The Near Impossibility of President Ron Paul

Now the rest of the GOP field has peaked too early, people are adopting that predictable position - through nothing more meaningful than a crude process of elimination - that maybe the Republican nomination is Ron Paul's for the taking. This I doubt; what I find even more doubtful is that Paul would be a credible contender in a straight contest with Obama.

Before I explain why, let me explain my own thoughts on Paul. Yeah, he's dead right on some things - and I've been very impressed with his reasoned and non-bellicose approach to foreign policy, which is a great thing coming from a (nominal) Republican. I have little time, though, for his anti-abortion stance or for his apparent god-bothering. But hey ho. No candidate is perfect, and he's the best of a truly atrocious bunch. So while I wouldn't go so far as to say I want him to win - such passion over a deeply predictable contest that I will not be able to vote in strikes me as utterly pointless - but I suppose I would prefer him to. So why am I so dismissive of his chances?

Well, quite simply (and really rather obviously) what I want does not impact on reality in any meaningful way. Reality does not conform to my wishes. And the reality is that the deck is stacked against Paul to a massive extent. He is unlikely to win the nomination for his party, since even if he does win some early upset victories then the Republican establishment will intervene in favour of a much more mainstream and middle of the road candidate. I reckon there will be a replay of the 2004 Democrat primary campaign, where the genuinely interesting (although possibly a little barmy) Howard Dean was swiftly marginalised by the much more pedestrian yet mainstream John Kerry. The nomination will probably be Romney's; he's a safe pair of hands who will not damage the party too much even as he hands victory to Obama.

But suppose Paul did get the nomination - what then? Well, Obama would crush him. The Democrat electioneering machine would spend all of its time telling the American people that Paul is some sort of dangerous radical who would leave innocent people to get ill and die without health insurance. Hell, they could even outflank on the issue of security. Yeah, those charges might be false, but so what? Since when have presidential elections been about taking the high road? The Obama campaign would do everything they possible could to make Paul into a Goldwater for the new millennium, while simultaneously painting their guy to be solid, dependable and statesmanlike for the cameras.

Perhaps a truly great communicator could make libertarian ideals appeal to the American masses; the problem is that great communicator is not Ron Paul. Sure, he manages to avoid sticking his foot in his mouth most of the time, but that is not enough to win enough Americans over to what is potentially a radical realignment of the nature of government and state in their country. Plus, he's up against Obama, whose pompous speaking style manages to add gravitas to even the most anodyne and meaningless of pronouncements. Again, yeah, you can argue that this is unfair, but it is also reality. A Ron Paul presidential campaign might be enough to provoke a misled American people into handing a reluctant landslide to Obama.

Paul's best hope for next year is that his stance and policies in some way influence the Republican programme; in other words, that the long process of explaining his version of libertarianism begins. Then the next time a libertarian runs for the Republican nomination, these ideas are more mainstream and people are more likely to understand them and get behind them. It could be enough to get a Republican libertarian nominee in 2016 or 2020. It will certainly help to wrest control of that party away from the Christian fundamentalist path that Bush Junior put it on. But President Paul remains deeply unlikely to the point where it is basically an impossibility. It might comfort some libertarians on both sides of the Atlantic to pretend otherwise, but unfortunately it remains a pipe dream that helps them to escape from a political reality that remains stubbornly immune to the penetration of libertarian ideals into the political mainstream.

Why Is Rick Perry So Terrifying?

The news that Rick Perry has joined the race for the Republican nomination for President sends a shiver down my spine. He is exactly the sort of politician that the US does not need – a bellicose God-botherer who is perfectly happy to send the mentally retarded to the execution chamber despite commandments in his religion like “thou shalt not kill”. He’s for freedom, just so long as it is economic – if you’re gay and you want to marry someone of the same gender, your freedom should be curtailed in the strange worldview of this Christian fundamentalist. And while I’m pretty liberal when it comes to gun laws, I can’t help but feel doing something like this makes you look like a total dickhead:



But Perry is not alone in many of these opinions; increasingly, these represent the sort of stances that a Republican candidate must take if they want to have any chance of being successful. So why is Perry particularly terrifying?

I think it is the fact that he is George W. Bush but Bush Junior turned up to 11. From what I’ve seen and heard of Perry, he makes Bush Junior – the worst President of the United States in living memory – look like a subtle and nuanced thinker in whom you could have complete confidence. And that is what makes Perry such a dangerous option for the Republicans and, if nominated, the US as a whole. After all, we know how it ended for George W. Bush. Why on earth would anyone want to replicate the sorry farrago that was Bush Junior’s presidency? Or, even worse, risk an even more extreme version of it?

And it is this sort of candidate who makes Obama look like the best option. Obama is a weak, compromised president but he does at least come across as far saner than many of his Republican rivals. And this may well be the factor that gets him a second term – not that he’s any good, but just that he’s less mental than those he fights elections against.

So to any Republicans reading this and preparing to vote in next year’s primaries – Rick Perry: just say no.

Cameron, News International and Moral Authority

One of the more extraordinary claims I've heard since it was alleged that the News of the World have been hacking the phones of a missing schoolgirl and dead soldiers is that the ongoing scandal in some way robs Cameron of his moral authority. But seriously, folks, what moral authority? Cameron has always had all the moral authority of a slimline soft drink - he's not as bad for you as some of his rivals, but still not good in his own right. He was, and remains, an exercise in political triangulation - the last roll of the dice over half a decade ago by an increasingly desperate Tory party shell-shocked by three successive election defeats.

But if this scandal does destroy Cameron's moral authority, it does equal damage to the already tarnished reputations of his two immediate predecessors in Number 10. Blair and Brown courted Murdoch like the most desperate teenage boy at a teenage disco; they are key to propagating the myth that the backing of Murdoch means the difference between a win and a loss in a General Election. That hasn't, of course, stopped the perennially vengeful Brown sticking the boot in to the Murdoch empire as it continues to struggle. But that's the nature of the Brown and, since he has thankfully been relegated to where he belongs to the dustbin of history, rather tangential to the point. It is difficult to see any of the recent incumbents of No. 10 having any moral authority. And please don't tell me that Miliband Minor wouldn't have dropped his pants at the very first whiff of attention from the Murdoch empire prior to this scandal escalating.

The best way in which Cameron can be differentiated from the others who have sought or inhabited his current address is not down to moral authority but rather his judgement in employing Coulson. Both Brown and Blair employed repellent individuals to do their dirty work on the media for them, but both of those figures were only really discredited during their bosses' tenure at the top. Coulson was clearly damaged goods when Cameron hired him before Call Me Dave ever crossed the threshold at the No. 10. Why hire such a person? Why take the risk of it all blowing up in your face like it has done for young HugAHusky?

But those who believe that this is a resigning issue for Cameron are a mix of hopelessly optimistic and hopelessly naive. Cameron has been in office for just over a year and this is the first real shit that has any hope of sticking to him. This is the equivalent of the Ecclestone affair for one Anthony Blair. Cameron will take a (deserved) kicking for this but when the dust has settled I think it will make fuck all difference. Cameron will go on and this whole affair will probably end up no more than a couple of pages in his no doubt tedious and self-indulgent memoirs (which I very much look forward to not reading).

Cameron leaves this debacle with no moral authority - in other words, much the same way as he was when he went into it. He made a bad and naive judgement call when it came to Andy Coulson - something he definitely won't hang for. I mean, the last PM bankrupted the country so he could look like a jowly, greying version of Superman, and the PM before that dragged us into an unwinnable war just so he could posture next to George W Bush. And this is a classic example of the bar being set so low for Cameron that it is next to impossible for him to do something so comprehensively wrong that he has to resign for it. The sad reality is that this sort of thing is now par for the course for a modern PM, not something out of the ordinary. Even sadder, the man now in Number 10 never had moral authority to lose. This is modern Britain - and modern politics.

The Pitiful Republican Candidates

I find it difficult to argue with this:

Shortly after the debate, Esquire quoted John Weaver, the longtime McCain strategist, scorning the GOP field as "the weakest since 1940." The New Hampshire debate provided plenty of evidence for his conclusion that the Republican Party "is nowhere near being a national governing party."

The truth is that no-one currently in the fray for the Republican nomination next year - including the ever ignorant Sarah Palin, whose constant flirtation with the concept of running for President has now become so tiresome that she is being eclipsed by her own clone -looks remotely credible as a candidate who might just be capable of taking the White House from Barack Obama. And the end result at this rate will be that Obama, like Bush Junior and Clinton before him, will be re-elected not because he is any good, but because his opponents are godawful no-hopers.

The Beast*: A Symbol of Modern America

Obama is driven around in a great, hulking limo equipped with so many security precautions and devices that it is a security nut's/techno freak's wet dream. It even has its own oxygen supply, for God's sake. Yet it cannot even clear a simple ramp in the road.

Which, in a sense, sums up modern America**. As a country, it is big, ostentatious, leading the world in technology but also spectacularly unable to win wars against much less capable or well-armed adversaries, and also seemingly unable to get its own economy - that many in the US see as the model for the world as a whole - to work properly again. And despite all its advanced technology, vast swathes of the country still believe in the invisible sky fairy and the country as a whole ends up more interested in where their President was born rather than what he is actually doing. America, the giant, technological behemoth of the world, unable to get over even the smallest of speed-bumps.

*According to the US Security people, the car that got stuck wasn't the Beast, but some sort of back-up limo. Then again, they would say that as it is mightily embarrassing that their car designed to protect the President from all manner of attack actually can't get over a simple ramp.
**And this is not just a jibe against the Obama era America; the rot set in far earlier, and was given a massive boost by the utterly inept administrations of one George W. Bush, a man not fit to tie his own shoelaces, let alone lead a world super-power.

Predictions and the 2012 Presidential Election

Ok, since it has started, let’s talk about the Presidential 2012 Election in the US. Of course, making any sort of prediction about a contest that is still well over a year away is always going to be fraught with difficulty and risk, but here’s my headline prediction: Obama will win. Comfortably.

Sure, his first term has hardly been covered in glory, and those who saw him as something like the second coming of the Messiah have had a rough fall to earth. But it has also been lacking in disaster, and has arguably gone better than the first terms of both Bush Junior and Clinton (both of whom won comfortable re-elections). Furthermore, the remarkable electoral machine that took him from little known Senator to President is gearing up again. Every day now until November 2012 the President will be campaigning by default. Every time he appears on the TV it will be reinforcing the concept of Obama as President. In the meantime, little known or compromised Republicans will be vying to become the nominee. They will be fighting not only against each other but also against the awesome power of incumbency.

Plus, I rather suspect that while the narrative of the last Presidential Election was that it was an exciting, unpredictable contest, the narrative will be that this coming on is a boring, predictable race. Given what the polls are showing, Obama will coast to re-election. The stories will be about what is going wrong with the Republican campaign, why it isn’t gaining traction, why it isn’t going anywhere. Like the Kerry campaign or the Dole campaign.

There is always the risk of a rogue element, however. A third party candidate, like Anderson in 1980 or Perot in 1992, could make a difference. As could a serious scandal involving Obama. But the one rogue element that won’t make a difference to the outcome is Sarah Palin. Far from guaranteed the nomination if she runs (an anybody-but-Palin campaign looks like a distinct possibility), she also simply won’t connect with the majority of moderate Americans who make someone the President. Sure, she has passionate followers in the Christian Right, but she is too divisive a figure (and too intellectually shallow) to be a credible candidate in a national election. History has shown that the Presidential candidates from the extreme wings of either party tend to crash and burn – see McGovern and Goldwater. Palin would join them in the background of the history books. Which is why Palin should seriously consider whether it is actually in their best interests to run. After all, she has her own little niche in US politics. A defeat in a Presidential election would tarnish her image, particularly since that would leave her record as involved in 2 Presidential campaigns, and being on the losing ticket in both of them.

Change will come; it will come in 2016, when Obama can’t run again.

In what is probably the least surprising news story you'll hear all week, Barack Obama is going to run for a second term. And as things stand, he'll almost certainly win:

Despite shedding some support, polling by the Pew Research Center suggests Mr Obama is in a stronger position at this stage than either Bill Clinton or George W Bush, both of whom went on to win re-election convincingly.

In polling carried out in March, some 47% of registered voters said they would like to re-elect Mr Obama, with just 37% saying they would vote for an as-yet-unknown Republican candidate.

Of course, this news - while utterly unsurprising - does have one significant downside. It effectively fires the starting gun on a contest that is still over a year and a half away. Such is the insanity of modern US electoral politics...

Self-Justification and Political Memoirs

There are many reasons why a politician would write their memoirs - to record a genuinely historical moment in history (like, say, Churchill), to set the record straight (like Nixon tried, and spectacularly failed, to do), to gossip to a much wider audience (Mandelson) and to make a shit load of cash (hello, Bill Clinton). However, with the publication of Bush's book (a tome apparently not written on chew-proof paper with waterproof crayons, much to the astonishment of most) a new form of political memoir has been truly been enshrined - the whiny pile of self-justificatory tripe.

Bush has been defending waterboarding - how he fought for freedom by getting others to torture suspects. It is, of course, entirely justifiable in Bush's worldview - but then again, Bush only sees the world in terms of absolute good and absolute evil. He misses the shades of grey that define existence for most. Yet the very fact that he is having to justify and explain his actions shows how he and his idiotic War on Terror have been tainted since the days when he had a genuine chance to unite pretty much the whole world behind him in an assault on globalised terror.

Bush seems to be claiming that lives were saved by waterboarding. Aside from the fact that this doesn't make it right (torture often works - many nations choose not to do it anyway because they are aspiring to be civilised), waterboarding may have prevented certain terrorist attacks. The operative word there being "may". But how many others have become radicalised because of the stories of US waterboarding of terror suspects? Actions as controversial as water-boarding have consequences, both good and bad. Bush says water-boarding saves lives - I say it will also cost lives in the future - if it hasn't already.

Bush is not alone in publishing this sort of memoir, though. Blair's own book seems to have a large theme running throughout it that basically seems to be saying "Don't judge me because of the Iraq War!" Like Bush, he seems to be fighting for a place in history that doesn't come with the tag of "warmonger" - something that, for neither man, is going to be very easy.

Brown's forthcoming book won't be about the Iraq War - he's not fighting the tag of "warmonger". Rather, he's trying to avoid the caption next to his picture in any history book reading "incompetent cunt". He's going to be banging on about how the recession wasn't his fault, but any signs of recovery (however slim) were entirely down to him. His book gives every indication of being a wretched last gasp of a desperate man who has not quite come to terms with the fact that he utterly fucked up in the job he fought for across his adult life. It is Brown's last-ditch attempt to avoid being tagged as a failure for the rest of time (or at least until his abortion of an administration is forgotten - which, given the levels of the debt he left us with, will be quite some time). Like Bush and Blair, he's seemingly destined to fail.

Of course, the books of all three men will make lots of money (even if some of it will be grudgingly given to charity by some of the authors) and keep the authors in the public eye. But the tone of these books seems to be about the last ditch attempt to carve out a place in the history books. None of these men deserve anything more than consignment to the dustbin of history as incompetent, immoral failures. So if you do waste your time and money by buying and then reading their books, just keep in mind that these tomes are nothing more than the final, desperate ramblings of compromised men.

Democracy: a Threat to Freedom?

One of the biggest threats to freedom that is emerging in today’s society is democracy. That is not to say that democracy is in some way fundamentally illiberal – rather, the fact that democracy, which is a means rather than an end, has become an unchallenged synonym for freedom is a key problem. Democracy may play a part in a free society, but democracy itself is not freedom, and can be detrimental to freedom in some respects.

Democracy gives power to the people to choose their leaders; it does not, however, guarantee that the leaders chosen will respect freedom. Democracy, at least in the modern sense of a political system based on open elections, gives people the freedom to choose, but it does not follow that people will automatically choose to be free. The 2004 US Presidential election illustrates this contradiction; in a free election, the people choose to re-elect George W Bush – a President who brought in the deeply illiberal Patriot Act and who backed state torture of terror suspects. In this case, democracy worked against freedom; it allowed the re-election of a man who eroded the civil liberties that are so essential to a free society.

Furthermore, the term democracy has also been abused to such an extent that it has become almost meaningless. The Iraq war illustrates this: the invasion was meant to bring democracy to Iraq, and in doing so, bring freedom. Yet the concept of forcing democracy – which is fundamentally about the will of the people – on a nation without consulting the people is as completely contradictory as it is undemocratic. There was nothing democratic or free about how democracy was brought to Iraq; in a truly free and democratic society the people would have chosen what political system they wished to have, rather than having that system chosen for them by an occupying power. Here, “democracy” was neither about freedom or genuine democratic choice.

Finally, democracy itself has become detrimental to political life in many Western societies. Because democracy has become synonymous with freedom, it is assumed that if the people get the chance to vote every four to five years then they live in a free society. Inbetween those elections, politicians are simply not challenged as they should be, and the notion that freedom requires constant vigilance is lost as long as the people get to give the nod to one party or another at regular intervals. As the recent Labour administration in the UK shows, a government can do a great deal inbetween elections to corrode civil liberties in a nation without provoking uproar from the people losing their freedoms. The modern ideal of democracy seems to require only that people vote when they get the chance. Freedom, however, requires a lot more from its people.

Ultimately, democracy has a part to play in freedom, but the modern day reverence for democracy and the constant, incorrect conflation of democracy with freedom represent at the very least challenges, if not direct threats, to freedom.

This post is an entry in the blog contest responding to the new book, New Threats to Freedom edited by Adam Bellow. The contest is open to all and further information can be found here.

Why Cameron isn't like Bush

Just when you thought Labour leaning types had scraped the bottom of the barrel with their pathetic attempts to smear Cameron, you find that there is a new low that they can sink to. And here it is, in this question:

Is David Cameron the new George W Bush?

No. But let's look at the counter-argument laid out in the article anyway.

It may seem an odd comparison, with Bush drifting into discredited semi-retirement – one of his few relatively recent public appearances has been a pre-match coin toss for the Dallas Cowboys – while Cameron enjoys one of the most energetic prime ministerial honeymoons for decades.

Yep. If you want to compare the discredited Bush with another discredited former world leader living in a muted, enforced retirement that borders on seclusion, then you could try one Gordon Brown. The comparison makes far more sense there, particularly since both of them managed to fuck up the response to the global recession in their respective countries.

Yet in their backgrounds and how they have presented themselves, in their political trajectories and, most important, in their style of government, there are striking parallels. These parallels may tell us where Cameron's premiership, which will be 100 days old on 19 August, is heading.

Actually, if your intention is anything other than baseless speculation and crude party political point-scoring, comparing the administrations a US president who left office in 2009 with a British Prime Minister who first assumed office in 2010 is bound to be an exercise limited in its relevance.

Both men come from elite families, but rebranded themselves – with useful help from supposedly "anti-elite" parts of the rightwing media such as the Sun and Fox News – as relatively ordinary citizens.

Bush Junior was the son of a President. Cameron, even given his privileged background, cannot claim anything similar. If you want to compare Bush Junior with anyone in this country, then Prince Charles might be your best bet. It is the same sort of nepotism that made George W President that will make Charlie-boy king in this country.

Both men were political slow starters: Cameron not active in student politics in the 80s, despite the decade's crucial and absorbing ideological battles; Bush not winning elected office until he became governor of Texas in 1995 at the age of 48.

And here we see a delicious u-turn in the rhetoric of Labour types - gone are the attacks on the younger Cameron for working for Lamont during Black Wednesday. Instead, we get attacks on the younger Cameron for not being active in student politics. The poor fucker can't win - whatever happens, his past is a big stick to hit him with. The problem is a fundamental lack in the consistency behind these attacks.

Rather than doing early political apprenticeships, like the earnest young Milibands, Bush and Cameron had some hedonistic times as young adults, which may continue to interest their opponents and biographers.

And again, we see the reverence of the emerging professional political class in this country. Those who have lived more of a life than the Milibands are automatically judged as less capable of holding office - even though some sort of a life outside of politics is valuable for potential leaders. For the first, but not for the last, time in this post I will label part of this argument as pathetic.

Having missed the heyday of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, the two men began to rise instead when voters were losing their appetite for transatlantic conservatism's more caustic remedies, and positioned themselves accordingly as "compassionate conservatives". Most journalists took this carefully constructed moderation at face value.

So both men tried to be electable in order to win elections? The fuckers. Completely unlike say... Tony Blair, who never tried to appear as a moderate in order to garner electoral success. Again - pathetic.

Voters were less impressed. In the 2000 presidential election Bush, infamously, received about half a million votes fewer than Al Gore, despite Gore's over-complicated and stiff public manner, and a jittery economy. In this May's general election, it is already less remembered, Cameron's Conservatives scraped 36% of the vote – only a slight improvement on the share the party won in its heavy defeats in 2005 and 2001 – despite Gordon Brown's Gore-style presentational problems, and despite a British economy that was not so much jittery as post-traumatic.

Ok, time to crunch some numbers. In the 2010 General Election, Cameron's party won 10,703,954 votes. Brown's party won 8,609,527 votes. So, unlike the Bush/Gore 2000 contest, Cameron gained 2,094,427 more votes than Brown. The Tories also won 97 seats while Labour lost 92. This wasn't a narrow defeat for Labour - the Tories kicked their arses. The Tory problem lay in the parliamentary system in this country. Had it been a presidential system, these figures would have seen Cameron becoming President on the day after the election.

Oh, and on that 36% - Blair got 35.2% of the vote in 2005 compared to Howard's 32.4%. So to claim that Cameron's vote is only a slight improvement on previous results is disingenuous to say the least. He bettered Howard's total percentage easily and also beat Blair's - despite the fact that the latter went on to form a government with no real problems.

Comparing Cameron's problems with Bush's in 2000 does not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, and actually comes across as deceitful. Oh, and a bit pathetic as well.

And yet, out of Bush and Cameron's poor election showings in 2000 and 2010 has come a new, bolder British and American conservatism. You could call it a politics of wishful thinking – or of bluff.

Except, as we've seen, Cameron's party did the best in that election and cannot be compared to Bush's showing in 2000. The comparison is neither reasonable or meaningful.

First, the two men spun their thin or nonexistent electoral mandates as decisive expressions of public support. Thus, in America, throughout the month-long tumult of recounts and court challenges that followed the 2000 election, Bush presented himself as the contest's victor and Gore as the loser, when there was plenty of evidence that the situation was unclear or even the opposite. Similarly, in Britain this May, on election night, with a mere three seats declared (all retained by Labour) and the exit polls predicting a hung parliament, Cameron's key ally, George Osborne, told the BBC: "I do not think there's any question of Labour being able to continue [in office]." A few commentators fleetingly raised an eyebrow at Osborne's characteristically cocky, premature triumphalism, but it helped create a conventional wisdom about the election result that led directly to the formation of the coalition.

By God, there are just so many attempts at spin in this paragraph it is nearly unbelievable. Firstly, owing to the curious electoral college system in the US, the results of the 2000 election were unclear until Florida declared. Secondly, Osborne was absolutely spot on - there was no question of Labour continuing in office. The Tories didn't win outright, but the Labour party clearly lost. Even with the Lib Dems, they would not have been able to form a majority government. They were a discredited government led by a massively unpopular leader. Finally, what led to the formation of the coalition was Clegg deciding - quite rightly - to talk to the party that did best in the election first, and then the synergy between the Tories and the Lib Dem negotiators. The "conventional wisdom" wasn't created by triumphalism - it was created by the real politics of the election results and the coalition negotiations.

Once in government, Cameron, like Bush, has again exceeded the electorate's instructions. The cautious, inclusive, compassionate conservative has turned into a divisive rightwing radical.

Cameron has done nothing - nothing - that could be considered right-wing or radical. Nor did Bush Junior, for that matter, until he was able to manipulate a shell-shocked and traumatised USA in the aftermath of 9/11.

Both men have used national emergencies as political cover. For Bush, it was 9/11 that justified his huge, reckless neocon experiment. For Cameron, the emergency, more contrived, has been the double one of a hung parliament and a large national deficit – neither of them remotely unprecedented, but scary enough, in a Britain recently grown accustomed to political and economic stability, to make a shrinking of state spending drastic enough to satisfy the zaniest of 80s Thatcherites look like common sense, for the time being, to an impressive 55% of voters.

What is the charge here? That politicians use events in order to bolster their popularity? Because they do - and they have done so for pretty much all of recorded history. It is just that some are better at it than others. Gordon Brown, for example, constantly tried to do it but, unfortunately for him, was shit at it.

And the reason why 55% of voters might be supporting Cameron is because they understand that the cuts aren't zany but essential.

Will Cameron's shallow and opportunistic radicalism succeed? The Bush precedent suggests it may, but only for a few years. Bush was re-elected in 2004, and his approval ratings remained healthy until mid-2005. During this post-9/11 period, it sometimes seemed as if his government could be kept aloft almost by agenda-setting rhetoric alone, without the clever thinktank ideas and canny legislative arm-twistingand basic administrative competence that sustained Thatcher's and Reagan's administrations. In 2002, a Bush aide told the New York Times magazine writer Ron Suskind that he dismissed critics as members of the "reality-based community". "When we act, we create our own reality … We're history's actors ... and you will be left to just study what we do.''

Again, I'm not quite sure why Cameron is being compared to Bush. He doesn't rule like Bush, he isn't facing the same challenges as Bush, and there is no reason to think that the history of the USA in the early part of this century should suddenly be transferred to Britain in 2010.

At times, there has been a whiff of that gravity-defying arrogance about the coalition: in Michael Gove's careless handling of the school building programme; in Cameron's desire to give his government a fixed five years in power, after the public have just voted for a fluid British politics.

Firstly, Gove isn't Cameron and it is possible that the coalition will learn from Gove's errors. They certainly should do. And Cameron wanted, along with the Liberal Democrats, to create a stable government in this country. I really don't see what is so wrong with that. Finally, the assertion that the British people voted for a "fluid British politics" is shite. They voted for particular parties; the "fluid British politics", if it exists, comes from the lack of a decisive result - which is likely to change at the next election.

When government gets difficult, ambition and rhetoric will only take you so far. In 2005, Bush was found wanting by Hurricane Katrina and the war in Iraq; his ratings never recovered. Eerily, Cameron has enjoyed a first three months in power almost free of awkward events and accidents.

So what? I don't get this comparison. Yep, Cameron may yet be tested by events. But given Hurricane Katrina occurred in a different country in the bastard past, I don't see how it has any bearings on the challenges that Cameron may face in the future.

But he has inherited a weaker economy than Bush, and is likely to face a stronger opposition leader and has a coalition to keep happy.

Which rather makes my point - you can't compare Cameron with Bush because they are not facing the same circumstances. But the comment about the opposition leader makes me chuckle. Given the charisma vacuums vying to be Labour leader, there is no chance of Cameron facing a stronger opposition leader than Bush did.

He will be lucky if, like Bush, he gets five good years.

Well, let's hope that Cameron doesn't get five "good" years like Bush - given those five good years for Bush involved mass murder on American soil and the invasion by Bush's country of two nations.

I'm not a fan of Cameron, and I can already see a number of reasons and ways to attack him. But to compare him to Bush is an insult to Cameron and to the challenges facing this country. I'm all for actually taking the fight to Cameron; to criticise him for what he is and what he does. However, to attack him for being like Bush is deceitful, lazy and incompetent. Even for The Guardian, it is utterly pathetic.

On Barry Goldwater

Goldwater is one of those curious political figures. Despite the fact that he was, at least in terms of his bid for President, an abject failure, he is fondly remembered by many - including lots of Libertarians. In fact, you often see a picture of him on Libertarian websites - often between pictures of Ayn Rand and F. A. Hayek. In some respects, he's like an American equivalent of Michael Foot. Obviously, their political views were completely different, but they both are painted as passionate ideologues and noble losers.

I have to be honest here - I think that Goldwater's 1964 campaign for President was an unmitigated disaster. He was so bad in it that he handed a landslide victory to LBJ - who then went forward to dramatically increase the size of the US state. Don't believe me when I say he fucked it up? Take a look at this:

I think the correct term is a landslide - and it wasn't in Goldwater's favour. I guess that's one of the reasons why he is still viewed with rose-tinted glasses: he never had to make any of the compromises that all Presidents have to make. It is far easier to be ideologically consistent when you don't have to actually exercise political power.

Of course, that campaign gave us the oft-quoted slogan that is perhaps best defines Barry Goldwater:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Like many famous pieces of rhetoric, it is a striking, memorable and, unfortunately, largely bollocks. Extremism is always a vice - it involves turning your mind off to alternative viewpoints, shutting down debates and believing zealously in the "truth" of your own position. In fact, I'd argue that extremism leads to the defacement of liberty. Likewise, moderation is the way justice works - the entire justice system is designed to limit emotion and extremism. Moderation is arguably vital to justice.

But it is a political slogan, and designed to provoke emotions rather than stand up to detailed analysis. Unfortunately, it also fails as an effective political slogan. Think about the context - it was the height of the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the murder of a US President were all recent history. Many voters would also have lived through the results of the extremists of the 1930's - in other words, World War Two. It was naive at best to make a statement like that - and it created a big stick with which LBJ could beat Goldwater. In fact, the notorious Daisy commercial can be traced back to that statement:

As a Presidential candidate, Goldwater failed. And in doing so, I don't think that he really revealed himself to be a champion of freedom.

But despite all this, I still think that Goldwater was, in his own way, a champion of liberty if only because he was so consistent about his views. Look at his later career - he stood against the increasing Christian domination of the Republican party. He believed abortion was a personal choice, not something that the government should legislate for or against. Likewise, he didn't care about homosexuals serving in the military - and he certainly didn't back the often homophonic stance of many Republicans. And this statement is still pertinent today:

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Read those words, and think about Bush Junior. Or the moronic Sarah Palin. People who mistake being a Christian fundamentalist with being a champion of liberty. Goldwater understood that religion and politics need to be kept separate, and that some matters truly are about personal responsibility and personal choice. Forget his wibblings about extremism and liberty, and focus instead on his coherent and necessary resistance against the religious right in the US. His stance and his words are essential if you want to understand why the zealots who seem to be running the Republican party at the moment are not friends of liberty, but rather the exact opposite.

The Pope's Visit and the Real World

Liberal Conspiracy are asking a strident question:

Why is the government protecting the Pope from arrest?

The phrase "Awwwww, bless" springs to mind. But there's more:

The Pope’s proposed visit to the UK in September is costing the UK taxpayers as much as £12m for the four-day tour (not including the policing and security costs). How a man who claims to be the right-hand man of God could possibly need security is beyond me.

I'm not surprised it is beyond Adam Wilcox, the author of this remarkably naive article, since he seems to have no basic idea about the real world. I can think of at least one good reason why the Popey Pope needs security.

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC were planning to bring a private prosecution in relation to the Pope’s alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

However, it seems the UK Government didn’t want the embarrassment of having the Pope arrested on our shores, so the new Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has moved to prevent the possibility of an arrest warrant being issued against the Pope during his state visit in September.

Yeah, um, it would be kind of embarrassing to have the fucking Pope arrested on his arrival in the UK. Particularly since he is the head of Church with a global reach and millions, if not billions, of worshippers following him (including people in this country). It would be the sort of awkward moment that most governments would wish to avoid. For diplomatic reasons, if nothing else.

Wilcox goes on to say:

The arrest of the Pope is morally the right thing to do, as this man is responsible for the systemic covering up of a worldwide network of child rape. But in summary, UK law is being changed so that a delusional, homophobic man who shelters rapists and sadists is not held to account when he visits the UK.

Well, I'm pretty sure that when this Pope's legacy is considered, it is going to focus on the whole child rape cover-ups and he's not going to go down as the best Pope we've ever had. But I also think that there is, at best, limited direct evidence to suggest that he should be arrested on arrival in the UK. And given said arrest would provoke a major diplomatic incident, I can kind of see why the government is reluctant to let any proposed arrest actually take place.

I want to make my own position quite clear here - I'd love to see that cunt Ratzinger wrestled to the ground Vic Mackey style and carted off to the local police station to be charged. I would whoop and holler as I watched it live on my TV. I'd love to see him imprisoned, and would hope that such an event would help to stigmatise and partially dismantle the utterly repugnant cult of which he remains the head. Unfortunately...

Unfortunately I live in the real world. Where the government is always going to put political and diplomatic goals ahead of what could be construed as moral ones. Sure, I would love there to be an actual ethical foreign policy. But as soon as any politician opens their big fat gobs and promises one, I know they're lying.

I'd like to see the Pope arrested. And Tony Blair. And George W Bush. Maybe Bill Clinton as well. Putin for sure. And let's throw Berlusconi into the mix for good measure. But given Duch - one of the genuine monsters of the last century - has only just been found guilty despite the fact that most of his crimes were committed before I was born, I'm not going to hold my breath over the conviction - or even the arrest - of any of the arseholes mentioned here.

Bush On Facebook

They used to say that the death of Facebook would come when everyone's parents signed up to that often dubious social networking site. I actually think that Facebook has jumped the shark now George W. Bush is on it.

Bush's wall seems to be filled with lackwitted Republican troglodytes lamenting the fact that their boy is no longer in the White House - even though Bush was the most cretinous President since Warren Harding. But that's inevitable for a fan page, I suppose.

What bothers me, though, is the fact that (at the time of writing) Bush Junior has 81,83o people liking his page. Which is all well and good, but it does show the urgent need for Facebook to have a "Don't Like" button. Because I reckon that the number of people who don't like George W Bush would far outstrip those who like him...

Atheism and Libertarianism

Given the amount of vitriol I send in the direction of religion – and, in particular, Christianity – I sometimes get comments on the blog about my attitude to religion. Most recently, I received an e-mail asking me what my problem with God is, and how I can rationalise that with being Libertarian. So I thought I would make my thoughts on religion perfectly clear for anyone who cannot pick up my position on religion by implication.

First up, it is worth noting that I don’t have a problem with God, much in the same way as I don’t have a problem with Noddy. As far as I am concerned, both are fictional characters. And I only have a limited amount of scorn and derision within me, so I have to focus on being angry with real people, rather than created characters.

No, I do have an issue with religion. To break it down, I think that most religions are so farcical in their claims that it is impossible not to mock. Why talk about “the Lord their God” when “the invisible sky fairy” comes across as so much more accurate a description? Why use the term “believers” when “God-botherers” provokes a far more satisfying reaction? Maybe it is a bit childish and a bit of pointless verbal flashing, but fuck it. I’ve never claimed to be mature. At least not consistently mature, anyway.

But I have slightly more credible reasons for my scorn towards religion. Like the damage religion does to society. It isn’t just the damage that, say, Islam is doing to Iraq or Iran. Look at what the born-again Christian George W Bush has done to the USA. When religion becomes militant, when it seeks to convert others or even whole societies, then it becomes deeply destructive. I have no issue with someone who wants to use religion as a design for life, or as a crutch to help them through a world that is often troubling and uncertain – just so long as they don’t try to convert me or use their ancient, contradictory texts as a blueprint to change society.

And then we have the privileged position religion seems to hold in society. I can call socialism a big pile of wank in front of a socialist and it is game on – the debate/argument begins. It is often fraught, and angry, but the debate happens. Criticise religion in front of many religious types, and you are met with a startled look of indignation and fear. The response isn’t to engage in an argument about the relative merits of atheism against religion. Rather, there is the startled demand to know how I can say such things, and whether or not I know that this is their religion. You can see this mentality emerging when you hear people talking about how “the UK is a Christian country”. It isn’t. It may once have been a Christian country, but it also used to be an absolute monarchy, and it isn’t anymore. We live in a multicultural country with a largely secular government. Religion needs to realise that it is just one view (actually, a number of different views) in a world filled with disparate and exponentially increasing number of beliefs. In the final analysis there is no difference between Islam and being a Jedi, or between being a socialist and a Christian. It may be humbling for someone who holds a religious views to realise this, but unfortunately for them, it also happens to be true.

So, how can I rationalise this disdain for religion with being a Libertarian – particularly when being a Libertarian inherently involves a commitment to freedom of speech. Well, the answer is implicit in the last paragraph, but I’ll spell it out just in case. I believe that everyone has a right to their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect those views. Take racism. I find it abhorrent, but I believe that people have a right to hold those beliefs is they are that ignorant. And I see very little difference between my stance on racism and that on religion.

For the religious, remember this: I respect your right to hold religious views, but that doesn’t mean I respect the views you hold. Freedom of speech allows you to be religious, but also allows others to criticise your views. Accept it, get over it.

Why's Gordo Agreed to Televised Debates?

So, it appears we will be having TV debates between the party leaders at the next General Election. Although there is potentially a lot of time between now and then, and therefore don't be too surprised if Browns bottles the TV debates. After all, he has a lot of history of ducking any sort of a contest that might make him look bad.

But this announcement does beg the question of what Brown is thinking by agreeing to the debates. I reckon it could be one of two things - either he is desperate, or he is going to play the expectations game like a madman.

The latter option would the logical one. After all, Bush Junior played the expectation game superbly in the lead up to his first debate with Al Gore. Team Bush played down expectations so much that all Bush Junior had to do in order not to lose was avoid defecating on his podium. Brown could do the same. He could send out his evil flying monkeys to spread the word amongst the media that Brown is terrified of debating Cameron and almost certain to lose the debates. Given Brown has showed himself to be utterly incapable week after week at Prime Minister's Questions, this idea could gain some traction. And then all Brown would have to in the debate would be not to burst into tears and start sucking his thumb in order to be perceived to have done well.

Of course, downplaying expectations involves telling people in the media, and therefore in the country, that Gordon Brown isn't great at something. And that would dent the stupid man's ego. So whilst playing the expectation game is the logical thing for Brown and his posse to do, I suspect that the brittle arrogance of the Prime Minister will prevent them from actually doing it.

So it is the former. I suspect what Team Brown are doing is surrendering to desperation. Quite simply, the logic behind their agreement is that they now have nothing to lose. Labour seems to have bottomed out in the polls. They've reached their current base level of support. If Brown does badly, it isn't going to dent the limited support they have left. If he does well, he might gain a few points in the opinion polls and minimise the electoral defeat facing the Labour party at the General Election. Blair didn't agree to debate because he was in a position of strength - and there was always the risk that if he did debate, then he could lose popularity. However, Brown has been such a colossal failure as Prime Minister that he has reached a point where he cannot get any more unpopular, realistically. He's doing the debate because it can't make things any worse for him. He literally has nothing to lose, even if he attends the debates and does nothing other than mutter and look sulky.

Oh, if the SNP are going to get all pissy about not been included in the debates, then I think it is an outrage that the leader of the Libertarian Party hasn't been invited to participate either. Not just because all parties deserve a say, but also because I think it would be hilarious to have the Devil himself in a room with Gordon Brown, David Cameron and that fella what runs the Lib Dems...

Quote of the Day

On the future of one George W. Bush:

As for retirement, Sherzer says Bush is "done with politics but not with policy. He's a young man and feels like he has a lot of energy left. He and Mrs Bush are excited about using the Institute as a force for peace, to promote human freedom, global health, accountability in education and economic growth."

Ignoring the fact that politics and policy and largely synonymous in this day and age, I'd just like to praise Baby Bush for pursuing peace, human freedom, global health, accountability in education and economic growth in his retirement - whilst lamenting the fact that his eight years in office saw him pursuing policies that lead to the exact opposite of peace, human freedom, global health, accountability in education and economic growth.

Quote of the Day...

...if only for being monstrously moronic:

We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term.

Former Bush press secretary Dana Perino, showing the sort of intellect and realism the world associates with the Presidency of George W Bush.

Obama on Afghanistan

Barack Obama has been talking about Afghanistan and pontificating on "finishing the job". Now, sometimes I wonder why that particular part of the "War on Terror" is still ongoing. Fortunately Barack is there to remind us. Yes, it is about whupping the butts of al-Qaeda:

"We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks"

Funny, but that sounds to be a lot like the rhetoric of one George W Bush. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. But in fairness, I'm fine with the idea of effectively destroying al-Qaeda. And I am A-Ok with the idea out of getting the hell out of Afghanistan. The key question is how. And I wait with bated breath for someone in power to come up with some sort convincing plan. Rather than spouting tired rhetoric about fighting al-Qaeda...

Bush et al: Proof Positive There Is No God

I think that, without too much effort, we can take certain Christian fundamentalists in the US - like George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin - and use them as proof that God doesn't exist. This will be controversial for some, but bear with me as I explain.

The first thing to note from God in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, is that God is quite an interventionist sort of a chap. He seems to be happiest when he is getting involved with his creation and - more often than not - getting his hands dirty. God sees a problem in the Old Testament, and he deals with it.

And the Old Testament God has no problem in dealing with problems in quite a harsh way. Make no mistake about this - the Old Testament God is a smiting God. One can imagine the Old Testament God getting out of bed in the morning and being asked by Mrs God "what are you up to today?" God's response would be simple - "I'm a-goin' a-smitin'!" This is the God who evicted Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden like an irate landlord. He's the God who made like a demolition expert on the Tower of Babel. He's the "good" Lord who treated the citizens of Swansea Sodom and Gomorrah to fire and brimstone, like some sort of puritanical terrorist. And he's the God who fucked up the whole life of Job because - and this is the bit that staggers me - Job believed in God. The Old Testament God has no issue with having a pop at those who disappoint him. He also sounds like a massive wanker as well, but that's a side issue.

The New Testament God is a little different. Some would argue that he ceases to be an interventionist, but I'd counter that by pointing out that having his son wandering around around the Middle East carrying out miracles is a little interventionist. Nonetheless, the God of the New Testament is a little more loving than his Old Testament incarnation. In fact, some of the teachings of Jesus are genuinely uplifting and revolutionary ideas that have never been properly tried in the real world. Love thy neighbour? Sounds pretty radical to me. And something people across the world and across history - including Christians - have never really tried to do. It is in the teachings of Jesus that we get the idea that "God is Love". In the Old Testament, you're left with the feeling "God is Angry. And Coming For You."

So to recap. We have a God whose son preaches love. A God who is willing to intervene in this world. And a God who is really ready and willing to have a go at those who don't do what God wants. So why the hell does this God allow the likes of George W Bush, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin to strut around dragging the concept of Christianity into the gutter? Those listed - and others like them - have nothing to do with messages of hope, tolerance, peace and love. They have nothing to do with faith. They prefer unthinking dogma and deep - sometimes violent - suspicion of those who don't share their faith. They take Christianity and use it as an excuse to dismiss other people and force their views on a world that God apparently gave free will to. They are an embarrassment to God and the religion based on his son's alleged teachings. And given God had no problem with intervening in the past, I do really wonder why he doesn't do something about these ersatz apostles right now. As the Editors sing, "If there really was a God here, he'd have raised a hand by now."

Of course, the above is a little tongue-in-cheek. It also requires quite a slanted reading of the Bible, and ignores the notion that God can't intervene in human matters without proving his own existence, and thus destroying the concept of faith. After all, it is very easy to have faith in something that is a proven fact. Yet what Christians could take from this is just how damaging it is to have leading lights such as Bush Junior and Palin representing their faith. Even if people were able to overcome the deeply unlikely central stories of the Christian faith, then they would still have to contend with the idea of joining a movement that was, for eight years, represented in a major way by one of the worst Presidents in the history of the USA. The problems many people have with Christianity in this day and age is not just having to buy into highly improbable stories of resurrection and miracles, but also having to buy into a faith increasingly dominated by ignorant dogmatists and those who appear to represent just about anything other than the more inspirational teachings of Jesus.

W.

Pronounced "Dubya", in case you didn't already know. According to Oliver Stone's largely pointless film about the former President.

Bush Junior was a disaster as President. He was, quite simply, one of the worst they have ever had. He was a man completely out of his depth with the country he was meant to be running, and completely at odds with the world he was in. He was lacking in eloquence, intelligence and wit. Whilst it became a cliche during his eight years in the White House to call Bush a moron, it sometimes did appear as if there was very little going on behind Bush's dark little eyes. Bush came across as a man from a privileged background with little interest in anything beyond his own narrow worldview.

Inevitably, this is the side to the Bush Presidency that the film focuses on. For the first half of the film, Bush is a drunken oaf. When he sobers up, he then becomes a Christian zealot and a politician determined to prove how decisive he is. The only addition to the tired and worn cliche of Bush being an idiot is the completely unsubtle implication that he may have been motivated by a tortured relationship with his judgmental father (played by James Cromwell, who manages to look nothing like Bush Senior). This mismanaged sub plot manages to reach a hysterical crescendo when the two generations of Bush men square up to each other. In many ways it is just a shame that they didn't have the fight - two future Presidents of the United States of America, bitch-slapping each other would have been a great cinematic moment.

Yet there is more to the Bush administration than simply the perceived incompetence of the then Commander In Chief. He was President during truly historic times. Yet these are barely touched on in the film. Yep, we have extended scenes detailing the run-up to the Iraq War, that consist of Bush's staff rehashing arguments like a Student Union having a debate. There is next to nothing on 9/11. Hurricane Katrina doesn't get a mention. The Patriot Act is mentioned in passing over lunch. And the contested election in 2000? Well, that is dismissed with the trite scenario of "Poppy did it." How did Bush - portrayed as a gibbering chimp in this film who can't even find the way to his own car on his own ranch - win a comfortable victory in 2004? If you don't know about those crucial parts of Bush's time in the White House, you won't do by the end of W. You will, however, have watched Bush gurn away to a comedy soundtrack that includes the Robin Hood Song.

There is a great movie to be made about President George W. Bush. A movie that deals with the epic, world-changing events that happened during the tumultuous eight years of his Presidency. Sadly, W. is not that movie. W. is a movie about how people can be vain, stupid and closed minded when making the choice about going to war. Unfortunately, W. fails here as well. There is a far more effective movie on that subject out there.

So if you want to find out about George W. Bush, read a book. If you want to watch how the lead up to a war can involve pretty much anything other than common sense and a clear understanding of why conflict is coming, watch In The Loop. As a movie, W. achieves very little bar a lot of poor imitations of the people who used to run the US.