Exceptional Whiskers & A Populist Army: The Story of Populism. Pt. 2

December 1891 in St. Louis, Missouri saw the new People’s Party hold their national convention.  Attended by 10,000 cheering people, the delegates presented the first Populist Manifesto.  The new political movement wasn’t so much a wind of change as a hurricane.  In response to calls for a presidential nominee to be named the people erupted, the cheering so loud it reached the thousands outside of the hall who had been unable to get in.  They joined in and the chorus of cheers was so loud it reminded ‘one of the lashing of the ocean against a rocky beach during a hurricane.’

The wave blew right over into Omaha, where on Independence Day, the People’s Party took political root.  The Omaha Platform, as it came to be known, set out the main tenets of the Populist movement; the secret ballot, direct election of senators, graduated income tax and an 8 hour day were among the main manifesto pledges.  James B. Weaver was eventually nominated as the party’s first presidential candidate.  Lacking the oratory skills and political colour of Sockless Jerry Simpson and Mary Elizabeth Lease (see my blog: Story of Populism. Pt.1), Weaver, from Iowa, was said to be a composite of strength and gentleness, a man who ‘the cannibalism of politics had snapped at in vain.’

Candidate James B. Weaver

The People’s Party had evolved out of the Texas or Farmers Alliance in the West of the United States at a time when the frontier was all but finished.  Senator William Peffer put it well when he said that “formerly when a farmer lost his farm he could go West,” but “now there is no longer any West to go to!  Now they have to fight for their farms instead of making new.”

At a time when political characters abounded, Peffer stood out by the length of his beard, which was so long it was written that he ‘is not obliged to spend money on a Christmas tree.  He simply puts glass balls, small candles, strings of popcorn and cornucopias in his magnificent whiskers and there you are!’

William Peffer & his exceptional whiskers!

Another Populist candidate, one Davis Waite, who ran for the senatorial seat in Colorado proposed ‘free and unlimited coinage of silver,’ saying that “blood should flow to the horses’ bridles rather than our national liberties should be destroyed!’

One key component of Populist politicians of whatever era, is that they rail against the system.  The system may change or evolve with time and with different governments, but the basic character of Populist politicians does not.  They fight the elite (or the system) on behalf of the people, whether that elite be Wall St (Occupy Wall St campaign), billionaires (Bernie Saunders) or corporations who wish to leave the USA for cheaper labour (Donald Trump).

Back in 1892 Waite, or ‘Bloody Bridles’ Waite as became known, terrified the conservatives who were convinced he wanted to lead the ‘silver states’ out of the union or even worse, that he may raise a Populist army to invade the East.  Coming less than 30 years after the cessation of hostilities (from the Civil War) these fears were very real indeed.  Waite, together with another eager Populist campaigner, Hamlin Garland, whipped up a political storm which blew all the way to Washington.

'Bloody Bridles' Waite

The People’s Party shouted loudly enough that their voice was heard across the United States; no mean feat back then when communication was much slower.  But the Eastern newspapers never really took to their cause, despite feeling sympathy for the plight of the Westerners, the Populists were viewed as rabble rousers who wanted to bring the political architecture down about Washington’s ears.  But despite shouting the loudest Grover Cleveland was elected President, whilst the People’s Party claimed ascendency only the West.

In Kansas the Populists won control of the state senate and state House of Representatives, as well as the seat of governor, but in a disputed result the Republicans upset the proverbial apple cart, with each party electing a presiding officer, then taking turns to pass laws and make speeches in the others’ absence. From there it descended into near chaos as armed Populists took over the state legislature, with Republicans trying to smash their way back in with sledgehammers.  The governor called out the state militia who rolled Gatling guns out onto the lawns out front of the house.  However, no further violence ensued when it became clear that the Gatling guns had been effectively scuppered (someone had removed the cranks needed for firing the article) and were useless.  Then a blizzard brought everything to standstill for a time, after which the Populists up and left leaving the courts to sort out the mess.  Since the courts were Republican it all went their way and the Kansas ‘Pops’ began to fade away.

Reading about it from here it all sounds like some wild and wacky scenes from a Coen Brothers movie, but it does illustrate one thing perhaps, the passion Westerners felt for their politics!  Indeed, similar scenes blew up in Denver the very next year (1893) following the ‘money panic’ that forced banks to close, mines to shut and the rural unemployed to migrant in their thousands into the cities.  Governor ‘Bloody Bridles’ Waite in Denver who, in attempting to feed and shelter the migrants, ran foul of other local officials.  Once again the troops were called in and cannon were on the streets in an attempt to restore order.

Free silver was seen as the universal cure-all by the unfortunates, the down trodden and the unemployed, and its’ proponents grew all over the hard-up West.  Dee Brown tells of one such protagonist, described as being 'a huge man, wearing high boots, a sombrero, and a fringed buckskin shirt with buttons made of silver!'  This was Carl Browne, latter-day rancher, cartoonist, editor and sometime inventor of flying machines, who arrived at the 1893 Free Silver Convention in Chicago spouting stories of a Populist Army of over 1 million Westerners who were ready to march into Washingtom and demand the government address their concerns.  The baton was firmly taken up by Jacob Coxey, from Ohio, who considered that a million Esaterners might also be persuaded to join in, so it followed that Coxey's Army was borne and the Populist Army was on the march.

Between them Browne and Coxey stirred up a hornets nest.  Armies of followers came from all over, the largest hailing from California, Colorado, Idaho, Washington and Montana, all of them heading for DC in the Spring of 1894.  What a sight it must have made, all marching in unison with a single aim; to make the government listen to their needs!

But not everyone joined the bandwagon and for some the march became a life and death affair.  In Butte, unemployed miners and railraod workers highjacked a train which they took to Bozeman, Ohio, where they added to their number and took on more than 3 tonnes of flour and beef before continuing on to Billings, where a US Marshall and 75 deputies awaited.  In the ensuing fight a man was killed and several more were wounded as the Marshall and his men retired to safety.

During the night, as the train lay sidetracked in in Forsyth, the War Department sent in 6 Companies of infantry form Fort Keogh and 4 of Cavalry from Fort Custer to rein the men in.  As the 'Pops' lay sleeping the troops moved in, arresting 331 men, who were then transported to Helena, tried, convicted and sentenced.  But even this didn't cool their ardour.  A month later they were headed East once again, this time riding flatboats down the Missouri!

The largest army of all was led by Charles T. Kelly, and it came from California.  Over 1500 men, including a young Jack London (later author of Call of the Wild and White Fang) rejected the offer of a free freight train and took over passenger cars instead.  Nevertheless by the time they had reached Utah transportaion had once again become a problem.  'Bloody Bridles' Waite, then Guvernor of Colorado, invited them into his state where they took control of a Union Pacific Freight train which ran all the way to Omaha without incident.

However, in Washington the wait was tough, and by the time the late arrivals from the West rolled into town Coxey had already departed, ostensibly to look for funds, whilst others, including Carl Browne, had gone for a jolly at the beach in Atlantic City!  The march had failed dismally and many began the long trek for home, vowing to continue the fight at the ballot box.

So it was with the early Populists, their cause alive with more enthusiasm than success, more misplaced dynamism than seats won.  In the end the nearset they came to winning the Presidency was oddly enough with a Democrat, one William Jennings Bryan, who had more or less filched the Populist manifesto word for word and ran in 1896 attracting support from both the Democrats and the Populists.  In a close run contest he eventually lost out to William McKinley, and depite running twice more this was the closest Bryan came.

As America saw in the new century prosperity once again burned bright and the fires of industry grew, the flames consuming the passions and personalities of the Populist cause, which was not to rear its' head in discomfort again until the last decade when, following the financial crisis of 2008/9, the seeds of discontent began to grow anew.

In the final part of this I shall take a look the new rise of Populism across the capitalist West, its' characters and its' future.

What is Populism & where did it all begin? The Story of Populism Pt.1

With French and German elections next up on the European agenda there is much talk of the ‘populist’ candidates and how they will fare.  After the wholly unexpected Brexit vote in last years UK referendum and then the shock of Donald Trump winning the US Presidency it’s fair to say there is more than a modicum of unease at what may be round the corner.

This time last year it’s a reasonable bet that many of us weren’t familiar with the term ‘populism’ or what was implied when the term was used in a political context.  So what do populist politicians stand for and where did populism come from?

The first populist politicians were those associated with the People’s Party back in the early 1890’s in the West of the USA with perhaps the original populist being ‘sockless’ Jerry Simpson!  ‘Sockless’ Simpson was a Kansas farmer and former sailor and possessed of a somewhat transient political pedigree having been a supporter of ol’ Abe before becoming a Greenbacker, a Granger, a Union Labor man and a Single Taxer (in that order chronologically) but nevertheless had an orators leanings and a head for the politics and persuasions of the working man.

‘Sockless’ came to the fore in the West just as the frontier began to disappear and in the wake of the ‘Panic of 1873’ when the bottom first fell out of the cattle market in the Western United States ending the beef boom of the previous decades. It was a time of rapid change when frontier politics was still finding its’ feet and its’ direction.  Democracy was an exciting new word that opened up a whole raft of possibilities to the untamed folk of the West who held few pretentions and even fewer biases, such that on December 10, 1869 women were granted the vote and complete political equality with men in Wyoming Territory, the first decree of its’ kind anywhere in the Americas.

Dee Brown, in his wonderful book ‘The American West,’ tells of a charming incident during the first Wyoming vote and how one Margaret Thompson Hunter came to cast her vote.  “When election day rolled around, Mr. Hellman stopped in and asked me to go and vote for him.  I was busy making pies and hadn’t intended voting, but after all Mr. Hellman was a neighbor and also a very good friend of my husband’s.  So I pushed my pies aside, removed my apron, and tidied myself up a bit.  Then I got into the buggy with Mr. Hellman and he drove me to the polls.  Well, I voted and as we turned to leave we came face to face with my husband.  When I explained to him that I had just voted for Mr. Hellman, I thought he would have a fit.”

“You see, my husband was a staunch Democrat and one of the leaders of his party, and there I had just voted for a Republican.  He was never so humiliated in all his life, he told me.”

Western politicians wanted everybody to vote and even resorted to cajoling vote-less Indians to vote coaching them in the use of the names of Irish immigrants to do so. So there were Cheyenne and Yuma Indians called ‘Mulligan’ and ‘Sullivan’ who voted that year!

But it was after the Panic of 1873 that Western politicians first demonstrated their exceptional organizational abilities with the formation of local units of the Patrons of Husbandry, or National Grange, which were formed as a direct result of the excessive transportation rates that the railroad monopolies charged.  Prices were incessantly raised higher and higher for the things locals needed to buy (from the East), as well as lower and lower for the cattle they needed to sell (in the East), until they sucked all the profit out of the ranchers pockets.  In the end the Grangers decided to cut out the middle-man to keep prices low, a tactic that worked reasonably well throughout the 1870’s but eventually lost favour due to the Government taking no notice of their plight and, despite their best efforts, prices had continued to rise regardless.

But by this time Westerners had a taste for politics and for democracy such that down in Texas the Texas Alliance was born out of the cattle industry largely as a backlash against rustlers, thievery and barbed wire.  Just like the Grange they had secret handshakes, passwords and codes, and they too tried to eliminate the middleman, but unlike the more social Grange, the Alliance had a more political bias to its’ aims and very soon started to attract people of all persuasions from teachers, lawyers and doctors through to farm workers and labourers and in Jerry Simpson, they had a charismatic leader who had the guile and wit to stand up and fight for the common man.

'Sockless' Jerry Simpson

The year was 1890 and it must have been amazing to witness these unreal scenes.  Reading about it now it sounds like it must have been a wonderful and uplifting experience to have been a part of, with the feel of a grainy, early movie from a lost and bygone age, acted out against a backdrop of sprawling picnics, marching bands and powerful speechmaking, all taking place under a hot sun, everywhere alive with vibrancy, optimism and the pioneer spirit which ran thick, like molasses, through the veins of these early Westerners.  It must have been an exciting time to have been alive.

As the summer wore on the Alliance took on the passionate fervour of a political revolt with women beating the democratic drum just as hard as men.  So it was that the legend of Mary Elizabeth Lease came to be.  She was a firebrand orator with a taste for rebellion who made 161 speeches in the summer of 1890. “The people are at bay,” she said, “Let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us thus far beware.  What you farmers need is to raise less corn and more hell!”

With her high, black collars and dresses, and a somewhat stern visage, she had the look of someone who had always just come from a funeral!  But her voice, by all accounts, held a sing-songy quality that seemed to hypnotise her audiences and hid a biting edge to her oratory.  “Wall Street owns the country,” she declared. “It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street.”

Mary Elizabeth Lease

Dee Brown cites the Kansas City Times as saying that ‘the campaign of 1890 was a good deal more than a political campaign.  It was a religious revival, a crusade.’  Something which in many ways we saw repeated during the Presidential campaign of 2016 with the Trump rallies having, perhaps, a similar feel to them, even if the message was vastly different.

The Alliance ran out winners in that year, with the so-called farmers revolt winning seats all across the West, sending shock waves through the political establishment and stimulating debate for the admission of a third political party in the United States.  For the next two years the rebellion continued to gather pace, until in December 1891 the leaders of the Alliance presented the first Populist Manifesto which called for a national convention where they would name a presidential candidate for the new People’s Party.

To be continued……..!

New Somali President calls for an end to the long standing conflict & invites Al Shabaab to help rebuild their country. Parallels with the Colombian conflict.

In September 2016 Rodrigo Londono (also known as Timoshenko) signed a peace deal that following on the back of a ceasefire that had stood since April 2016, effectively ended 40 years of conflict in Colombia. A week later the Colombian people rejected that deal in a referendum that shook the fragile peace process between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (or FARC).  To get to that point had been a fraught and no doubt, delicate process that had begun back in 2012 but had ultimately gripped both sides with a strong desire for peace.

The ceasefire held whilst re-negotiations continued and in December 2016 a new deal was agreed (without recourse to a 2nd referendum) that was centred around 5 basic principles (pdf):

• Future political participation of FARC members
• rebels reintegration into civilian life
•  illegal crop eradication 
• transitional justice and reparations (by FARC)
• rebel disarmament and implementation of the peace deal

And in simple terms it seems to be working.  We have all seen the amazing pictures on TV of the rebels handing over their weapons, something I thought I would never see, but am very happy that I have.

This long lived conflict began back in the 1960's when FARC and the National Liberation Army (ELN) took up arms against the government after being excluded from a power-sharing agreement that followed a decade of political violence (known as la violencia - 1948-58).  FARC's basic ideology is that of militant communism, whilst the ELN were left-wing political radicals who yearned for a Castro style communist revolution in Colombia.  Without going into too much detail here it's enough to say that the aims of both groups were fundamentally political in nature with both using violence, kidnapping and extortion as the major tools of their trade and funding their illicit trade with vast quantities of drug money, supplying up to 90% of the worlds cocaine in the early years of this century.

FARC rebels (from TIME magazine)

The peace process was ultimately kick-started in 2000 through a controversial US aid package, imaginatively called 'Plan Colombia,' worth in excess of $10bn that was directed towards limiting drug production and trafficking, strengthening Colombian institutions and helping to combat guerrilla violence, as well as helping promote bilateral trade between the two countries.  The plan however, had its' critics who condemned it for increasing both death rates and the (internal) displacement of huge numbers of people, but on the other hand it also had its' proponents, who said Plan Colombia had been 'instrumental in paving the way' for the onset of peace talks in 2016. 

The road to peace has been a dangerous, but delicate one that at times was rife with pot-holes but has, in the end, reached its' destination.  Colombia now for the first time in living memory can look forward to a more rosy future, free of violence that can work for everyone. (For anyone interested in the peace process see this (pdf) for more details).

The above is an extremely potted version of recent Colombian history.  And what inspired me to pass on these snippets was (oddly?) a BBC Africa podcast (22nd Feb - still available for download) which told how Somalia's new President, Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo, has invited members of Al Shabaab to renounce violence and help rebuild their war torn country.

I listen to the Africa Today podcast every day.  I love Africa and Africans.  My wife is African and since I was a little boy I've been telling people I was born in the wrong country!  But that's neither here nor there - the point is that despite my huge affinity for Africa and all things African, when I listen to the podcast I'm quite often struck by how ridiculous and (quite frankly) dumb some of the things I hear seem to be.  And my first thought on hearing President Farmajo's words was incredulity!

Peace with Al Shabaab!?  It'll never happen and what's more it'll never work!  Yet another outlandish and ridiculous example of the rank stupidity of African politics and diplomacy!

But that evening I watched a news report on Al Jazeera that showed the FARC rebels handing their weapons over and I suddenly thought 'well maybe this guy's not so dumb after all!  In fact maybe he's a visionary!'  After all, if it can work in Colombia, why not in Somalia?

The conflict in Somalia has been ongoing since 1991 when the dictator Mohamed Said Barre was ousted and the country fell into disarray with the disintegration of any central authority and infighting between rival clan warlords.  I spent quite a bit of time in Kenya in 1992 and remember even then being conscious of the instability the conflict had already brought to the region, witnessed in the faces of many Kenyans as they issued warnings to tourists to stay well clear of the Somali border regions.

As rival warlords battled across Somalia two relatively peaceful
areas in the north, Somaliland & Puntland broke away.

Al Shabaab is the militant wing of the Somali Council of Islamic Courts which in 2006 overran most of southern Somalia.  Since then the conflict has seesawed back and forth with Al Shabaab using terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare against Somalian armed forces, the African Union peacekeeping force (AMISON) and the various NGO's operating in the region.  However, since 2011 the Somali and AMISON forces have gained some traction and have significantly degraded Al Shabaab's control and military capabilities over many regions of Somalia including the capital, Mogadishu.

Beset by infighting among its' leaders, Al Shabaab does not have a centralised structure or a unified set of goals.  It's stated primary objective is the establishment of an Islamic State in Somalia based on Islamic (Sharia) Law and the elimination of foreign (infidel) influence, but despite this clan politics and shifting alliances (between clans) have all worked to limit their effectiveness.  The group maintains a fluctuating affiliation with Al Queada and has claimed responsibility for many terrorist bombings and suicide attacks in Somalia as well as the Westgate mall attack in Nairobi (in 2013), and further attacks in Djibouti and Kenya.

New President Mohamed Farmajo

Recent military gains by Somalian forces and AMISON have led to greater efforts to restore a central authority and in 2012 resulted in the swearing in of a formal parliament, the first in more than 20 years.  And then in February 2017 parliament elected (in closed voting due to security threats from Al Shabaab) Mohmaned Abdullahi Farmajo, a dual US-Somali citizen as the new President.  Despite some (inevitable?) corruption allegations during the election process there remains great hope that Farmajo may be the man to turn things around pledging during his campaign to work towards improving security, education and the economy, as well as to build towards full democratic elections.

Parallels between the Colombian and Somali conflicts may not seem immediately apparent.  The FARC rebels were political ideologists whilst Al Shabaab are religious extremists, but both groups employed similar tactics to achieve their aims and both have caused extreme strife, hardship and sorrow right across their respective nations.  

In Somalia the ongoing conflict has certainly exacerbated the current drought situation turning it into a national disaster that has the potential to affect millions across the country.  Just last week the President announced that 110 people had died from hunger in one day alone and warned that the drought may escalate into a full blown famine.

Somalia and its' impoverished, war ravaged people need hope right now, not just that the drought will end, but also that the conflict that has torn this country apart for far too long may also come to an end.  Al Shabaab are on the back foot and losing territory.  The President's appeal for peace will hopefully not go unheeded. The nations many wounds, the years of fear and hate may take a long time to begin to heal, but it is surely something that must be a priority now for all to share in.  

In Colombia the peace process took years to bear fruit.  And it will be an ongoing process as the people and the rebels learn to live with one another once more in a shared peace, with a common desire to put the past behind themselves and to look forwards to a brighter future together.

If Al Shabaab and the people of Somalia, led by their new President, can at least begin to talk about putting their arms aside, then perhaps they can start to rediscover that they actually have more in common with each other than they might think and then, hopefully, some sort of peace can grow, reconciliation can begin and eventually Somalia and its' people can start to heal their wounds just as the people of Colombia are now doing.

Trump's softer tone fudges the truth & pulls the wool over his supporters eyes!

Donald Trump's inaugural congressional address last night showed a different, more upbeat, more Presidential Trump.  He spoke of a "new chapter of American greatness" and called for Republicans and Democrats to unite to solve the nations problems.  He was more conciliatory, more measured and less controversial with (according to a CNN poll) 57% of those watching having a positive reaction to his messages.  But is it just more Trump slight of hand or are we really seeing a man growing into the job?

To be honest I think the jury is still out.  This was, at the end of the day, just one speech.  There were no press questions to rattle his cage.  He was able to read it from an autocue and for once, he seemed prepared and was not speaking extemporaneously.  However, for me it was more of a campaign speech, he promised much, but as in every speech before the detail on the mechanics of his policies, how they will work, how they will be paid for, was all but absent.

He spoke of a $1trillion infrastructure expenditure plan with "new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our very, very beautiful land, " which he said would provide millions of new jobs and would be financed through a partnership between public and private funds.  This all sounds wonderful but where's the reality check?  Private companies need to turn a profit to yield suitable dividends for their shareholders.  Where is the profit in building a road?  Or a bridge?  Or a tunnel?  Unless of course all of these are to come with a toll payable by all who use them!  And given the tax cuts he proposes where is the public money to come from?  America has, as of today, a national debt of very nearly $20trillion, that's over $61,000 per capita!!!  The truth is that it is simply unsustainable and unrealistic.

Trump listed many companies (e.g. Fiat-Chrysler, GM, Lockheed, Intel, etc) that will invest billions and create thousands of new jobs.  Whilst this is true and not more of  his 'alternative facts', it is misleading and far from the real truth.  His supporters don't want to hear it, but actually a Bloomberg analysis showed that the vast majority of these 'deals' pre-date Trump and were in place before the election, and what's more many of them do not create any 'new' employment at all!

Then there's the proposed $54bn increase in defence spending.  The cost of the 'wall' which seems to be going up on a daily basis but is perhaps conservatively estimated at $21bn, and will be paid for by US tax payers, not by the Mexicans as promised.  It just doesn't add up mathematically despite the cuts that are proposed in order to pay for much of it!

Then there was his claims that the "vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism-related offences since 9/11 came here from outside our country" which was just plain NOT true.  He quoted figures that don't exist, and those that do were flawed and biased because they were merely (terror) tips that didn't add up to anything and did not result in any prosecutions or attacks.  And of those 'attacks' that did actually exist, 50% were committed by US born citizens, far from the majority of foreign attackers he said!  Again this sort of rhetoric sounds great and looks great but is based on lies and distorted facts that Trump twists to suit his purpose because he knows that most people do not scratch beneath the surface to find the truth of what he saying.  These lies then become the alternative facts on which he bases his policies, but foundations built upon untruths are going to come tumbling down at some point and when they do, watch out!

In summary whilst it was refreshing to see a less belligerent President Trump it was still a speech that preached to the converted; a speech that rang all the right bells provided you don't look too closely at the structure of the bell tower.  I'm not convinced by Trump's rhetoric and I'm not convinced that this is the start of a more presidential phase.  Trump is a master manipulator who skillfully blends facts, half-truths and out right lies together in such a way that it masks reality, blurring the lines between the possible and the impossible, the facts and the so-called alternative facts.  If he can cut out the bullshit, the constant meltdowns in press conferences, the ridiculously, childish attacks against the media that may express a differing point of view (from his), the rabid anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric and maintain a much calmer tone over an extended period then he would be much more likely to dampen down the storms of protest against him and may actually get a few more on board.

But don't hold your breath!

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster - Trump's best appointment? But who is he & what challenges is he facing?

When, after days of confusion Donald Trump announced his new (or 3rd?) pick for National Security Advisor there more or less universal acknowledgement that he might, finally, have made the correct choice.  That choice is Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond 'H.R.' McMaster, a career soldier with immense experience both as a soldier, a military historian and an award winning author (for a full bio click here).

As a non-American and virulent anti-Trump supporter, my interest was piqued immediately simply because of McMaster's apparent universal appeal.  Every other Trump appointee has been greeted with derision, scorn and whatever delaying tactics can be applied (by Democrats mostly) to stall Trump in his doings - tactics that I must say I wholeheartedly agree with, although those arguments are for another day - but with Lt. Gen. McMaster there was no such fanfare of protest.  This made me want to find out more about the man and what challenges (as NSC Advisor) he is likely to be facing when he gets his feet under the desk.

Lt. General H.R. McMaster

The dynamics of US politics is absolutely fascinating, it absorbs my attention like no other, perhaps because America is the worlds' sole surviving super-power, or perhaps because it is the archetypal liberal democracy that so many other nations aspire to be like.  I cannot claim to be any sort of expert but that doesn't decry me from having an opinion and that opinion is that Trump is changing the face of US politics (and not in a good way), perhaps forever, and may well drag the rest of the Western democracies kicking and screaming along with it.

The problem is that liberal democracies 'depend on rules, but also on norms - on the assumption that you'll go so far, but no further, to advance your political ends.  The norms imply some loyalty the system as a whole that outweighs your immediate partisan interest.  Not red states, or blue states, but the United States of America.'  As Shadi Hamid prophetically wrote when Trump was still on the campaign trail that Americans, 'faced with a growing terrorist threat and a sputtering economy, might (like the then putative 'President' Trump) dispense with the norms of reasonable conduct and support extreme measures,' and in the wake of the (impending?)Muslim travel ban and the treatment of undocumented immigrants this is exactly what we see happening.  Trump supporters seem happy to sanction extreme measures that, by all standards of common decency, are wrong.  The ascent of Trump and his reckless destruction of the(se) democratic norms upon which American society (and by tacit association most 'liberal democracies' around the globe) has been built (since the end of WW2) (e.g.'s How norms die & his recent attacks on press freedom) are for me very worrying signs that the world is regressing, repeating some very unwanted histories that hark back to the bad old times of the early nationalistic decades of the 20th Century.  Furthermore, the illegal Muslim travel ban (based on no evidence whatsoever that [Muslim] refugees in the US pose a danger to national security) which may well lead to an increased terrorist threat and the many armed conflicts around the globe that America is currently involved in lead me to believe that McMaster is in for a very rough, very busy ride as NSC Advisor, especially in light of Trump's announcement yesterday of a ~9% or $54bn increase in defence spending that only sends out the message that America is gearing up for war(s).

However, to take a brief backward step, what is it that the NSC Advisor actually does?

The NSC Advisor or, to give him his full title, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (NPNSA) is the chief in-house advisor to the President on issues concerning national security and as such is part of the Executive Office of the President.  He has no fiscal responsibilities and is there solely to advise the President on all/every policy options in terms of national security and is not expected to have his/her own agenda in this regard.  The post has its' own staff (the National Security Council) that produces research and briefings for the NPNSA which can, if needed, be reviewed and presented to the President in daily security briefings.  However, the exact nature of the role of the NPNSA can vary according to the needs and/or requirements of the President at the time.  Trump has already shown his scorn for daily security briefings and has indicated that he does not see the need for them, and combined with the mixed messages emanating (from Trump) on foreign policy issues where does that leave McMaster?  How then should McMaster proceed with what is a very challenging and difficult role at the best of times?

Gauging public opinion in America is tricky at the moment from where I sit in Spain.  That the US is divided is no great secret and the ascent of Trump has, I believe, shone a light on those divisions more than exacerbated them (so far anyway).  Trump has a knack for polarising opinions and so how public opinion is received by those of us outside of the US depends to a large extent on the particular websites, magazines, etc, one might have read.  As we know 'Trumpland' is securely in middle America, with the coastlines (East and West) largely being the realm of the more liberal, anti-Trumpites!  For years I have been reading that the boys on the frontline with the US armed forces come predominantly from the poorer neighbourhoods in the US (please tell me if I'm wrong here) and that these same neighbourhoods largely form the foundation of Trump's support.  Thus it follows that there should be a pretty secure base of knowledge there on the (basics of the) various conflicts that the US armed forces are currently engaged in, yet there seems to be confusion on the part of the armed forces who feel that the public is unaware that the US is a country at war.

Speaking in the aftermath of Michael Flynn's disastrous and short-lived reign as NPNSA, the Head of US Special Operations Command, Gen. Raymond Thomas, said "our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil.  I hope they sort it out soon because we are a nation at war," a statement that seems to reflect the concern among the armed forces about the conflicting messages the Trump administration is putting out, but does not, apparently, mirror the feelings of the public at large (and in particular those who support Trump) who appear immune to the ongoing uncertainties.

For McMaster those mixed messages must be a major concern, as must Trump's lackadaisical attitude to security briefings.  How does one go about planning security policies when you don't have a clear direction in which to steer the ship?

It has been suggested that McMaster's first challenge is to get the public onside by underlining Thomas' message above that the US is a country at war.  To emphasise that fact it is worth bearing in mind that the US now has substantial numbers of troops deployed in Iraq (>4,000), Afghanistan (~8,400), Syria (~800), Yemen (unknown), as well as other military commitments in Japan, Germany, the new NATO force in Poland (3,000) and elsewhere (such as Libya).

Since Obama pulled the majority of ground forces out of Iraq in 2011 and Afghanistan in 2009 (notwithstanding the reversal in numbers in 2015) US Special Forces have borne the brunt of worldwide military operations, be it training the armed forces of other nations (e.g.'s in Iraq & Afghanistan) to run their own ops or joining with coalition forces in specific missions (e.g.'s the retaking of Mosul & the recent botched Yemen mission).  However, since by their very nature such missions are more secretive than, say, an all out invasion, this may go some way to explaining why there seems to be a lack of public knowledge with regard to the current whereabouts and activities of US forces.

However, Trump has intimated that he wishes to put 'boots on the ground' in Syria to up the stakes in the war with ISIS so this may well change in the near future.  Similarly Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr. has told Trump in no uncertain terms during a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting that the war in Afghanistan will be lost unless 'several thousand' more troops are deployed in the near future, and that they will be needed just to maintain the 'stalemate' situation in the long-term conflict against the Taliban.  Furthermore the complicated situation on the ground in Yemen with regards to the differing strategic aims of the coalition partners have led to a resurgence of Al-Queada in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and a bitty, untidy coalition campaign.

Thus McMaster is facing security problems on many fronts and exactly how he will propose dealing with them will be interesting indeed, especially given Trump's propensity for ignoring advice and ploughing his own furrow heedless of the inherent wisdom of a given situation.  Having read a few of McMaster's papers, and in light of his obvious experience and evident talent as a military strategist, it is plain that this is a man who likes things done properly and is 100% his own man.  I don't get the impression that he will be just another Trump fawn, nodding politely and going along for the ride.  Neither will he be bullied or shouted down by Trump and so I wonder how long he will be prepared to put up with Trump's rambunctiousness and his egotistical, advice ignoring, boots stomping on everything and asking the questions after the fact?

For everyone's sake, I hope it's a long time!

Rethinking Brexit...not undemocratic, just commonsense!

As an addendum to yesterday's blog I just want to add that although the British economy has not suffered post-Brexit referendum, as many (myself included) had thought, I wish to ponder briefly on the reasons for this in the light of the rising costs of leaving the EU as I detailed yesterday.  Whilst it's not a bad thing that the Bank of England has upgraded Britain's growth forecast for next year (from 1.2 to 2%, with EU Commission following suit) I do think it has the unfortunate side effect of fooling the nation into thinking that (Phew!) 'it's all going to be ok!'  'The sky won't fall in' and 'we will survive after all!'

Well yes, Britain will survive, of that there is no doubt!  But in what form long term?  Realistically, what are the prospects?

Perhaps the first thing to say is that I'm not an economist or a politician.  I'm a layman; an interested layman but nonetheless still just a layman.  But I think that this optimism is somewhat misguided and that, despite the upgraded forecasts, I believe the powers that be are sitting there, fingers crossed and hoping that, in the end, it will all turn out fine.  However, I think this post-referendum mini-boom, for want of a better expression, is a merely a bubble that is just waiting to burst.

Let me explain.

Since June 23rd the value of Sterling has dropped significantly so allowing UK exports to be more competitive and, as one might expect, many companies are reporting increased sales and business as a consequence.  The problem is that the EU receives by far the biggest share of UK exports (when compared to any other trading bloc: 44% in 2015) and I predict (figures are not yet available) that 2016 will see that share rise substantially, and therein lies the problem.  Once Brexit is done what happens to those exports?  To those companies?  As I detailed yesterday the chances of the UK staying in the single market are hopelessly slim and it cannot be expected that deals from outside the EU with the rest of the world will come anywhere near replacing that massive proportion of UK trade.  Thus, the bubble bursts, does it not?

The WEF predicts that the UK will drop out of the G8 by 2030 to become the 10th largest economy in the world (from 5th in 2015), but that (although it doesn't specify so) is if the UK remains as the UK.  I firmly believe, as does Tony Blair (see his speech to Open Britain last Thursday), that Brexit facilitates the chances of Scotland breaking up the union.  If this does happen then the UK will not exist anymore.  The 12th biggest economy in the EU (Scotland) and the 2nd biggest in the UK will be out on their own, as will England, Wales and NI.  England (or more pertinently) the UK will go from being a group of nations punching well above their weight to relative flyweights almost overnight.  Where the UK was once a world power both Scotland (by association with England) and England (as part of the UK) will become virtual non-entities the day after the union breaks up.

Call me stupid; call me naive, but it's just bloody daft to me that we have somehow contrived to get ourselves into this ridiculous situation.

Lord Kerr of Scotland, former British representative to the EU, speaking yesterday in the Brexit debate in the House of Lords, said that he believes Article 50, once triggered, is not irrevocable; that the process could be stopped, if we so wished, and 'there would be nothing the EU could do about it.'

I sincerely hope that before we consign the UK to the bin of economic obscurity that commonsense prevails.  If it looks likely that the deal we would get from the EU is a stinker (and that does seem more and more likely) then I do believe it should be brought back to parliament and indeed, to the people themselves, for us to say 'yea' or 'nay' to said deal.

And if that means revoking Article 50 at a late stage then so be it.  By then (2 years hence) elections will have taken place all over Europe and the EU will either be much stronger or more vulnerable depending (largely) on what has taken place in those elections.  Either way, the EU needs massive reformation.  It needs to be much more democratic, more accountable, more approachable, more open, in short, it needs to start functioning more like a true governing body rather than just being an unapproachable, faceless load of time wasting bureaucrats!  It needs reforming from the bottom up, in a every aspect to be able to move forward and meet the challenges Europe faces in the 21st Century.  Maybe a close run Brexit 'thing' is the push it needs to change, but change it must (however, the mechanics and specifics of that change are for another day).

But for me, and hopefully for the UK, a Brexit at any cost is NOT the way forward!  This must be considered further and more carefully once the road has been explored.  This is not undemocratic I believe, it is just commonsense!

Singing the Brexit Blues! Tony Blair and the rising costs of leaving the EU.

Hi guys!
It's been a while since my last post....perhaps I've been suffering a bit of post-Brexit, post-Trump blues.  Let's face it, as a Brit, living in a (relatively), largely democratic free West, our world has changed immeasurably in the last 9 months or so.  Impending Brexit and all that that means for Britain, the British, for Europe, for our security, for our future, for our children's future, and the rise of Donald Trump with his extremist, nationalistic views are sending seismic waves around the globe, fostering and nurturing selfish, undemocratic, right-wing feelings that are divisive in the extreme and designed to undermine the democratic principles upon which we in the West have, over the centuries, built our nations!

For days after the June referendum I felt bereft, as if I'd lost a close friend or a family member.  Maybe this seems like an over the top reaction to what is, after all, just a question of politics!  And that may be true! Although the grief wasn't apparent in exactly the same way (as after a death), the feeling was certainly analogous.  The problem is that Brexit is NOT just a question of politics.  It has the potential to impact upon almost every aspect our lives from our health and health services to our military capabilities, from our ambient environment and climate to our employment and business prospects, from our education systems and the future of our schools, colleges and universities to our access to food resources, from our levels of influence around the globe to our everyday security....the list is endless and I feel I could go on all day.

I have just watched Tony Blair's speech to Open Britain (on BBC Parliament) that he gave on Thursday last and, whilst I couldn't agree with every word of his assessment of the situation, his message certainly struck a chord and I think he does have a point, and a bloody good point at that!  In a nutshell, his message was this: we are better off in Europe and, despite the result of the referendum, it is not too late to stop Brexit.  He insisted that it was not undemocratic to shout down the June 23rd result in favour of Brexit because 'we had been sold a house and were moving in without having seen it first'.  A simple analogy perhaps, but the point was made.

Now that we can see the far shore does the grass really look any greener (my analogy)?  Is Blair's new house any shinier, brighter, possessing of greater potential or not?  I, along with Blair, would argue for the latter; that Britain's prospects appear significantly dimmed by a life outside of the EU.

He proposed a new cross party movement to tackle the issue, though the specifics were lacking somewhat, he suggested that it was the peoples right to change their mind on Brexit now the terms and costs of an exit from the EU are becoming more apparent.  The prospects of a so-called 'hard Brexit' loom large, as does the possibility that (after the required 2 years of negotiation) we might exit the EU without any deal at all, something that may cost the UK economy ~£6bn a year in extra tariffs should WTO rules apply.  And for all the furore created by the (ongoing) bill to trigger Article 50 and the proposed amendments therein, the plaintive cries of MP's wishing to have their say on how and what Brexit should like from a British perspective, everyone keeps forgetting one simple thing.  Britain will be negotiating (largely) from point of weakness, certainly as regards membership of the single market economy, because quite simply it is not up to us; it will be decided by the EU, so that when Theresa May says that we will leave the single market she should be taken at her word.  Asking for an amendment that insists for it to be otherwise is just naive and unrealistic.  What's more Britain will be expected to pay a 'hefty' price for it's divorce from the EU, says Jean-Claude Juncker, which may be upwards of 60bn Euros!

Even if, after some (what would be) remarkable negotiating on part of the UK's team, some sort of deal is in place in time, it will not be a comprehensive one!  It will at best, be a bit part deal that only covers trade in some of the more financially lucrative areas, such as the motor trade in which both the UK and the EU have vested interests.  However, it should be noted that despite what the leave campaigners said (during the lead up to June 23rd) and still say today, German car manufacturers for one, have strongly intimated that they are willing to take the hit (in terms of added tariffs for trade with UK) in order to preserve the single market for the countries that remain in the EU.  Yet Theresa May insists that falling back on WTO tariffs is a far better deal than no deal at all (with the EU).

I would suggest that before negotiations are even begun, maybe even before Article 50 is triggered, that the various likely scenarios should be put to parliament and debated long and hard to avoid Britain doing the honourable English thing, and going for a Brexit at any cost that could bring the nation to it's knees!  For me, the cost of being 'democratic' in this regard is way too high!  I am sure that many who voted for Brexit did not envisage these horrendous possibilities, and there is no doubt, they are horrendous.  Is it really worth all that Brexit means just to avoid having a few immigrants enter the country?  I say 'no'!

However, there would those who would insist that we would more than make up for the losses through trade with countries outside of Europe.  However, this again is a misnomer.  Monique Ebell, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, says the cost of Brexit could be as much as 30% long-term reduction in trade (if WTO rules apply) whereas the likely up side (from new non-EU trade deals) is not projected to exceed 5%.

But Donald Trump has said Brexit is a good thing and he promises a rapid and a good deal for the UK I hear you say!  And I would say that Trump, whatever one may think of him (and I don't think a whole lot), has shown himself to be a man who, for all his bluster and controversy, is trying to stick to his campaign promises.  And what was his biggest promise?  That's right....America first!  Sure, he'll give Britain a deal, but it will be a one-sided affair because he knows that if he waits till Brexit is done (and he must, as must we) then we will be on knees and willing to accept just about anything that is offered.  He is first and foremost a businessman, this is why he wants to destabilise, even break the EU, because, to use a military analogy, he wants to divide and conquer.  Why deal with a strong EU when he can push the right buttons and deal with France, Germany, Britain, etc on a far stronger footing?  Trump isn't interested in doing a good deal for Britain, only for the US because that's his job.

Miriam Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, who is an international lawyer and is likely to be part of the British negotiating team, insists that the negotiations are going to be horribly complex and may take up to 10 years to complete (which could cost more than £60bn in extra tariffs- see above), a time frame that dwarfs the 2 year limit imposed by the triggering of Article 50.  She has talked about how Britain has only 25 negotiators (a number that Rod Abbott, former director of WTO says is minimum number for making a deal with a small nation, e.g. Vietnam & many more needed for larger deals) skilled enough to deal with the complex discussions that will arise, and how that figure is woefully inadequate (she suggests 500 skilled negotiators would be more apt; Professor Jim Rollo of the University of Sussex says 900 is a more likely scenario) and that Britain is always likely to get the worst of any deal just because we are small when compared to the EU as a whole.  And that is without the added pressures of trying to tie up deals with nations outside of the EU (the US, Australia, etc) and Gonzalez even goes as far as suggesting that it is just not possible for the UK to complete any of these negotiations at the current time ....the deal many want from Brexit simply can't be done given the limited time available, which means that the uncertainty that clouds Britain's near future is likely to persist for much longer, perhaps decades longer, than what has been promised and anticipated.

As Blair reiterated one huge effect of Brexit has been the divisions it has wrought in the UK; young against the old, North against South, Scotland against England.  For me, in the immediate aftermath of the vote one statistic that stood out more than any other was the huge difference in attitude towards Europe between the over 65's and the under 25's.  What irked me about this at the time was that the vast majority of those over 65 who voted to leave have taken all the benefits that the EU has conferred upon our society, and now out of an (irrational?) fear of immigrants, are willing to consign the wishes of our young to a more insular, insecure financial future.  Now, after we know much more that annoyance remains every bit as real to me now as it was then.  Now that we know the difficulties that all these negotiations will bring, the time that will be needed it becomes even more apparent that it won't be those over 65's who will pay the price, it will be this years school leavers.  The vast majority of those over 65 will be dead (sad but true) before negotiations will be completed, yet my son, who was 6 months too young to vote (at the time, and incidentally built, designed and launched the most downloaded independent app on iTunes that gave daily updates on the Brexit debates) will have to live with the consequences for the rest of his (hopefully) long life.  

Blair laid the blame for Brexit squarely on the shoulders of his 'debilitated' former Labour Party.  That Corbyn was weak during the referendum campaign is no secret, but I would argue the case that David Cameron's misreading of the situation (with regard to immigration) and the blatant lies told by the 'Brexiteers' (the extra £350m for the NHS, for example) should also take their fair share of the blame.  But apportioning the blame so long after the horse has bolted seems like a redundant argument, when perhaps the focus should now be more on what happens next rather than what has already passed.

And what of Europe if, and when, we do leave the EU?  Will it be stronger or could Brexit be the catalyst for the firing of the European dream?  We have witnessed the rise of right wing nationalist, protectionist politicians right across Europe.  With both French and German elections coming later this year we could well be seeing the beginning of the end of Europe as we have known for the past few decades.  Marine Le Pen is campaigning, as Cameron did before, on the promise of an 'in/out referendum' should she win the election.  This is very worrying, if not solely from a political standpoint, then surely from a security one.  Putin's Russia is waiting in the wings, rattling its' sabre, waiting to pounce upon a weakened Europe, whether it be economically or militarily, and that cannot be a good thing,

Now is the time that Europe should be pulling together, not ripping itself apart.  The EU is far from a perfect institution, we all know that.  But what if we re-thought our situation and went back to Europe with another, separate deal, one that says Brexit is not inevitable if the EU can reform; make itself into the properly democratic, fully answerable union that it was intended to be, then we might, we just might, find a way out of the woods that is good for everyone, good for all the member nations and its' peoples, good for the environment, good for our security, even good for the refugees that have perhaps been the over-riding cause of much of the angst.  Can we do this?

As a great man once said, "Yes, we can!"