and human rights, represented by the Hong Kong of yesterday, and deception and vicious repression, represented by the Chinese regime that seeks to impose its will on the Hong Kong of today. We must act, at least if we still believe in freedom half as much as the brave Hongkongers risking their lives for it.

Garry Kasparov
Garry Kasparov is the chairman of the Human Rights Foundation.

Garry on Lockdown | Avast Video Blog Series | July 9, 2020

Welcome to Garry on Lockdown, a new video series I’m making with experts from @avast_antivirus. And with you! We’re discussing crisis security, privacy, and much more.

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63)

EPISODE 1. June 4, 2020.

Special guest Avast CTO Michael Pechoucek joins Garry to discuss remote working, AI, and the controversy of being tracked.

Since the lockdown began, Avast Security Ambassador Garry Kasparov has been observing the world from his home in New York, noting the seismic shift in our work culture, our tech practices, and our day-to-day living. As the subjects of home cybersecurity risks and greater reliance on AI entered daily conversations, Garry saw the need for a forum where these topics could be discussed, aired out, and approached from a grounded, sensible angle. With nothing but time on his hands and a strong pull to connect with the community in his heart, “Garry on Lockdown” was born, a video series that addresses pressing technical questions at this unique moment in history.

Garry kicks off the series by packing his first episode with timely, important topics. The 30-minute video is divided into 3 sections – Garry’s thoughts, an interview with a special guest, and responses to viewers’ questions.

In the first section, Garry tackles the controversial topic of coronavirus tracking, which is best summed up by his simple statement, “The good news is that we can track anyone. The bad news is that we can track anyone.” He explores the question of where we should draw the line between privacy infringement and data for the greater good. He also discusses the surge of cyberattacks against telecommuters, the benefits of the Global Hack, and the right way to plan during this lockdown.

In the second section, Garry welcomes Avast CTO Michael Pechoucek for an eye-opening conversation that covers the security risks of working from home, the concept of universal basic income (UBI), the societal benefits of AI, the controversy of tracking, and more.

Garry answers viewers’ questions in the third section, responding to queries about authoritarianism, identity theft, digital hygiene, and – last but not least – a killer chess move.

EPISODE 2. June 22, 2020

Author and Lecturer Molly McKew joins Garry to explain misinformation, disinformation, and how to stem the flow of each.

Since it began, Avast Security Ambassador Garry Kasparov has been observing the world in lockdown from his home in New York. Noting the seismic shifts in our work cultures, tech practices, and day-to-day living, Garry soon saw the need for a forum where these topics could be discussed from a grounded, sensible angle. With nothing but time on his hands and a strong drive to connect with the community, “Garry on Lockdown” was born, a video series that addresses the pressing technical questions of this unique moment in history.

In the series’ second episode, Garry tackles the timely topic of misinformation. How do we stay safe and informed when the art of misleading the public and spreading lies has been so perfected? How do we know which sources to trust and which to avoid? Garry addresses these questions and more, providing his quick, handy tips for good digital hygiene.

A specialist on information warfare and propaganda, author and lecturer Molly McKew joins Garry to explain the difference between misinformation and disinformation. She and Garry delve into the proliferation of conspiracy theories, the role social media plays in that effort, and what the average person can do to retain truth and clarity through all the confusion.

Garry ends the episode by answering viewers’ questions and offering his guidance on how we can all survive this trying time with our priorities and our sanity intact.

EPISODE 3. July 9, 2020.

 

It’s the FREE SPEECH episode!

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh joins Garry to explain free speech in America at this unprecedented moment in history

Recently relocating from his Manhattan home to be with his family along the beautiful beaches of Split, Croatia, Garry Kasparov, Avast security ambassador and a leading industry voice on AI, continues his digital series on the issues influencing our lives both online and off.

In the third episode of “Garry on Lockdown,” Garry dives into the hottest topic of the moment – free speech! He explores whether or not there is a difference between First Amendment rights online versus First Amendment rights in the real world. And is it perfectly legal for businesses to make unsubstantiated medical claims about products that may or may not stop COVID-19? Can social media users post anything they want about the coronavirus, politics, and racism? Is Twitter infringing on free speech rights by adding disclaimers to President Trump’s tweets?

Garry provides some of these answers himself, and for the others he brings in special guest UCLA law professor (and former Supreme Court clerk) Eugene Volokh, creator of The Volokh Conspiracy blog. Together, Garry and the professor discuss the state of American free speech during this global pandemic, as well as what the major issues affecting it are. Click below for this grounded and informative conversation!

Do you have a question for Garry, or is there a topic you’d like a future episode to address? We’d love to hear from you! Please submit your question or comment to us on Twitter using #askGarry.

And now, without further ado, please enjoy Episode 3 of “Garry on Lockdown!”

 

Garry on Lockdown | Avast Video Blog Series | June 22, 2020

Welcome to Garry on Lockdown, a new video series I’m making with experts from @avast_antivirus. And with you! We’re discussing crisis security, privacy, and much more.

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63)

EPISODE 1. June 4, 2020.

Special guest Avast CTO Michael Pechoucek joins Garry to discuss remote working, AI, and the controversy of being tracked.

Since the lockdown began, Avast Security Ambassador Garry Kasparov has been observing the world from his home in New York, noting the seismic shift in our work culture, our tech practices, and our day-to-day living. As the subjects of home cybersecurity risks and greater reliance on AI entered daily conversations, Garry saw the need for a forum where these topics could be discussed, aired out, and approached from a grounded, sensible angle. With nothing but time on his hands and a strong pull to connect with the community in his heart, “Garry on Lockdown” was born, a video series that addresses pressing technical questions at this unique moment in history.

Garry kicks off the series by packing his first episode with timely, important topics. The 30-minute video is divided into 3 sections – Garry’s thoughts, an interview with a special guest, and responses to viewers’ questions.

In the first section, Garry tackles the controversial topic of coronavirus tracking, which is best summed up by his simple statement, “The good news is that we can track anyone. The bad news is that we can track anyone.” He explores the question of where we should draw the line between privacy infringement and data for the greater good. He also discusses the surge of cyberattacks against telecommuters, the benefits of the Global Hack, and the right way to plan during this lockdown.

In the second section, Garry welcomes Avast CTO Michael Pechoucek for an eye-opening conversation that covers the security risks of working from home, the concept of universal basic income (UBI), the societal benefits of AI, the controversy of tracking, and more.

Garry answers viewers’ questions in the third section, responding to queries about authoritarianism, identity theft, digital hygiene, and – last but not least – a killer chess move.

EPISODE 2. June 22, 2020

Author and Lecturer Molly McKew joins Garry to explain misinformation, disinformation, and how to stem the flow of each.

Since it began, Avast Security Ambassador Garry Kasparov has been observing the world in lockdown from his home in New York. Noting the seismic shifts in our work cultures, tech practices, and day-to-day living, Garry soon saw the need for a forum where these topics could be discussed from a grounded, sensible angle. With nothing but time on his hands and a strong drive to connect with the community, “Garry on Lockdown” was born, a video series that addresses the pressing technical questions of this unique moment in history.

In the series’ second episode, Garry tackles the timely topic of misinformation. How do we stay safe and informed when the art of misleading the public and spreading lies has been so perfected? How do we know which sources to trust and which to avoid? Garry addresses these questions and more, providing his quick, handy tips for good digital hygiene.

A specialist on information warfare and propaganda, author and lecturer Molly McKew joins Garry to explain the difference between misinformation and disinformation. She and Garry delve into the proliferation of conspiracy theories, the role social media plays in that effort, and what the average person can do to retain truth and clarity through all the confusion.

Garry ends the episode by answering viewers’ questions and offering his guidance on how we can all survive this trying time with our priorities and our sanity intact.

 

Garry on Lockdown | Avast Video Blog Series | May 16, 2020

Welcome to Garry on Lockdown, a new video series I’m making with experts from @avast_antivirus. And with you! We’re discussing crisis security, privacy, and much more. Watch this intro video and tage your questions with #AskGarry. https://t.co/VTK40wG8lQ

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) May 16, 2020