CONGRATULATIONS, Donald. You have your war! Ukraine was Biden’s; Obama shared Iraq and Afghanistan, with Bush Jr. who started them. Clinton had his Kosovo and the Bosnian wars; Bush the dad has his Gulf wars, Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Reagan had his invasion of Grenada; Johnson had his invasion of the Dominican Republic; and had to share with Nixon and Kennedy for one of the longest — the Vietnam War where the pajama-clad nuoc mam-cum-rice-eating combatants of Ho Chi Minh beat the hell out of the MRE-fed American grunts.

Warmongest country

This litany of America’s wars is not simply “tongue and cheek” metaphors. A brief history of the world’s most warmongering nation validates this assertion and may help us situate the current conflicts. This column will not discuss America’s internal wars and conflicts from the American Revolution in 1715-1783 through the two world wars of 1917 and 1941.

Back then, nuclear weapons were not in play except for an instance that wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But today, there are nine countries with a combined total of 12,100 nuclear warheads that can obliterate the planet several times over.

America loves wars. It is in its DNA. And it’s good for business. President Eisenhower first warned the world of the military-industrial complex (MIC), this symbiotic relationship between the US government and the defense industry that leads “to unwarranted influence on US foreign policy jeopardizing peace and democracy.”

In the 80 years since World War II, America never won a single major war — Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But winning or losing are of no real consequence. The US economy and prosperity to a large extent were propelled by wars. America is the world’s No. 1 arms dealer, exporting 43 percent of the world’s weapons.

Israel-Iran war

But the relevant wars that directly impact the Israel-Iran conflict today is contained in what Jeffrey Sachs, the noted political scientist, revealed in a political document post-911 called “Clean Break” which advances that Israel need not fight militants supporting the Palestinians against Israel head-on — al-Qaida, IS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Just bring down the governments that support them in a “regime change.” Thus, the wars the US was involved in in the last 30 years were on behalf of Netanyahu to overthrow Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and now Iran.

Netanyahu always had a hard-on embroiling America in a war with Iran. Jeffrey Sachs has written that since 1996, “Netanyahu’s greatest dream was to go to war with Iran and pull the United States into this war... his philosophy and approach is to dominate the Middle East, use Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the region to bludgeon, kill, assassinate and overthrow any government that opposes Israel’s actions... the end purpose of all of this seems to allow Israel to define its own borders in any way that it chooses as expansively as it chooses... and the complete control over the territory of British mandatory Palestine meaning that Israel would have full control over Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem...” (“US prepares to join war against Iran,” Jeffrey Sachs, YouTube, June 16, 2025).

The Donald is putty in the hands of Bibi and the US Congress is virtually under the control of the Zionist Christian and Jewish Israeli lobby. What better way to achieve the above scenario than to replicate Bush Jr.’s raison d’etre for invading Iraq in 2003 — destroying Sadam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — which turned out to be a dud. The same playbook is being used by these two madmen.

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s own director of national intelligence, back in March testified before Congress that America has conclusive evidence that Iran is not building nuclear bombs and have no ambitions of going nuclear; contradicting Netanyahu who has been doing the same song and dance number since 1996 that “Iran is only weeks away from developing nuclear weapons updating this message in 2001, 2002, 2006.” And the unthinking US president went along “I will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.”

True or not, Iran’s possessing nuclear weapons may play eerily well into new geopolitical perspectives. Some argue that Iran’s nuclear capabilities could truly become a deterrent to persistent wars in the Middle East by providing another level of mutual terror preventing a temptation toward shattering the mutually assured destruction (MAD) syndrome. North Korea’s case has been cited; North Korea’s possessing nuclear capability has reduced Trump to just rhetorical invasion. In contrast to Libya’s castration and Ghadaffi’s assassination after surrendering its prerogative to developing nuclear capabilities.

Then again, with the cognitively impaired authoritarian Trump who claims to know better than all his intelligence professionals and unable to think all implications through, nonchalantly decides America’s and the world’s fate by siding with Netanyahu’s proclivities. Living up to his new moniker — Trump the TACO — he backtracked a little, giving Iran two weeks to negotiate a deal. But not for long.

Anti-war president

Running as the anti-war president in 2016, the Donald announced that he would not lead the US into any wars. He will keep America and the world safe from World War III. Upon assuming office, he proceeded to shred unilaterally the Iran nuclear deal, negotiated by President Obama under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran immediately resumed its nuclear program, planting the seeds for this current conflict.

Friday the 13th, an ominous day, Israel attacked Iran. Trump lied about America’s involvement. But believing Israel was succeeding in Iran’s devastation, Trump changed his tune, from non-involvement to “...we are in control and dominating the skies over Iran...” — grabbing the credit. With that, he casually brought America into this conflict. Adding to his rantings, a hint of an assassination: “We know exactly where the so-called supreme leader (Khamenei) is hiding, he is an easy target but is safe there, we are not going to take him out and kill him, at least not for now.”

A continuing tragedy

Except for Trump being played by Netanyahu and America’s hatred for Iran dating back to US President Carter’s presidency when the American puppet Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was deposed during the Iranian revolution and subsequent ascendancy of Ayatollah Khomeini; there are no clear goals for America’s evolving support for Israel. As the noted American political scientist John Mearsheimer asks, “Does Netanyahu and Trump have a theory of victory?” It seems that Israel’s “...objective was to get the United States involved from the outset... and that (Israel’s) goal was not to win by themselves but to bring about a war between the United States and Iran because without such a war how can Israel win?”

While this was being written, Trump directed American warplanes to deploy its “bunker buster bombs” on the Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear facilities. “Israel can’t destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facility,” Trump declared. So, he did it himself.

The US Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Attacking Iran unprovoked is an act of war. Trump, the only sitting American president already convicted of 34 counts of felony, just committed another crime.

Netanyahu must be jumping with glee!

MY column last week was about the global trade war resulting from Trump's tariffs. This act — unsanctioned by the US Congress — was aimed at protecting American industries through his faulty concept of reindustrializing America ("Trump's fool's errand," TMT, June 11, 2025).

Tariffs were meant to lure manufacturing back to America. These protectionist initiatives with complex consequences instead proved to be counterproductive, leading to price increases to US consumers, job displacements in legacy industrial sectors that often face their own challenges adapting to new technologies and shifting market demands.

The long-term effects are still unfolding, as nations adjust to new economic realities and global trade dynamics, exacerbating volatility.

But this singular act among many is just Trump's latest that US allies and foes attribute to what the columnist Zachary Wolf of CNN labeled as the "madman theory." Trump acknowledged this when asked in a presscon if he would ever use military force to defend Taiwan. His retort (referring to Xi Jinping): "I wouldn't have to, because he respects me and he knows I'm f***ing crazy..."

Madman's compulsions

Last February, Trump suggested to buy and occupy Greenland "... for national and international security." Denmark's curt reply: Greenland's not for sale! Trump also suggested to annex Canada as the US' 51st state. He topped this off with his grandiose plan to 'own' the Gaza Strip, relocate the Palestinians to 'someplace somewhere' and turn it into the "Riviera of the Middle East."

These harebrained declarations were never debated in Congress but got the full endorsement of Netanyahu, the equally unhinged premier of Israel, Trump's twin, currently decimating Gaza.

Conflicts on tipping points

Currently, the world is confronted by crisis after crisis that could lead to even more serious "hot shooting wars." And here is Trump interjecting inane and alarming ideas on how to resolve them — all off the cuff. It is disconcerting for the most powerful politician, believed to be cognitively impaired, to be acting in an infantile fashion, all by himself, "with no adults in the room," unmindful of the dangerous implications of his compulsions.

Ukraine, for example, continues to be a flashpoint for global tensions. The war has now resulted in significant humanitarian crises and economic devastation. The potential for escalation through miscalculations remains high, particularly with the involvement of the old Soviet countries now in NATO. Trump as president-elect arrogantly but foolishly declared he can end the war in "24 hours upon taking office" — and proceeded to berate and humiliate Zelinskyy and alienate European allies in that famous White House presscon on Feb. 28, 2025.

Now the Ukraine peace process is on hold, the war dragging on with Russia having a slight edge. But Trump, who painted himself into a corner as the self-proclaimed peacemaker — "because Putin is my good friend and he listens to me" — may execute another precipitate move, another madness. Meantime his 90-day tariff suspension will terminate in two weeks.

Tariff negotiations

The current approach to reciprocal negotiations which Trump touts as "kicking ass" is a prime example of his leveraging US power to extract concessions from US trading partners. Yet with such outrageous challenges, no wonder his prime target for negotiations, China, is not that receptive.

The rah-rah boys in his Cabinet and the cowed GOP leadership ascribe Trump's moves as negotiating tactics — utilizing a strategy of "maximum pressure" — that aggressive bully tactics could lead to better deals. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt oozes with syrupy gooeyness, describing her boss as the "greatest negotiator in the world, ever."

MAGA cliches

Trump's "America First" agenda, central to what passes for a political philosophy, prioritizes US interests, often at the expense of traditional alliances discarding global norms. This deliberate disruption of established political mores and practices allows him license to insult allies, spit on diplomatic protocols, which his MAGA extols as refreshing behavior. And this isolates America.

Trump's rhetoric and policies often piggybacked onto populist sentiments, emphasize nationalism and skepticism toward institutions, and dangerously toward a cavalier treatment of the rule of law. These resonated with voters who felt that previous administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike, had not adequately prioritized American sovereignty and interests. All these are made palatable to a solid minority base of what Hillary Clinton described as "a basket of deplorables" — those who felt left behind by globalization and singled out for imagined injustices by America's elite.

The flip side — where US is bullied

In contrast to Trump's global madman's bully tactics, one country stands as an exception, immune from such treatment by past US governments. I draw heavily from Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent economist and public policy analyst, on the Jewish state's deep influence on US foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. To contextualize, a brief history. "... We start with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This was the impetus for Zionism, a nationalist movement affirming the Jewish right to self-determination in its ancient homeland. This became the core concept for the founding document — Mandate for Palestine, based on the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations... a flood of displaced Jews escaping the European pogroms gave flesh to Israel. ("Israel-Palestinian conflict: Genesis of terrorism," TMT, Oct. 18, 2023.)

Fusion of foreign policies

Sachs' contention is that Israel's interests since its creation have been singularly championed by America. In effect, Israel co-opted American foreign policy. The repercussions can be refracted through the prism of these five constructs:

1. American politicians, especially those with strong ties to the Jewish community, often prioritize Israeli interests in their foreign policy agendas, resulting in a distorted narrative interpreting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2. The pro-Israel lobby groups fortified with sizable gray cash have inappropriate influence on the elections of American congressmen, senators and political leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties; and therefore, shape US foreign policy aligning with Israel's concerns, overshadowing broader US interests in the region.

Advertisement
3. American military assistance and logistics are part of a broader strategy to support Israeli policies and actions in the region. This reinforces the view that US foreign policy is primarily focused on supporting Israel rather than promoting peace or addressing the concerns of Palestinians.

4. Research indicates that the framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in American media portrays heavily Israeli and Jewish viewpoints consistently against the Palestinians, distorting public opinion and, consequently, political decisions. Approaches to peace process dynamics often fail to adequately address Palestinian needs and rights. US policy tends to reinforce the status quo, which favors Israeli settlements and military presence rather than fostering genuine negotiations for a two-state solution.

5. Approaches to peace process dynamics often fail to adequately address Palestinian needs and rights. US policy tends to reinforce the status quo, which favors Israeli settlements and military presence rather than fostering genuine negotiations for a two-state solution.

While this column is being written, Israel just attacked Iran. They are now at each other's throats, exchanging missiles, butchering their citizens. We don't know where this will lead to. Trump refusing to prevent an escalation as complicit instead is pouring hot oil on this conflict, warning Iran to "immediately evacuate Tehran."

The madman theory applies to both. Trump's methods are as dangerous as Netanyahu's. Israel holds America by the balls. Therein lies the conundrum — with two madmen at the helm of their governments — there is no method to their madness.

LAST April 2, 2025, Trump imposed reciprocal tariffs against all US trading partners. This tanked the financial and bond markets, prompting Trump to suspend these tariffs for 90 days. His reason was to give the 100-plus countries the opportunity to "kiss his ass," to negotiate tariff reductions. There are no serious negotiations going on now. Trump's propensity to change his mind on a whim, calling out and negating tariff figures is causing volatile market fluctuations. Wall Street cognoscenti suspect Trump's cronies, alerted to these developments, are making a killing in the markets.

But the Financial Times awarded Trump a new moniker — TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) — a pejorative that describes this pattern of behavior. By early July, the suspension period will expire roiling the markets again, continuing the deadly phase of the trade wars. But by the looks of it, these tariffs in their present context will not be imposed. This is an insanely developed trade strategy that could cause global recession. With Donald the TACO, this is just another bluff.

Bringing manufacturing back

Trump imposed these tariffs ostensibly to liberate America from decades of being ripped off by trading partners, singling out China as the biggest culprit. He declared that these tariffs would incentivize American companies now operating abroad to repatriate manufacturing jobs to America.

Borrowing heavily from Benjamin Norton, editor-in-chief of Geopolitical Economy Report and Professor Richard Wolff of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, their contention is that Trump's attempt to reindustrialize to bring back jobs, by using massive tariffs — his reckless strategy — will not work.

America's dominance in the 1950s, 1960s

America, the lone hegemon, has grown very rich since the end of World War II, claiming the 1950s-1960s as the golden era of the US economy, when one quarter of America's GDP (gross domestic product) came from manufacturing. Today, it has declined to 10 percent — a condition that threatens America's global economic preeminence. To put things in proper perspective, a short review of economic history will trace America's ascendancy in the aftermath of World War II, which may elucidate Trump's erratic obsession with the imposition of tariffs and trade wars since his first term in 2016.

Bretton Woods system

In July 1944, 44 nations gathered at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in the US, for a conference that established the post-World War II international monetary system, stabilizing exchange rates and promoting growth; among other things it fixed the value of the world's currencies to the US dollar, which itself was tied to gold at $35 per ounce. This made the US dollar effectively the world's primary reserve currency — the standard to which every other currency was pegged. The offshoot from that conference is America's self-appointed role as the "world's policeman" where countries can rely for protection under its military umbrella, and the allies who agree to these arrangements are given access to American consumer markets.

US economic primacy benefited the world economy but more so the American exporters and importers by reducing currency risk. The establishment of the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) allowed investment opportunities and increased funding, opening new markets for all, particularly those benefiting American businesses. This also enabled America to gain significant leverage in shaping the world's political and international economic policies. But the central theme is that the world, particularly America's allies, became rich — and America, richer.

The flip side

Newly industrializing countries and emerging economies often struggled amid economic conditions that favored bigger and much industrialized economies leading to imbalances. By the late 1960s, the Bretton Woods system caused significant strains worldwide leading to its collapse when the US government under President Nixon in 1971 decoupled the US dollar's convertibility to gold.

Global economic turmoil ensued. After which in the early 1980s, conservative guru President Ronald Reagan with his ideological soulmate UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ushered in the neoliberal world order that among other things, imposed some direction if not discipline on international trade with three distinct diktats: 1) tariffs were lowered; 2) enable free movement of capital around the world by lowering barriers on investments; 3) currency exchange rates were made flexible — with the US dollar still the world's reserve currency; and 4) America guarantees security for everyone patrolling the major trading routes and the high seas with its fleet. This new world order played smack right into the US-Western cherished concept of democracy and free market principles and far less structured than that which America helped fashion at Bretton Woods; until Trump's appearance in 2016.

While the post World War II era was hailed as Pax Americana, contributing to a period of stability and growth, they also created dependencies and vulnerabilities that would later manifest as economic challenges. Many countries became overly reliant on the US dollar that US economic instability, brought about by its nefarious financial practices, impacted negatively on the world economy — like the 2008 global financial crises centered in the US, triggering the 2008-2009 world economic recession.

US deindustrialization

By the 1980s and 1990s globalization, the expansion of trade and elimination of trade barriers allowed companies to outsource manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor — China, India, South Korea, Vietnam, etc. These countries in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s had cheaper labor, but it is no longer true today.

A case in point is Apple's iPhone. Tim Cook, its president, explains why Apple is still in China despite its wages having gone high up relative to its neighboring countries. The underlying reason is that the Chinese government's socialist system, with a capitalist facade, invested heavily in infrastructure and human development and the training and education necessary to provide the advanced skilled labor necessary to manufacture these goods. By contrast, the US, a free-market capitalist system, has not invested similarly for decades. Apple products require precision, special materials and state-of-the-art tooling and China's pool of tooling engineers is readily available. Vocational expertise is deeply chiseled in the Chinese education system. In America, Trump even threatens to privatize education.

The economic environment of the 1980s, characterized by a focus on free markets, often favored capital mobility over domestic manufacturing. Industrial output declined and the migration of American manufacturing jobs abroad propelled America to shift to a service-oriented economy, such as finance, insurance, health care and technology — which will continue to grow and enlarge as these are profitable to the American capitalist class. But this transition has changed the nature of the American workforce and its role in global trade — no longer oriented toward blue collar manufacturing but toward white collar professionals.

This creeping deindustrialization contributed to economic disparities within the US, leading to job losses hitting the northeastern states of the American "Rust Belt" and midwestern states of the American "Heartland" — Trump's MAGA realm, where outdated factories and technology could not compete with foreign manufacturing.

So, Trump, confronted with the demise of the neoliberal order but incompetent to discern its implications, never developed the working policies implementing actual reindustrialization, embarking instead on a desperate extraneous solution to magically reindustrialize America. In his own words, "We're going to put tariffs on, and US corporations will simply be motivated by the free market and their corporate interests to reindustrialize."

Ignoring all evidence to the contrary, this will not happen!

The Centrist View: Back to Basics

In an era marked by deepening social divides, persistent inequality, and political uncertainty, the Philippines stands at a critical juncture in its national life. Competing ideologies vie for dominance, often pulling the nation toward extremes. Amid this turbulence, a centrist perspective — rooted in the principles of human dignity and human rights — offers a balanced and principled framework for rebuilding trust, safeguarding citizens, and renewing democratic life.

Human Dignity as the Foundation of Rights and Responsibilities

At the core of the centrist vision is the belief that every Filipino possesses inherent human dignity — not conferred by the state, but intrinsic to being human. This dignity forms the moral and legal foundation of all human rights: civil liberties, political participation, and access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and livelihood.

But dignity is more than an entitlement; it is also a responsibility. It calls on individuals not only to claim their own rights but also to respect and uphold the rights of others — in speech, in conduct, and in civic life. The Centrist View affirms that rights and responsibilities are inseparable, and that a just society depends on mutual recognition of each person’s worth.

Human Rights in a Divided Political Landscape

In recent years, human rights in the Philippines have become a flashpoint — celebrated by some as the bedrock of democracy, dismissed by others as a hindrance to order and discipline. The centrist approach resists this false binary.

Instead, it upholds human rights as non-negotiable, especially for the most vulnerable: victims of extrajudicial killings, displaced indigenous communities, and ordinary citizens left behind by corruption and impunity. At the same time, it recognizes the need to contextualize rights within the broader social fabric — considering public safety, poverty, and institutional capacity.

The absolute moral positions of the Church — opposition to abortion, divorce, and same-sex marriage — moral truths which many Filipinos adopt unquestioningly, conflict with human rights discourses or secular principles such as reproductive health, women’s rights, and LGBTQ inclusion. The war on drugs under the Duterte administration was often justified using absolute moral language — portraying drug use as an evil that must be eradicated at all cost. This moral framing enabled EJK and human rights abuses, with limited public resistance due to the perceived moral righteousness of the campaign.

The anti-corruption rhetoric (all corruption is evil) uses moral absolutism (that certain actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of context, consequences, or cultural norms) but the application of justice in the Philippines is frequently selective, exposing the hypocrisy and dangers of absolutism when wielded by those in power. Human rights violations during Martial Law (torture, illegal detentions, censorship) can be judged as morally wrong in absolute terms, regardless of the justifications of national security or economic progress. However, moral relativism is often used to justify or downplay these events, especially by those who benefit from historical revisionism or political dynasties.

The late dictator son’s administration has emphasized technocratic leadership — appointing economic managers, military officials, and political elites into key positions — often sidelining consultative, grassroots-driven policy-making. His seeming focus on stability and economic continuity is reflected in his cabinet choices; still this pragmatic approach is viewed as centralizing authority and downplays participative governance, especially from civil society organizations, marginalized sectors, and opposition voices.

The DepEd and CHED directives to revise or soften the language around martial law abuses reflect a systemic push toward historical revisionism, legitimizing the current administration while erasing past atrocities. In lieu of outright censorship, the present administration uses strategic communication and digital manipulation through troll farms, algorithmic manipulation, and disinformation campaigns, to promote a favorable image. Contrary opinions and criticisms are viewed as “fake news” and attempts to discredit the administration are seen as libelous that merit congressional inquiry, purportedly, in aid of legislation.

The administration exhibits a form of authoritarian pragmatism more subtle than the previous dictatorship but no less concerning in its long-term implications. The challenge for Filipinos today is to critically assess this pragmatism: who benefits, who is silenced, and at what cost is “progress” achieved.

The Centrist View rejects both moral absolutism and authoritarian pragmatism. It seeks to foster a culture in which human rights are not only enshrined in law but also respected in practice, and where governance is accountable, transparent, and humane.

Rebuilding Trust in Institutions and the Rule of Law

The erosion of public trust in the justice system and the prevalence of political patronage have undermined faith in democratic institutions. When laws are applied unequally — when the wealthy and powerful escape accountability while the poor face violence and neglect — human dignity suffers.

A centrist response calls for the revitalization of institutions as a moral imperative:

• A justice system that is impartial, efficient, and accessible to all;
• Security forces that serve the Constitution and the people, not personal or political interests;
• Governance that is participatory, transparent, and responsive — especially to marginalized communities.

Restoring confidence in institutions, in the Centrist View, is not only about efficiency; it is about affirming the dignity of every citizen and the credibility of democracy itself.

Social Justice Without Extremism

Despite economic growth, the Philippines continues to grapple with stark inequality, underdevelopment in rural areas, and persistent conflict in regions such as Mindanao. Politics is downplaying the gains of the Bangsamoro Autonomous region, as changes in policies are manifest in each subsequent administration. These are not just policy failures — they are affronts to human dignity.

The centrist approach to social justice promotes meaningful, targeted reforms:

• Long-term investments in quality education and healthcare as fundamental human rights;
• Genuine land reform and rural development to empower farmers and indigenous peoples;
• Inclusive and decentralized governance, particularly in historically marginalized regions.

Unlike radical ideologies that call for revolution or sweeping overhauls, the Centrist View advocates for gradual, evidence-based reforms that preserve national stability while addressing deep-rooted injustices.

Pluralism and Mutual Respect in a Diverse Nation

The Philippines is a nation of many cultures, faiths, and identities. Respecting human dignity means embracing this diversity, not suppressing it.

The centrist vision affirms that unity can only emerge from mutual respect — not forced conformity.

All Filipinos — regardless of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or social status — have the right to live free from discrimination and violence. Dialogue, rather than dogma, is the foundation of lasting peace and nation-building.

In this spirit, the Centrist View aligns with the universal values of human rights: that every person has the right to live, believe, speak, and participate fully in society — while also contributing to the common good.

Conclusion: A Call for Principled Moderation

The Centrist View in contemporary Philippine society is not a position of passivity or indifference. It is a call for principled moderation — an approach that seeks:

• To place human dignity at the center of policy and public life;
• To uphold human rights not as partisan slogans but as shared moral imperatives;
• To advance nation-building through inclusion, institutional reform, and civic responsibility.

In an age defined by polarization and populism, the Philippines needs a renewed commitment to moral clarity, balanced leadership, and shared humanity. In this vision, human dignity is not merely an abstract ideal — it is a living promise that belongs to every Filipino.

"THE Philippines today produces one illiterate for every five senior high school graduates." This was the disturbing finding of the Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media survey (Flemms) released by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). Under the promulgated redefined standards starting with the graduating class of 2024, the following categories apply (PSA Board Resolution 13, series of 2024):

"Functional literacy is the ability of a person to read, write, compute, and comprehend. In addition to the basic literacy skills, functional literacy includes a higher level of comprehension skills, such as integrating two or more pieces of information and making inferences based on the given information.

"Basic literacy rate is computed for individuals 5 years old and older, while functional literacy rate is computed for individuals 10 to 64 years old."

In the usual bureaucratese, the latest redefinitions thus interpreted was officially submitted to the Senate last year, that: "18.9 million Filipinos who completed secondary education between 2019 and 2024 may be considered 'functional illiterate' — students who could read, write, and compute but could not comprehend what they had read."

In light of these shameful facts, this column attempts to assess the impact of this number of illiterates on our country's development. The 20 percent illiterate graduates will be entrusted, together with the literate four-fifths, in the crafting of our future government when they reach voting age in the next couple of election cycles. It is uncomfortable to know these statistics. But prior to 2024 we have already unleashed many of those illiterate graduates upon our body politic.

Midterm election results

In my past two columns on interpreting the results of the midterm elections, I quoted a former senator describing the midterms as the mechanism for allowing comedians, actors, performers and the corrupt into positions of power, and whose basic qualifications are their popularity and brand name recall, heavily contributing to their electability.

I advanced the arguments that the poor showing of the Alyansa senatorial slate was not exactly a result of a referendum on President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s three-year-old administration. There was never a serious debate on the notions of governance by the president. There were of course the complaints of inflation resulting in high prices of practically everything "...bigas, pamasahe, gasolina, twisyon, atbp.," and on the perception of an inept leadership that cannot control corruption in the bureaucracy and a rising tide of criminality.

But these problems are offshoots of the systemic dysfunctions of governance, which have transcended various Philippine regimes in varying degrees of gravity and discussed ad infinitum in past columns. These are old lingering issues.

The 5-5-2 senatorial results (Marcos-Duterte-Aquino camps) were personality-driven which have always underpinned our traditional political practices. But this time, former president Rodrigo Duterte's rendition to exile elicited massive sympathy votes, always a factor to the underdog-loving Pinoys. This gave the DDS a huge advantage. Marcos' imprudent strategy of putting his whole administration behind this act two months before election was milked by the Duterte camp to its last drop.

For a deeper appreciation of the results, the much hyped and anomalously funded campaign only produced five senators for the Alyansa, five for the PDP-Laban and two from the old pinklawan camp. The latter couldn't be called "pure" opposition, as Bam and Kiko, abhor either of the political dynasties. Nevertheless, this pinklawan duo, plus the rest of the incoming senators-elect, will have to coalesce with the seated senators based not necessarily on ideological or principled kinship but on purely personal or pecuniary interest coated with the usual motherhood statements calculated to be attractive to the populace, particularly those who voted them into office. Impeaching Vice President Sara Duterte may be in their interest, narrowing the field for the 2028 presidential race.

Effects of illiterates' voting patterns

And here is where the two concepts of this column converge. The effects of the voting patterns of illiterates — if they do indeed vote — to their role in crafting good governance through the election of a responsible political leadership.

Let me reiterate the Flemms contention that "Functional illiterates can read, write, compute but could not comprehend what they have read."

It is obvious that we need to mitigate these deficiencies. Central to understanding the voting patterns of these illiterates are their inability to undertake critical thinking and to discern complex ideas that involve government policies and governance, which lead to these voters prioritizing popularity of candidates over substantive qualifications.

A candidate's popularity, charisma, or media presence trump those with the more relevant experience and expertise, but less public exposure. These illiterates are also more susceptible to the influence of social media and networks of influencers which have proliferated Philippine internet in the past few election cycles; with catchy slogans but inane and attractive memes resonating on these simple minds.

These shrewd candidates connect better with these types of voters with the former appealing to their emotions and rudimentary humor and rendition of "budot" dances, so popular at the "entablado" rather than initiating substantive policy discussions. Thus, our political leadership, particularly in the Senate, are filled with populists inured to dispensing resources profligately, prioritizing immediate, popular measures over long-term planning, which can lead to unsustainable policies.

Functional illiterates unequipped with tools to distinguish the nuances of a candidate's qualifications more often must rely on endorsements from community leaders, organizations and even glib-tongued charlatans from religious sects that can guide their voting decisions. Local politicians and ward leaders in their communities often serve the highest bidders within a slate. These are those whom the mostly illiterate gravitate towards.

And the more deadly attraction is the distribution of "ayuda" which could really clinch the preference for the candidates who dispense the most. And in the Philippine system of traditional politics, all sides resort to these types of incentives — herding the functionally illiterate voters to the candidates best endowed with such logistics.

The officials we get

With the impelling voting patterns of this large segment of our electorate, we get the officials few of us deserve. We therefore put into power populist officials who give premium to maintaining popularity rather than addressing complex societal issues. They may lack the skills to implement effective policies, let alone initiate or create the same — leading to dysfunctions in governance, yet they are our duly elected political leaders.

This column doesn't in any way suggest that 20 percent of the voters of each side — as reflected by the 5-5-2 senatorial results — are functionally illiterate and the minority are independent-minded electors. I leave this to the pollsters to frame the questionnaires that could unravel this conundrum; mindful of the fact that these major pollsters, SWS, Pulse Asia and OCTA had eggs in their faces in the last elections, for arrogantly predicting erroneous outcomes.

But what is certainly called for is for the senators to look into the Flemms findings that propelled the Philippines to the 87th world ranking on illiteracy out of 130 countries. And for whatever its worth, have the courage to correct these infirmities. Or disprove prevailing suspicions that the illiterate voters are just mirror images of those that now sit in those hallowed halls.

Erratum

In my column of May 28, 2025, presidential assistant to the president Anton Lagdameo was erroneously referred to as Anton Floirendo. Floirendo is Lagdameo's middle name.