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……..!

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!

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!"

 

 

Why Donald Trump is so Dangerous for America and Americans.

I've got a big problem with Donald Trump & anyone who has followed any of my twitter posts to or about him will know this.  On a personal level there is no particular animosity; my problem is that Trump has transcended the personal to become a public figure and therein lies my problem.  Were he not running for the most powerful seat in World politics I wouldn't care what he said, but he is and so I do!

Now, as much as it might irk many Britons to admit it, the United States is the most powerful, influential nation on earth right now and, barring planetary catastrophes, will probably remain so for the rest of my, and probably your lifetime, so who is in the Oval Office has a bearing on most everyone's life in some way or other, no matter how strong or oblique that influence may be.

People, groups, institutions, even whole nations look to the US to lead the way; how America does things, any things, can be hugely influential, though I do believe that level of influence has fallen somewhat since the turn of the century, particularly since 9/11.  Nevertheless, America remains, for good or bad, the most powerful and influential nation on earth.

It's not just that the US has the largest economy, though that obviously helps (the US extend their reach), America's media (in all it's forms) has an enormous, almost overriding influence on current and (near) future trends, be they political, financial or something more aesthetic and obscure like fashion, music, movies, even down to what we eat, even what we say.  Most of the biggest corporations in the world are American (e.g. Google, Facebook, McDonalds) and their say in what and how we live our lives is huge, albeit often unseen and unrecognised.  American's are by far the best at marketing, be that an idea, a concept, a product, a TV programme, a movie, a clothes chain, a coffee house, or even an individual.  Witness the outpourings of grief around the world following the sad passing of Muhammad Ali, who was undoubtedly a great boxer and a great man, but did we see similar grief and recognition when Mother Teresa died?  No, nothing like.  So is Muhammad Ali more, or less great than Mother Teresa?  That's not for me to say, but perhaps Ali's passing has brought forth such outpourings because he was American and because of that, one way or another, his heavily marketed life touched many people indirectly in so many ways, mine included, whereas that of Mother Teresa touched only the lives of the relatively few that she directly interacted with.

Now, I'm not saying anything against Ali - heaven forbid - he was one of my great heroes (see my tribute here), but do you think he would have gained all the accolades he did during his remarkable life had he been born in...say, Ivory Coast?  Or Kenya?  I don't think so!  Ali became great by virtue of the influence he had over so many people, an influence that was relayed to us via American TV, American news, American documentaries and American books, all of which filtered down into our own news, documentaries and books so that in the end Ali became part of our culture, be that British, French, African, whatever.  He became great because he was (wittingly or not) marketed by the American media system and so his story reached the whole planet in a way that if he'd been from Kenya, it would not have done.

My mate, the highly attractive Donald trump!

So, given that America has such a strong say in our lives, the man (or woman)  in charge of America should be of interest to all of us, since he/she has a say either directly or indirectly in the lives of the vast majority of the people on the planet.  Thus when a man like Trump, running for the Presidency of this most influential of nations says the things he does and behaves the way that he does, it should be of import to us all.  The things he says, the way he does things, the way he treats people, races or religious groups becomes something that each and every one of us should be taking notice of, simply because of the influence that America holds over us.  So when Trump disparages individuals because of their racial heritage, or their religious beliefs or their (lack of?) economic standing people take notice and follow his lead, particularly in America, but this filters down to all of us eventually, wherever we are via social media, TV or through simple conversation.  His thoughtless, heartless bullying of anyone who rankles him, and the language he uses in doing so becomes hugely influential and for many it normalises such treatment, making it everyday and acceptable - after all, if a budding President can call women 'pigs' then it must be okay to treat women like that, right?  If a budding President can call all Mexicans murderers and drug dealers then surely they are and should be treated as such, right?  If a budding President can suggest that all Muslims are terrorists and should be banned from his country, then they must be and they should be regarded in that light, right?

But none of these things are okay, regardless of how true or untrue they may be.  Nor is it okay to suggest that he would order US armed forces to kill every member of ISIS, including their families, despite the illegality of such.  He gives no thought to the political consequences of such an action; the trampling of national sovereignties that would be needed in order to achieve such; the social consequences (in America and elsewhere) of ordering the murder of the citizens of other nations (who make up ISIS); the resultant psychological and social effects of such an order on the individuals within the US armed forces!  But because a budding President says it's okay, then it must be okay, right?  I can almost hear the clamour for such action amongst the gung-ho, NRA wielding sections of US society because Trump has deemed it acceptable and has made their wildest, flag waving, gun-toting fantasies a near reality.

And do know what, for the rest of us, it's bloody scary!  The man himself is far from scary; he's more a parody of everything that America shouldn't stand for!  He's racist, he's prejudiced, he's lewd, he's sexist and he's a bully.  No, the man himself is a bit of a joke.  It's what he says that's scary!  And it's the possible consequences of what he says, should he win out, that are more scary still.

This is a man who speaks without thought for the consequences, who opens his mouth, throws out his wayward, often contradictory opinions before he's engaged his brain, then tries to get out of it afterwards by saying 'my comments were misconstrued!'  Is this really the man we want with his finger on the button, who could just as easily start a nuclear war and then apologise after the fact saying that it wasn't what he meant, and he has no problem with Muslims, or Hispanics or whoever it is he had accidentally blown up!

This is a man who could antagonise half of the planet with his tawdry, poorly thought out opinions and make life unbearably hard for American's living or trying to do business outside of the US because, like it or not, human nature dictates that if the leader of nation holds such low-level views of non-white, non-Christian Americans, then every American, good or bad, holds the same antagonistic opinions.  Far from making America great again, this is a man that could utterly destroy America's reputation and isolate the United States completely.

This is a man who doesn't believe in climate change and says that it's all scam by scientists designed to garner government funding for their little research and pet animal projects and as such would he blow the Paris accord out of the water, invest heavily in the toxic industries of oil and gas and coal, stop all funding to environmental agencies and disband all environmental research projects and yet, conversely, is building a wall to stop the ever encroaching sea as it erodes away his multi-million dollar golf course in Ireland.

This is a man within whom hypocrisy runs riot, contradictory opinions and values run hot and cold depending on where and to whom he's speaking.  As Stephen Hawking says, this is a man who "appeals to the lower common denominator" and changes his tack and views as often as he changes his ties.  This is a man who will say whatever he thinks the particular crowd wants to hear in order to win their vote, heedless of the facts, the truth or what he may have said before.  The fact that so many of his fellow Republicans can throw their support behind this despicable man shows just how desperate the GOP is to win the November election.  That Paul Ryan can be so aware of how racist and inflammatory Trump is and yet still say he backs him highlights just how desperate the GOP are for power after 8 years in the doldrums.

It stinks and the smell is pervading the whole of American politics, demonstrating just how fake, partisan and yes, political it has all become.  Doing or saying the right thing no longer seems to matter.  The good old American adage of 'win at all costs' is rearing its' head and it's uglier than ever.  Agree with them or not, there was nothing inherently 'wrong' with traditionally held Republican values, but just as some Muslims twist and contort the meaning of the Koran in order to inspire other (weak-minded) Muslims to commit terrible atrocities so Trump is twisting Republican values until they become all but unrecognisable.

This upcoming election campaign, when it begins in earnest, I fully believe will prove to be the most vitriolic, the most personal and the ugliest in living memory.  In much the same way as the EU referendum in the UK is ripping the British political scene asunder until one wonders how any of the major parties will be able to move forward, post-referendum, whatever the result, I believe that this US election could well signal the end of American politics as we know it.  Whether it will all lead in the end to a reduction in America's sphere of global influence is open to debate and will perhaps only be seen fully given sufficient time, but I do predict that America's image will be tarnished beyond repair by Trump unless some way can be found to muzzle and stop this man before he can do too much damage to the reputation of the nation he professes to love.

Have a good weekend, whatever your politics!

Moral turpitude on the Jewish-Palestinian dilemma within the Labour Party.

In today's Guardian Jonathan Freedland discusses very eloquently whether the Labour Party under our Jezza have gone soft on antisemitism after comments from Labour Party members were allowed to pass unchecked by the party hierarchy, and he suggests that current anti-Jewish feelings are being further inflamed by recent developments in the long-standing Israel-Palestinian conflict.  He goes onto suggest that Britain (and other European) colonial powers are historically culpable for much of the current tensions in the region and in taking the moral high ground (as witnessed by the comments of Downing & Kirby) we are basically on very shaky and dangerous ground.

I couldn't agree more.  I have said time and again that in spite of the recent history of this particular conflict, which incidentally has been ongoing in one form or another since the late 19th century if not before, that Britain, France and the post-War powers are largely culpable and liable for the present chaos we see in the region as a whole and (I believe) need to hold their hands up and take greater responsibility for the ongoing mess that we see on our TV's on a daily basis.

The problem is not just one of Jews against Arabs (including the Palestinians) or vice versa, because it all goes much, much deeper than that.  Historically of course the Jewish people had always lacked a homeland, though their spiritual home had always been the regions of the Middle-Eastern Levante.  Perhaps inevitably, rampant antisemitism through the ages and the lack of a place to call home, had to lead in the end to the idea of Zionism as originally championed by Rabbi Sholomo Alkalai in his 1834 booklet Shema Yisrael, where he called for the establishment of Jewish colonies in (what was then) Palestine.  The first Aliyah* began within a generation (1882-1902), but it wasn't really till after the beginning of the second Aliyah in 1904 that Arab resistance to the Jewish settlements in Palestine really took hold.

In 1917 the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, in a letter to Lord Rothschild, gave the first official acknowledgement of the need to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  This led to an agreement at the Paris Peace Conference at the end of WW1 to grant the British a mandate in Palestine to establish a Jewish homeland based on the so-called Balfour Agreement.  However, during the 1920's Arab resistance to continued Jewish immigration into Palestine led the British High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel (himself a Jew) and Head of the Colonial Office, Winston Churchill, to attempt to establish a Palestinian Constitution which would include all secular and non-secular factions of the Arabs, Christians and Jews, who would have been a minority on the legislative Council (Jews only accounted for ~11% of the total population at the time) but who had, nevertheless, agreed to the Constitution because the Balfour Agreement was enshrined within it.  The Palestinian Arabs objected to some of the wording in the so-called 'Churchill White Paper' which they deemed to be pro-Zionist taking exception to phrases such as 'Palestine (was destined to become) as Jewish as England is English' and they rejected the Constitution under this basis and once again the establishment of the Jewish homeland came into doubt.

Jewish immigration into Palestine continued during the 20's and 30's leading to increasing tension and dissatisfaction on both sides with the Palestinian Arabs fearing that their population, culture and language would eventually become subordinate, or perhaps even disappear altogether, beneath the British-backed Jewish demands and claims.  The growing disenfranchisement of the Palestinians was increased by the lack of a unified Arab response to continued Jewish immigration into Palestine and by what they saw as complicit British involvement in the loss of their land, jobs and livelihoods.  Incidents such as the 'wailing wall' crisis in 1929 and continued civil unrest on both sides led to the establishment of a Royal Commission in 1936 under Lord Peel that, amongst other things, stated that the interests of the Jews and Palestinian Arabs were in fact 'inherently reconcilable' and included the first proposals for a partitioning of Palestine into Jewish and Arab cantons that would be run more or less autonomously, but would remain under the overall control of a Mandatory Authority.

However, even as Arab leaders rejected the proposals, countering with their own Mandate, events in Europe and elsewhere around the globe started to take precedence over the growing unrest in the region.  Despite this the British pushed ahead with their new proposals and issued a new White Paper in 1939 which stated their continued intent for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.

Throughout WW2 the Jewish cause gained momentum, whether spurred on by feelings of gross sympathy, horror or guilt, the international community rallied behind the tragic remnants of the European Jewry and calls for a Jewish homeland, whilst in contrast Arab unity and backing for the plight of the Palestinians Arabs faded until the eventual declaration of the establishment of Israel on 14th May 1948, when finally a United Arab force (of Jordanians, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese & others) occupied the territories destined for the Palestinians under the new partition plan.  But it was too little too late for the Palestinians who have basically been on the back foot ever since.

The subsequent Colonial divisions of the region among the 'old boy' network compounded the problems and certainly led to many of the religious, cultural and social divides that plague the Middle East today.  The short-sightedness and selfish interests of Britain, France and the other powers in dividing up the region as they saw fit for their purposes, and not those of the resident populations have, in my opinion led to much, if not all, of the current troubles that plague us all today.

In my head I can't believe that such short-term political gains (for the Colonial powers) were placed above the long-term welfare and stability of the region as a whole.  Decisions made in haste after WW2 are now being repented by those of us that bear witness to the almost daily horrors and atrocities committed under the name of one God or another in the Middle East and around the globe.

I believe that every human being should be allowed the chance to live their life as they see fit; that each individual should be able to worship whatever God they choose to worship without fear of reprisal or repercussions for doing so.  I make no excuses for Israel.  Their abhorrent treatment of the Palestinians as less than human more than mirrors their own vile experiences under the Nazi's, and they should know better and they should be ashamed.  But don't make the mistake of thinking that all Israeli's feel the same because they don't.  One only has read much of the online press from Israel to see the futility of that argument.

The only way, I believe, to save the region from falling into complete chaos (which could eventually consume us all) is to give each and every ethnic group it's own economically viable homeland, be they Jewish, Palestinian, Kurdish, Shia, Sunni, Christian or otherwise.  And as part of this radical solution I would also allow those who wish to live under Muslim Sharia Law (including those of ISIS - once they have been disarmed) to do so because in my world everyone should have a chance for a full and happy life.

But we live in the real world and not the peace-loving Nirvana of my dreams.  Antisemitism has been around for a lot longer than the Labour Party and shows no sign of dissipating in the near future.  The fact that some small-minded individuals, with small-minded ideas, have wormed their way into positions of relative power is nothing new; it's sad, but not new.  Donald Trump is just such a case to point!  And as to whether Jezza does anything about these people is a matter (I would argue) for his own conscience, as are our own views on the Jewish-Palestinian question and one can only hope that each one of us is morally strong enough to stand up for whatever we believe in.  And I can only hope that your view, whatever it might be, is made with an open, and not a closed mind, and a loving heart that decries oppression in all it's forms, wherever and whenever they may occur.



* Aliyah is the term used for the waves of Zionist immigration into Palestine