William S. Fang THE proliferation of firearms in the U.S. is now very worrisome. American society is very combative to begin with. The recent election and its aftermaths are revealing how perfectly and deeply divided the country has become. And worse, some people are inclining toward the use of force to settle their differences. Here are some observations on some extraordinary conditions leading up to the current difficult impasse. Whiskers of victory A total margin of only 45,000 votes in three decisive states separated the winner and loser in the recent U.S. presidential election. That is less than 0.0275 percent of the total popular votes in the nation. It is a whisker’s difference. In other words, Donald Trump almost got re-elected. Nowadays, no matter which way the miniscule margin may have ended up, 50 percent of the country would be very upset. So both sides feel deeply disturbed. Whether in victory or defeat, they wonder why they have to live with the other 50 percent. Even as the society is vilifying Donald Trump, the fact that he got 75 million votes is haunting. Clearly, the Union does not exist at the moment. Furthermore, the country is not only split evenly on its choice of president, but tends to go 50:50 on just about any issue. Photo finishes Coincidentally, the final result of who would control Congress also came down to 50 seats versus 50 seats in the Senate. By virtue of the razor-thin victory margin in the presidential election mentioned above, the Democratic vice president gets to chair the Senate, and cast the deciding ballot in case there is a tie. Thus, the Democrats ended up controlling both chambers of Congress as well as the White House. That may be quite consequential, but nobody truly knows where it may lead, because of the 50:50 reality behind that illusory majority. The 50:50 syndrome went deeper than that. The Senate race came down to the last two seats in the state of Georgia, which required a run-off election because the initial results were too close to be called. With such high stakes involved, both parties raised a total of over US$100 million for the loggerheads. Again, eerily, both races were decided by microscopic margins in close proximity to 50:50. Naturally, the overall political contests are far from decided, even if they have been procedurally settled. “Hah! I won.” “No! You cheated!” So it goes, in typically American fashion. Political game theory With a game in which the winner takes all, too close a margin of victory typically leads to lose-lose consequences. The game does not end there. That is why, in the more advanced democratic systems that came historically after the American Revolution, there are mitigating arrangements in these countries to settle election results that are too close. First of all, when there are more than two political parties participating in the electoral contest, the circumstances to resolve close election results are more flexible. Because of the ascent of the role of Big Money in the U.S. political process over the past 15 years, the viability of third parties had expired in this election. So we ended up with Tweedledum against Tweedledee, both sustained by Big Money. Either way, Big Money wins. Secondly, the “voters” are left angry at the inconvenience of each other. Nobody would broker their differences and, in typical fashion, neither would get what they thought they had voted for. The political system drags on without solving the people’s practical issues. Thirdly, the enshrinement of Big Money democracy in America enables money to buy both sides simultaneously. No matter who is in the White House and who occupies the relevant Congressional seats and committees, they will all pick up the phone when Big Money calls. In this political game theory, the most cost-effective bet is to support both parties’ candidates such that it does not matter who gets “elected.” Money vs. money The sure winner in American elections these days is Big Money. The maximum number of individuals whose decisions are consequential in Big Money is far less than 0.1 percent of the population (that translates to 300,000 people). The number of people whose money and machinations truly decided the presidential race is again a fraction of that. However, Big Money is not a united bloc. The interests they represent may at times be at odds with each other. So scenarios often arise where a political candidate is firmly on one side of two vying special interests. In that case, one or both sides would put up enough money to try to defeat the opposing candidate. That may account for why the crucial races end up being 50:50, more often than natural laws would produce. It reflects the underlying reality that, in America today, even Big Money is also split politically 50:50. Tyranny of freedom Americans have been indoctrinated to insist on their individual “rights” since kindergarten (and often even before that). They are taught to never budge an inch to the will of others. If they are persistent, they would eventually get what they want. That, they are told, is their “freedom.” They must fight for it. Winning is not just everything — it is the only thing. That kind of mindset is very dangerous in a civil society, where freedom should have been restricted in exchange for civil liberty. This wanton notion of freedom is particularly explosive under the current state of a 50:50 political divide in the society, and may even be the cause of it. Of late, the system is also failing to provide adequate basic security and welfare for the general population. There is but a never-ending blame of one another for the troubles ahead. One would be insane not to worry about the proliferation of firearms in such a combative society. With the present 50:50 split, and neither side budging, the troubling instability will likely persist in the foreseeable future. The world is sensibly bracing for more unpleasant episodes to unfold in the U.S., and hoping that they will not spill over to other parts of the world. (The author is a retired international investment banker and certified public accountant. He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in international relations and earned his MBA in finance from Columbia Business School.) | 