'Let the big dog run' they say. Please God no.
Bill Clinton has quickly descended from being respected elder statesman into an angry and bitter old man. His increasingly crass and wholly cynical interventions in the Democratic primaries (widely held to have backfired in South Carolina) have reminded me of aspects of his presidency I had forgotten. Through the misty fog of seven appalling years of Bush, we tend to look back on the Clinton period as a golden age - a booming economy, coupled with respected international statesmanship. But in these last few days Clinton has cynically sought to racialise Obama's candidacy - drawing an extraordinarily crass parallel with Jesse Jackson's victories in South Carolina - basically implying 'he is a black candidate and won't get very far'. I can't believe he actually said that. For the man who was once described by Toni Morrison as the first black president this is a new and wholly unexpected low. There were also phone calls to voters' homes from Hillary Clinton's campaign explicitly spelling out Obama's full name - Barack Hussein Obama. It reminds us of the other side to the Clintons - this couple who will say anything to get elected.
Well done Ted Kennedy.
Monday, 28 January 2008
Sunday, 27 January 2008
What a palaver
When I saw last night that Alan Johnson had now got caught up in a funding row, I buried my head in my hands. For Labour supporters these are moments of despair and bemusement - we are consoled only by the rarely commented on fact that we are only slightly behind the Tories in the polls.
But then I thought to myself - what has he actually done? In fact what have any of them actually done? What if anything does this say about Gordon Brown's government or about the quality of our politics?
In Johnson's case he has apparently declared all his donations - but not to all of the correct regulatory bodies - or rather he claims he did file it with the Electoral Commission but it didn't appear on their website. There is a claim that someone used a third party (his brother) to make a donation - but Johnson claims they checked the name and he appeared on the party membership list and they had no reason to question his bona fides. So at the most this seems to be an administrative error on part of Alan Johnson's office - if that.
Does this really merit the term 'sleaze'?
Lets take Peter Hain. Here we have the fact that rather a lot of money was not declared to the Electoral Commission (never has so much money been spent by so few for so little - why on earth did anyone want to be Deputy leader of the Labour party anyway?). But again no one thinks Peter Hain is a corrupt person - no one seriously alleges he wanted to conceal these donations deliberately - why would he have? Politicians have too much to lose. Rather it appears his office was guilty of, in Gordon Brown's wonderful phrase, 'an incompetence'. They didn't file the returns in time. Cock up, not conspiracy.
Wendy Alexander? She breached the law by accepting money from someone who was not a UK resident - again it appears that the correct checks were not made. Minor negligence surely - not corruption.
And yet, despite looking triffling in detail, collectively all this creates the impression of sleaze, especially when presented as such by sensationalist media headlines (both 24 hour news and the press being driven by the need to grab our easily distracted attentions). The conclusion most people will understandibly reach is 'they're a rotten lot' (not just Labour, but the whole political class).
But this is not a sleazy administration nor is our politics especially corrupt by international standards. No serious or reasonable person is arguing that any of these people was trying to conceal donations so that they could return political favours. None of it is about personal financial gain - it is all about raising money for political campaigns, not their own pockets. It is series of silly mistakes, made by people who were behaving carelessly, hubristically, stupidly.
Nor is any of this Gordon Brown's fault - it all happened before he took over and without his knowledge.
Where now? Clearly blaming media sensationalism will get us nowhere. I think the media does play a key role in undermining public faith in democratic politics and should not be immune (as many journalists seem to believe it should be) from criticism. But the way politicians operate in interaction with the media (spin etc) is as much to blame for the fact that the public and the political class speak to one another through an utterly distorted prism of populist headlines designed to stir us up rather than engage us in a reasonable conversation.
Clearly we need to get a grip - we urgently need a major reform of party funding (caps on spending, clearer regulations on reporting that everyone understands, caps on individual donations, state funding) and we need the Labour party to make sure all of its leading figures understand the rules we ourselves introduced.
But then I thought to myself - what has he actually done? In fact what have any of them actually done? What if anything does this say about Gordon Brown's government or about the quality of our politics?
In Johnson's case he has apparently declared all his donations - but not to all of the correct regulatory bodies - or rather he claims he did file it with the Electoral Commission but it didn't appear on their website. There is a claim that someone used a third party (his brother) to make a donation - but Johnson claims they checked the name and he appeared on the party membership list and they had no reason to question his bona fides. So at the most this seems to be an administrative error on part of Alan Johnson's office - if that.
Does this really merit the term 'sleaze'?
Lets take Peter Hain. Here we have the fact that rather a lot of money was not declared to the Electoral Commission (never has so much money been spent by so few for so little - why on earth did anyone want to be Deputy leader of the Labour party anyway?). But again no one thinks Peter Hain is a corrupt person - no one seriously alleges he wanted to conceal these donations deliberately - why would he have? Politicians have too much to lose. Rather it appears his office was guilty of, in Gordon Brown's wonderful phrase, 'an incompetence'. They didn't file the returns in time. Cock up, not conspiracy.
Wendy Alexander? She breached the law by accepting money from someone who was not a UK resident - again it appears that the correct checks were not made. Minor negligence surely - not corruption.
And yet, despite looking triffling in detail, collectively all this creates the impression of sleaze, especially when presented as such by sensationalist media headlines (both 24 hour news and the press being driven by the need to grab our easily distracted attentions). The conclusion most people will understandibly reach is 'they're a rotten lot' (not just Labour, but the whole political class).
But this is not a sleazy administration nor is our politics especially corrupt by international standards. No serious or reasonable person is arguing that any of these people was trying to conceal donations so that they could return political favours. None of it is about personal financial gain - it is all about raising money for political campaigns, not their own pockets. It is series of silly mistakes, made by people who were behaving carelessly, hubristically, stupidly.
Nor is any of this Gordon Brown's fault - it all happened before he took over and without his knowledge.
Where now? Clearly blaming media sensationalism will get us nowhere. I think the media does play a key role in undermining public faith in democratic politics and should not be immune (as many journalists seem to believe it should be) from criticism. But the way politicians operate in interaction with the media (spin etc) is as much to blame for the fact that the public and the political class speak to one another through an utterly distorted prism of populist headlines designed to stir us up rather than engage us in a reasonable conversation.
Clearly we need to get a grip - we urgently need a major reform of party funding (caps on spending, clearer regulations on reporting that everyone understands, caps on individual donations, state funding) and we need the Labour party to make sure all of its leading figures understand the rules we ourselves introduced.
Saturday, 19 January 2008
The greener grass
When dissecting the parlous state of modern British politics I tend to fall down on the side of those who say 'if only there were greater differences between the parties - people would have something to get excited about'. While its true that there are certain long term social trends that have lowered levels of political participation (the loosening of class-based loyalties, the weakening of locally rooted political sub-cultures, the rise of consumerism, the decline of collectivism), I still believe that a more competitive and polarised political spectrum would bring more people to the polls. Lower rates of participation are of course affected by long-term cultural trends that are difficult to reverse - but the Italian and French experiences show that when post-industrial European electorates are given a real choice they can still be mobilised to vote.Of course its a tricky one - Labour was right to move to the centre ground, to change its message, to secure the votes of affluent voters who had previously thought us too left-field to manage the economy. We had to do it to end eighteen miserable years of Thatcherite rule. Nevertheless, the price our politics has paid - particularly now the Tories have had the electoral sense to move to the centre as well - is that, despite their different instincts and values (which I contend, contray to Peter Oborne's ludicrous new book, are very different), in policy terms there is far too little choice before the voters. No wonder people think 'they're all the same' - I don't think they are - but they are forced to pretend to be the same (which is something different that Oborne doesn't seem to understand).
Anyhow - its regrettable and our politics is much less interesting as a consequence. So I look with some awe on the spectacle that is unfolding on the other side of the Atlantic, where politics does seem very interesting.
It has not always been thus - when I was a kid I remember someone on TV trying to explain the difference between Republicans and Democrats thus: 'Well, the Republicans are the American version of our conservative party, while the Democrats are ...erm...the American version of our conservative party'.
How different things look today.
In his new book Ronald Brownstein argues that American politics has never been so polarised between two opposing blocs - divided by partisan identification, geography, demography (notably race, income and religion) and basic political values. This is the America of almost equally balanced red states and blue states that we have seen come to the fore in the last two presidential elections. This is the America of two parties fundamentally divided on a number of key issues: health care (universal insurance versus personal responsibility), energy (oil and gas versus renewables), foreign policy (the Bush doctrine versus multilateralism), and of course basic moral questions (same sex partnerships, abortion, stem cell research).
Compare this to what Brownstein describes as the period of bargaining in American politics - in which the parties were as divided internally as they were different from one another, in which congressmen and women would readily cross the floor to do deals with their partisan opponents. Essentially in the 1950s and 60s America had a four party system - the Southern Democrats (despising the party of Lincoln but opposing civil rights for African Americans), the conservative republicans of Barry Goldwater, the Northern urban Republicans who bought into the New Deal and backed civil rights, and the liberal Democrats. Politics was done by forging messy coalitions - most successfully as it turned out by that arch congressional deal maker Lyndon Johnson.
So what changed? Brownstein identifies a number of macro-political factors: changes in the rules within congress that gave more powers of patronage and discipline to the Speaker and Majority Leaders and led to greater party discipline (essentially the Republicans voting in more consistently conservative ways and the Democrats in more consistently liberal ways), the rise of more powerful and organised liberal and conservative interest groups in Washington with the power to punish representatives voting with the other side, and (the most fundamental factor) 'the great sorting out' of the electorate into two ideological camps, as the allegiances of the Civil War ceased to be relevant. Hence the Southern white democrats became Republicans and the liberal urban Republicans became Democrats. Liberals voted for a liberal party and conservatives voted for a conservative party - and the because certain social factors tend to lean people to being either liberal or conservative, these different electorates lived in different states and different social circumstances. A house divided.
To my bored British eyes this looks exciting - politics matters, the party base's are mobilised in opposition to the hated other, turnout is up (17 million more people voted in 2004 than in 2000 - Kerry lost on millions more votes than Gore 'won') - its exciting. Compare Bush's 2004 electoral strategy (mobilise the base, half the country hates me so I just need to get 51%) to Cameron's (blurr the differences in policy, emphasise the style over the substance). It's not meet in the middle - its raise the stakes - it couldn't be more different.
So I end up feeling rather ambiguous about Brownstein's conclusions - which are that polarisation and hyper-partisanship (especially with divided government) is preventing America from dealing with the big issues because Democrats and Republicans are unwilling to work together on health care, foreign policy, climate change. He looks to Arnie's California or some achievements of the Clinton period as a better way forward - where the emphasis was on both sides compromising to get results.
He is right of course that leaders need to reach out, especially in a presidential system with the risk of an opposing congress - Clinton failed on health care precisely because his tent (on that issue) wasn't big enough. Where he did build a bigger tent, he got legislative results (balancing the budget, NAFTA, education). Also Democrats need to reach out more than Republicans because their base (ideological liberals) is smaller than the GOP's (ideological conservatives). So the next President (especially a Democratic president) needs to be the unifier that Bush claimed he would be in 2000 after the stolen election, but so spectacularly was not. This is the very thing Obama is of course promising - but all of the candidates give this some emphasis (there's a golden rule that the next president is almost always the personal opposite of the previous one - which given the last eight years can only be a good thing, even if its a Republican).
However, as Brownstein himself recognises, the days of bargaining were the days when many things did not get done - most fundamentally and appallingly on civil rights and de-segregation. Centrist muddling though has its costs - not just in bored electorates, but also in policies that are not ambitious enough to meet the big challenges - especially on health insurance which is such a moral disgrace in a rich nation and on climate change, the planetary imperative. Centrism did not deliver the New Deal - ambition and imagination did.
The fact that a more polarised politics has led the Democratic contenders in this election to propose more ambitious policies on the big questions than Bill Clinton in his day is unquestionably a good thing - where Brownstein is right is that they will need to seek the support of independents and moderate Republicans in implementing them, if they are to stick.
So, before Brownstein decries the state of his nation too much - I ask him to visit our's. No breakfast table debates or queues round the block to get into political meetings here. Politics should still get our pulses racing.
Sunday, 13 January 2008
On loyalty and tribalism
Loyalty is unquestionably a virtue. It shows a very human ability to love another and stick with them, through good times and bad. It is an admirable thing that we do not just drop our friends or our football team if they happen to have been guilty of an indiscretion or simply gone out of fashion. Being loyal to a friend shows an ability to see a human being in the round - that despite their mistakes they are still people, with a right to be understood. At times loyalty requires great bravery - standing up for someone or something when everyone else is calling for their head.
But we tend to see tribalism as a vice. This is when our loyalty to something leads us to irrational or unreasonable behaviour, our emotional commitment to something driving us to commit absurd acts that conflict with our own fundamental ends. Our heart overtakes our head to such an extent that most third party observers think us slightly mad.
Political commentators in the Westminster Village tend to be dismissive of partisan loyalties - which they typically describe as 'party tribalism' rather than as political commitment. I think they see it this way because few of them are particularly politically loyal. I can think of few newspaper columnists or members of the commentariat who spend their weekends trudging the streets in the rain delivering leaflets for their local councillors or constituency parties - or have ever done so. 99% of the population of course do not do that either - the difference is that the commentariat are as addicted to politics as the party activists, but have a much more fickle commitment to its contending forces.
I have always been a political loyalist - at least since my political beliefs settled and I decided, around the age 16, that I was a democratic socialist. I have been an active member of the Labour party since I was 17 and have voted Labour in every election since then. Back then - and now - I see the Labour party as the best (indeed only) available political instrument for creating a more equal and fairer society in this country, for supporting the poorest and most disadvantaged. Nothing that has happened in the last fourteen years has led me to re-consider that in any way at all - and everything about Labour's history and achievements tells me that I'm right.
I have never been one of those people who wants to find out about the personal qualities of particular candidates in this or that election. I just want to know whether in their gut they feel the same way that I do about the big issues eg) that they prioritise social justice, that they see improving the life of the working class in this country and the poor around the world as their biggest political priority, that they oppose racism, sexism, xenophobia and other bigotries in all their appalling forms etc etc. Labour candidates, selected by Labour members who hold those values like me, almost always do - whether they be Peter Mandelson or Tony Benn, to take two obvious extremes. When I change constituencies and meet members in my new branch or GC - I immediately reocgnise something you might call 'Labour people' - kindred spirits, despite their varying personalities and backgrounds.
I have never voted tactically - I have voted Labour even when we're in third or fourth place, simply on the basis that it sends a signal that there are people like us around, in a certain number, whose views need to be taken into account. I would vote tactically to stop the BNP - even (because this is the logical if uncomfortable consequence of my position on this) if it meant voting Tory - that is politics with different stakes, where the political considerations are of a different order. I suppose I would have voted for Jacques Chirac to stop Le Pen when they were the only two options for the French presidency - but would of course have done so entirely unhappily.
My loyalties are also international - I have supported many of our sister parties in other countries - I have distributed literature for the Chilean Socialists, attended rallies for the Broad Front in Uruguay, given out leaflets for the German Social Democrats (I came unstuck when an angry conservative voter took issue with some of the content, given that I speak almost no German). Here my view is that in these countries similar people to me, with my values, are in those parties of the Socialist International - and I want to see them do well.
So, there are various acts of disloyalty or lack of commitment that grate with me. I have never really liked defectors. I felt riled while at party conference in Manchester a few years ago I saw Shaun Woodward pottering about, like me, in the People's History Museum of all places! Apparently he's alright, people tell me, but I will always look on him with suspiscion. Same goes for our latest recruit - Quentin or whatever his name his.
Tony Blair's recent antics - speaking at a political rally for the centre-right and saying that left and right have no meaning anymore (instead, he claimed, it is now just a question of yesterday versus tomorrow - oh, purlease....!) are particularly annoying and to be condemned. He is also speaking at an audience of breakaway 'Third way' socialists. Why doesn't he speak to the Parti Socialiste? (he'd probably get booed, which I guess says something!). Despite disagreeing with him on many occasions I have never been given to doubt that Tony Blair feels a great sense of respect for the Labour party that supported him (often through gritted teeth) in his ten years in power - why then be a political rat on the international stage? The difference with Gordon is you feel he would never do that - he's a loyalist, its written all over him.
Martin Kettle is a particularly annoying commentator in this regard (although I am enjoying his comments on the US elections at the moment). From backing Labour under Blair, he then turned on Brown, has recently flirted with the Lib Dems - and called for a vote for Angela Merkel in the last German elections. No doubt, like David Owen (whom Dennis Healy famously and accurately called 'a shit'), he would claim that he's not changing his views - its the parties that are changing their's. Oddly these centrist people, because they are at the margin of the various parties, are a bit like the people on the far left or far right, also at the margin, who swap parties that differ from them on relatively minor issues - because they do not deliver exactly what they want. The loyalists among us do not see politics in such a consumerist way (will they give me everything I want?) but rather as being about shifting the balance generally in our favour - which requires, to use an old Marxist phrase, an 'accumulation of forces' - sticking with and building up your party, through good and times and bad, because they are basically right about most big questions.
So what of tribalism? This is not a virtue, when contrasted with loyalty - because it implies one has lost control of one's rational faculties. An element of it is however natural and inevitable - we're all human. For those of us involved in politics it becomes an emotional affair - we have committed ourselves to a cause over decades of our lives, the party becomes almost like family, through it you have met and sustain relationships with many friends and colleagues - over time you feel your allegiance to it like that of your football team or kinship network - if someone attacks it, you back it, when you watch PMQs you cheer your side and boo their's almost regardless of whatever they are saying. On election night you experience genuine mood swings (elation, anger, despondency) as your side swings in and out of favour. You have invested a lot of your life in this thing - you feel a loyalty to it as well as think it.
But there of course are limits - there are things that a Labour government could do in theory that would be so divorced from what I could accept, that I would be forced out - but it would have to be something big, that made it utterly irrational for somebody who beleives what I do about the world to remain in party that acted in a certain way. In short it would have to give up its belief in achieving social justice - the thing that holds people together (from Tony Benn to Tony Blair), its very raison d'etre - something which is most unlikely.
So contrary to the view of so many political commentators, I believe political (and, because political achivements require collective action, partisan) loyalty to be a virtuous thing. Tribalism is a natural, human consequence - but, as ever with the emotions, it has, from time to time, to be reigned in by the application of reason.
But we tend to see tribalism as a vice. This is when our loyalty to something leads us to irrational or unreasonable behaviour, our emotional commitment to something driving us to commit absurd acts that conflict with our own fundamental ends. Our heart overtakes our head to such an extent that most third party observers think us slightly mad.
Political commentators in the Westminster Village tend to be dismissive of partisan loyalties - which they typically describe as 'party tribalism' rather than as political commitment. I think they see it this way because few of them are particularly politically loyal. I can think of few newspaper columnists or members of the commentariat who spend their weekends trudging the streets in the rain delivering leaflets for their local councillors or constituency parties - or have ever done so. 99% of the population of course do not do that either - the difference is that the commentariat are as addicted to politics as the party activists, but have a much more fickle commitment to its contending forces.
I have always been a political loyalist - at least since my political beliefs settled and I decided, around the age 16, that I was a democratic socialist. I have been an active member of the Labour party since I was 17 and have voted Labour in every election since then. Back then - and now - I see the Labour party as the best (indeed only) available political instrument for creating a more equal and fairer society in this country, for supporting the poorest and most disadvantaged. Nothing that has happened in the last fourteen years has led me to re-consider that in any way at all - and everything about Labour's history and achievements tells me that I'm right.
I have never been one of those people who wants to find out about the personal qualities of particular candidates in this or that election. I just want to know whether in their gut they feel the same way that I do about the big issues eg) that they prioritise social justice, that they see improving the life of the working class in this country and the poor around the world as their biggest political priority, that they oppose racism, sexism, xenophobia and other bigotries in all their appalling forms etc etc. Labour candidates, selected by Labour members who hold those values like me, almost always do - whether they be Peter Mandelson or Tony Benn, to take two obvious extremes. When I change constituencies and meet members in my new branch or GC - I immediately reocgnise something you might call 'Labour people' - kindred spirits, despite their varying personalities and backgrounds.
I have never voted tactically - I have voted Labour even when we're in third or fourth place, simply on the basis that it sends a signal that there are people like us around, in a certain number, whose views need to be taken into account. I would vote tactically to stop the BNP - even (because this is the logical if uncomfortable consequence of my position on this) if it meant voting Tory - that is politics with different stakes, where the political considerations are of a different order. I suppose I would have voted for Jacques Chirac to stop Le Pen when they were the only two options for the French presidency - but would of course have done so entirely unhappily.
My loyalties are also international - I have supported many of our sister parties in other countries - I have distributed literature for the Chilean Socialists, attended rallies for the Broad Front in Uruguay, given out leaflets for the German Social Democrats (I came unstuck when an angry conservative voter took issue with some of the content, given that I speak almost no German). Here my view is that in these countries similar people to me, with my values, are in those parties of the Socialist International - and I want to see them do well.
So, there are various acts of disloyalty or lack of commitment that grate with me. I have never really liked defectors. I felt riled while at party conference in Manchester a few years ago I saw Shaun Woodward pottering about, like me, in the People's History Museum of all places! Apparently he's alright, people tell me, but I will always look on him with suspiscion. Same goes for our latest recruit - Quentin or whatever his name his.
Tony Blair's recent antics - speaking at a political rally for the centre-right and saying that left and right have no meaning anymore (instead, he claimed, it is now just a question of yesterday versus tomorrow - oh, purlease....!) are particularly annoying and to be condemned. He is also speaking at an audience of breakaway 'Third way' socialists. Why doesn't he speak to the Parti Socialiste? (he'd probably get booed, which I guess says something!). Despite disagreeing with him on many occasions I have never been given to doubt that Tony Blair feels a great sense of respect for the Labour party that supported him (often through gritted teeth) in his ten years in power - why then be a political rat on the international stage? The difference with Gordon is you feel he would never do that - he's a loyalist, its written all over him.
Martin Kettle is a particularly annoying commentator in this regard (although I am enjoying his comments on the US elections at the moment). From backing Labour under Blair, he then turned on Brown, has recently flirted with the Lib Dems - and called for a vote for Angela Merkel in the last German elections. No doubt, like David Owen (whom Dennis Healy famously and accurately called 'a shit'), he would claim that he's not changing his views - its the parties that are changing their's. Oddly these centrist people, because they are at the margin of the various parties, are a bit like the people on the far left or far right, also at the margin, who swap parties that differ from them on relatively minor issues - because they do not deliver exactly what they want. The loyalists among us do not see politics in such a consumerist way (will they give me everything I want?) but rather as being about shifting the balance generally in our favour - which requires, to use an old Marxist phrase, an 'accumulation of forces' - sticking with and building up your party, through good and times and bad, because they are basically right about most big questions.
So what of tribalism? This is not a virtue, when contrasted with loyalty - because it implies one has lost control of one's rational faculties. An element of it is however natural and inevitable - we're all human. For those of us involved in politics it becomes an emotional affair - we have committed ourselves to a cause over decades of our lives, the party becomes almost like family, through it you have met and sustain relationships with many friends and colleagues - over time you feel your allegiance to it like that of your football team or kinship network - if someone attacks it, you back it, when you watch PMQs you cheer your side and boo their's almost regardless of whatever they are saying. On election night you experience genuine mood swings (elation, anger, despondency) as your side swings in and out of favour. You have invested a lot of your life in this thing - you feel a loyalty to it as well as think it.
But there of course are limits - there are things that a Labour government could do in theory that would be so divorced from what I could accept, that I would be forced out - but it would have to be something big, that made it utterly irrational for somebody who beleives what I do about the world to remain in party that acted in a certain way. In short it would have to give up its belief in achieving social justice - the thing that holds people together (from Tony Benn to Tony Blair), its very raison d'etre - something which is most unlikely.
So contrary to the view of so many political commentators, I believe political (and, because political achivements require collective action, partisan) loyalty to be a virtuous thing. Tribalism is a natural, human consequence - but, as ever with the emotions, it has, from time to time, to be reigned in by the application of reason.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
Shadows of Marx
It has become respectable within polite company to speak, once again, of a crisis of capitalism. Whereas ten years ago only the most orthodox elements of the hard left would speak in such terms - today relatively mainstream commentators, economists and even business people are starting to question whether free market capitalism is any longer sustainable.
The cause of this crisis is not the troubles on the financial markets, which have at regular intervals throughout the last hundred years been taken by many on the left as a sign of capitalism's imminent demise. This has mostly been wishful thinking. The system has shown itself capable of surviving such things - if only on occasion as a result of being rescued by the state.
Nor is the trigger for this crisis the central dialectic that Marx saw as the harbinger of the system's demise - class struggle. Again, contrary to Marx's prophecies, capitalism has proven itself capable of surviving (indeed flourishing) despite enormous inequalities in wealth and power.
Rather the dialectic that seems to put the whole system into question today is the contradiction between capitalism's insatiable drive for growth and wealth accumulation - and the scarce resources of the planet. The system appears - on its current trajectory - to be doomed, simply because it is destroying the planet. An economic model driven by the untrammelled desire to produce and consume more and more of the earth's resources, polluting by ever increasing amounts as it does so, is simply unsustainable.
To qualify - there are of course varieties of capitalism - Scandanavian social democracy is very different from the Anglo-American model. A more planned and regulated form of capitalism, with a strong role for the state, might be capable of rescuing itself - and us.
The question, then, is whether the dominant neo-liberal model of capitalism, one of free markets and with only very limited regulation of economic activity by national and international institutions oriented to the public good, can be compatible with the avoidance of catastrophic climate change? Or would the kind of capitalism that could stand any chance of saving the planet cease to be recognisable to us as the kind of capitalism we live under today? It seems to me that what we are facing is not merely a major problem, that could be overcome through the application of market solutions - but a systemic crisis - one from which the system, on its own terms, is incapable of escaping.
The cause of this crisis is not the troubles on the financial markets, which have at regular intervals throughout the last hundred years been taken by many on the left as a sign of capitalism's imminent demise. This has mostly been wishful thinking. The system has shown itself capable of surviving such things - if only on occasion as a result of being rescued by the state.
Nor is the trigger for this crisis the central dialectic that Marx saw as the harbinger of the system's demise - class struggle. Again, contrary to Marx's prophecies, capitalism has proven itself capable of surviving (indeed flourishing) despite enormous inequalities in wealth and power.
Rather the dialectic that seems to put the whole system into question today is the contradiction between capitalism's insatiable drive for growth and wealth accumulation - and the scarce resources of the planet. The system appears - on its current trajectory - to be doomed, simply because it is destroying the planet. An economic model driven by the untrammelled desire to produce and consume more and more of the earth's resources, polluting by ever increasing amounts as it does so, is simply unsustainable.
To qualify - there are of course varieties of capitalism - Scandanavian social democracy is very different from the Anglo-American model. A more planned and regulated form of capitalism, with a strong role for the state, might be capable of rescuing itself - and us.
The question, then, is whether the dominant neo-liberal model of capitalism, one of free markets and with only very limited regulation of economic activity by national and international institutions oriented to the public good, can be compatible with the avoidance of catastrophic climate change? Or would the kind of capitalism that could stand any chance of saving the planet cease to be recognisable to us as the kind of capitalism we live under today? It seems to me that what we are facing is not merely a major problem, that could be overcome through the application of market solutions - but a systemic crisis - one from which the system, on its own terms, is incapable of escaping.
Sunday, 6 January 2008
Obamarama
Why Obama? Friends of mine are backing other candidates - and for what seem to be good solid policy reasons. John Edwards seems to be the most left-wing candidate and Jon Snow claimed on Channel 4 News tonight that even Hillary Clinton is more liberal than Obama - proposing a more encompassing health care plan, for instance.
But I have been attracted to Barack Obama ever since I first heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that launched John Kerry's ill fated bid for the White House, and I really hope he prevails in this contest.
Why?
The first thing about Obama is that he is a candidate who inspires an emotional response in a way the others don't - his oratory is inspirational, as is his life story. He is young and untested yes - but that is exactly his charm. He has the swagger of a John or Robert Kennedy about him - he is in short a candidate you can believe in. President Hillary? Obviously that would be a vast improvement on what we have at the moment - but it still leaves me cold. President Obama is exciting.
Second, I don't think the differences in policy detail between Obama, Edwards and Clinton are that sharp - in this race the Democratic field are all to the left of Bill Clinton in his day, as is the Democratic Congress. A President Obama, Clinton or Edwards would be a liberal President - the real test is getting the politics right. Intentions are one thing, but as Bill Clinton discovered on health care reform, if you can't get it through congress (even when your own party has a majority) then your electoral programme is worthless.
And this brings me to another point - and one that has been made by numerous commentators in recent days - Obama because of his age comes from the next generation and stands the best chance of moving on from the culture wars that have dominated the Clinton/Bush periods. He is a less divisive figure than Hillary and that is what is needed to build a new electoral coalition and sustain legislative results across two terms of a Democratic presidency.
Finally I think he can win - he has inspired more young voters and independents to participate in this election than any other candidate. He reaches out in a way Hillary doesn't despite her general approach being that of the safe centrist pair of hands.
Hillary is definitely not out yet - and if she prevails obviously I wish her well. But I hope the Democrats skip a generation and give us something to get excited about.
But I have been attracted to Barack Obama ever since I first heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that launched John Kerry's ill fated bid for the White House, and I really hope he prevails in this contest.
Why?
The first thing about Obama is that he is a candidate who inspires an emotional response in a way the others don't - his oratory is inspirational, as is his life story. He is young and untested yes - but that is exactly his charm. He has the swagger of a John or Robert Kennedy about him - he is in short a candidate you can believe in. President Hillary? Obviously that would be a vast improvement on what we have at the moment - but it still leaves me cold. President Obama is exciting.
Second, I don't think the differences in policy detail between Obama, Edwards and Clinton are that sharp - in this race the Democratic field are all to the left of Bill Clinton in his day, as is the Democratic Congress. A President Obama, Clinton or Edwards would be a liberal President - the real test is getting the politics right. Intentions are one thing, but as Bill Clinton discovered on health care reform, if you can't get it through congress (even when your own party has a majority) then your electoral programme is worthless.
And this brings me to another point - and one that has been made by numerous commentators in recent days - Obama because of his age comes from the next generation and stands the best chance of moving on from the culture wars that have dominated the Clinton/Bush periods. He is a less divisive figure than Hillary and that is what is needed to build a new electoral coalition and sustain legislative results across two terms of a Democratic presidency.
Finally I think he can win - he has inspired more young voters and independents to participate in this election than any other candidate. He reaches out in a way Hillary doesn't despite her general approach being that of the safe centrist pair of hands.
Hillary is definitely not out yet - and if she prevails obviously I wish her well. But I hope the Democrats skip a generation and give us something to get excited about.
Saturday, 29 December 2007
No more Sir Michaels
Well done to Parky and Kylie. Very well deserved. But what an embarassment the British honours system is. Sir Ian McKellan is to become a member of a group called the Companion of Honour - an exclusive order of only 65 members including the Queen herself. There are other obscure orders including the Most Noble Order of the Garter and the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle.
Does anyone understand what any of this means or signifies? The whole thing also stinks of outdated notions of social hierarchy. There is nothing wrong with any society, including an egalitarian one, rewarding citizens who have made a significant contribution to the community in the past year - but our current system mixes up recognition of civic contributions with ancient titles signifying social status.
So can we give public recognition to to those who have made an important contribution to the community but get rid of the nonesense? Yes - here's a seven point plan.
1. Detach honours from titles - stop giving out knighthoods, damehoods etc. Just give some letters after a persons name that would indicate they have received an award. This means we wouldn't have to embarasssingly refer to people as 'Sir Michael' or 'Dame Mary', but if someone has got an OBE they could still have it formally recognised after their name. The existing knights could keep their knighthoods but the titles would die with them.
2. Detach honours from seats in parliament - the honours system should be about rewarding civic contributions, not allocating seats in the legislature. Have a fully elected second chamber.
3. Make the system intelligible so we can all understand what a civic honour means - you could still have grades for different levels of contribution, but perhaps three or four rather than twenty odd. You could award them all on a single day.
4. Remove references to the empire and the military. The military should have their own separate system for acknowledging bravery. Many of us would refuse an honour that referred to Britain's imperialist past. Rather than celebrating colonialism, the honours system should speak to what we today value as a society. One concession to the traditionalists - you could keep the letters, so as the Public Administration Select Commitee argued, you could have the Order of British Excellence, with membership signified by OBEs and MBEs. These acronyms do have traction with the public, so it would make sense to keep them.
5. Scrap the byzantine system for awarding honours (its currently done by committees of civil servants) - have a single committee made up of a representative group of respected citizens - trade union leaders, business people, sports people etc. They would be responsible for deliberating over the candidates and explaining the rationale behind their decisions.
6. Stop giving automatic honours to particular people - eg) permanent secretaries. They should be earned not given as a right to particular classes of professionals.
7. Give greater weight to local contributions than at present - eg) more community heros, less footballers and celebrities.
Does anyone understand what any of this means or signifies? The whole thing also stinks of outdated notions of social hierarchy. There is nothing wrong with any society, including an egalitarian one, rewarding citizens who have made a significant contribution to the community in the past year - but our current system mixes up recognition of civic contributions with ancient titles signifying social status.
So can we give public recognition to to those who have made an important contribution to the community but get rid of the nonesense? Yes - here's a seven point plan.
1. Detach honours from titles - stop giving out knighthoods, damehoods etc. Just give some letters after a persons name that would indicate they have received an award. This means we wouldn't have to embarasssingly refer to people as 'Sir Michael' or 'Dame Mary', but if someone has got an OBE they could still have it formally recognised after their name. The existing knights could keep their knighthoods but the titles would die with them.
2. Detach honours from seats in parliament - the honours system should be about rewarding civic contributions, not allocating seats in the legislature. Have a fully elected second chamber.
3. Make the system intelligible so we can all understand what a civic honour means - you could still have grades for different levels of contribution, but perhaps three or four rather than twenty odd. You could award them all on a single day.
4. Remove references to the empire and the military. The military should have their own separate system for acknowledging bravery. Many of us would refuse an honour that referred to Britain's imperialist past. Rather than celebrating colonialism, the honours system should speak to what we today value as a society. One concession to the traditionalists - you could keep the letters, so as the Public Administration Select Commitee argued, you could have the Order of British Excellence, with membership signified by OBEs and MBEs. These acronyms do have traction with the public, so it would make sense to keep them.
5. Scrap the byzantine system for awarding honours (its currently done by committees of civil servants) - have a single committee made up of a representative group of respected citizens - trade union leaders, business people, sports people etc. They would be responsible for deliberating over the candidates and explaining the rationale behind their decisions.
6. Stop giving automatic honours to particular people - eg) permanent secretaries. They should be earned not given as a right to particular classes of professionals.
7. Give greater weight to local contributions than at present - eg) more community heros, less footballers and celebrities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
