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.

Elizabeth Warren and The Non-Existent Social Contract

There's a video that has been doing the rounds recently to much adulation from my statist friends. It is of Elizabeth Warren, a would-be Senator campaigning for that bloated old fool Ted Kennedy's seat, talking about "the underlying social contract". Take a look, and then we'll start to dissect what Warren has to say:



I'm not particularly interested in her analysis of the economic woes of the US - yes, Bush Junior was a profligate wastrel when he was in power, but his replacement has done little to reduce the size of the deficit facing the US. In fact, he's made things worse. Rather, I want to look at this sort of underlying social contract argument that Warren uses.

First things first, on an initial listen/read, it is actually quite persuasive. On a surface level, she appears to be talking some sense. Yes, we are fundamentally and crucially individuals. But I know my life would be unpleasant and really rather short were I not part of a community. I'm not fantastically wealthy, and I never will be, but I do know the fact that I can live in relative comfort is not solely down to my own abilities. I need the interactions with others and the infrastructure of wider society in order to be able to attain and maintain my lifestyle. The super-rich are no different. But this acknowledgement of the essential inter-connectivity of modern life does not do the heavy lifting that Warren seems to think it does within her argument. Because it is all largely smoke and mirrors; drill down, and you start to see a lot of holes. So let's drill down.

Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

Perhaps nobody did get rich on their own. But a lot of rich people have done so because of talents and skills that, while not unique, are very much the exception rather than the rule. There are three main ways in which people get rich: having a great, marketable idea; being willing to take risks; and/or being willing to work really hard. Yes, they need other people, but it is also something within them that allows them to differentiate themselves from other people and create something that makes them very wealthy. As such, their relationship with those who assisted them in making them very wealthy is symbiotic. This is a crucial point: no-one got rich on their own, but equally no-one got rich purely because of the benefits of the wider society around them.

It is telling that Warren never actually demonstrates that we're not dealing with class warfare here. Sure, she goes on to argue for a social contract, but since she does not convincingly demonstrate the existence of that social contract, her case that it isn't class warfare is not even implicitly made.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for;

And, of course, the factory-owner himself almost certainly paid for, and owing to the fact that they earn more money, probably paid more for than the average worker in the US and maybe even a greater percentage of his/her income.

Furthermore, there is something a little naive (at best) in this idea that goods get out to market through a publicly funded infrastructure. This may well be true, but what choice does the entrepreneur have? They are expected, under threat of imprisonment, to pay tax to the state, which then goes out and builds roads etc. Now, it could well be that an entrepreneur may want to fund his/her own infrastructure, private to his business, that could work more efficiently for him/her. But they have no choice but to hand over the funds that could be used for such a project to the government. Thus, they have no choice but to use the publicly funded infrastructure. As such, Warren's argument becomes essentially circular - you give money to the state, therefore you can only afford to use the public infrastructure, therefore you should pay for that infrastructure. And that argument is predicated on the far too seldom challenged notion that there should be no opt-outs from the tax system for those who do not wish to avail themselves of certain public services. Even if our entrepreneur could still afford to fund his/her own transport network, they would still expected to pay for the public one. Their hand is almost forced; they may as well use the publicly funded roads as otherwise they're going to end up paying twice for the roads they use.

you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate;

A spurious assertion that assumes our rich person doesn't hire privately educated people and that public education is of a high enough standard to truly benefit our entrepreneur friend. And, once again, our entrepreneur is also paying for that system to educate his/her workforce through taxation.

you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Hmmm. Because, since the advent of publicly funded police and fire services, there has never been a burglary or a building burning to the ground, right? Of course not; that's yet more nonsense. But Warren here seems to be falling into the naive trap of thinking that if the state funds and runs something, it is going to make us safe. That is, of course, nonsense on stilts. As factories investing in security guards and fire prevention systems shows. And, again, that entrepreneur ends up paying twice - once for a public system that is often bloated, inefficient and unable to do what it is supposed to be doing. The second time for a private back-up system designed to compensate for the inefficiencies of the public system they are forced to contribute to.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

I love the "God bless". Wonderfully patronising. Wouldn't worry too much about approaching those wealthy, big-money donors any more, Elizabeth. On the flipside, hate the phrase "pay forward". Just doesn't work at all..

But at the heart of all this is a sweeping, intellectual and ideological power grab. Warren is arguing that there is a social contract that underpins all we do, and that we need to adhere to it because we are part of society. But she is trying to do something even more bold - she is trying to claim that not only is there an underlying social contract, but she is the one who understands it. Therefore, we all need to fall in line with her statist policies about the redistribution of wealth through tax. So we've gone from an apparently innocuous argument about fairness in society to a much broader, and more dangerous, argument that is predicated on the idea that Elizabeth Warren has found the real truth about our society.

The big problem is that social contracts - underlying or otherwise - actually don't exist in any practical way. They are theoretical constructs of political philosophers designed to either offer an alternative to the status quo or to explain the transition from some sort of state of nature to the status quo. They are illustrations rather than actually part of the reality of modern politics. Therefore, to claim one exists and should actually be the guide for how much the state intervenes financially in the lives of its citizens is problematic to say the least. In part because we never signed up to any such social contract. Nor did our parents, or their parents, and so on. In fact, the person who signs us up - whether we like it or not - is someone like Warren. And she decides how we should interact with each other within society through nothing other than her own spurious and contestable argument and her own arrogance.

Which is the big problem I have with Warren, or at least the way in which she depicts herself in this video. Once you get beyond the folksy presentation of the case for redistributive taxation to the actual meat of what she is saying, you get a level of arrogance that I find very troubling. She's found the underlying contract. She knows best; about what is good for society, her supporters and for you. It is only a small step from finding that social contract to what Rousseau termed being forced to be free. On the basis of a contract you never signed up to because it has just been created as a rhetorical device for a campaigning politician, the state can demand more from you. And I know I can't be alone in finding that deeply concerning.

The US Mid-term Elections in Perspective

How different it must all have looked to Obama two years ago. Then, he had just been elected by a legion of adoring followers. He had won the most convincing victory for a Democratic presidential candidate in a generation. And his followers seemed to think he was poised to be one of the greatest presidents of all time.

Now, he's just another president - kicked senseless by an electorate angry over the economy and his apparent failure to make "change" and "hope" actually mean something. He had a lot of political capital when he was elected, but large swathes of that were spunked away over health-care reform. He's battered, he's on the ropes but - and this is the crucial bit - there is no reason to think that's he given up or is defeated.

So, despite all the right-wing crowing on both sides of the Atlantic about "one-term Barry", I think it is far too early to write off Obama. And I still believe that in another two years time, Obama will be celebrating a comfortable win at the 2012 Presidential election. There are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, the mood of the electorate at mid-term elections tends to be very different to how they vote at Presidential elections. It is one thing to vote for a Tea-Partier in a Senate or House election, another to do the same for a presidential candidate. On both sides of the Atlantic, voters like using these sort of elections to fire a warning shot across the bows of their leaders. That is no guarantee that they are willing to actually dump them at the next election. Blair took kickings at local and by-elections; the British people still managed to elect that egregious idiot a number of times.

Secondly, this was not (quite) the comprehensive drubbing of the Democrats many were expecting. They lost control of the House, but not the Senate. Harry Reid kept his seat. The likes of Christine O'Donnell were (mercifully) rejected by the voters. The Democrats are battered, and bruised but not down and out. Furthermore, the heady rhetoric of many Republican candidates about "taking America back" means they will have to do a great deal to meet their campaign promises - and if they don't, they can expect the same sort of kicking next time out that Obama has received for not living up to the empty campaign slogan of "change".

Furthermore, there is tension within the Republican party between the mainstream and the Tea Party. And there is a real danger for that party that, come the Presidential primary season, a long drawn out battle will be fought between a mainstream Republican candidate and a Tea-Party member. If this happens (particularly if, as seems very likely, Obama will be renominated without a fight) then the spectacle of the Republican party in the run up to November 2012 will be bitter infighting. It's one of the key rules of modern politics - divided parties seldom win. As things stand, the Republican party lacks a clear message and a clear strategy. It consists of a party with two separate, and not necessarily compatible, wings eyeing each other up warily. And it is going to take a lot of compromise to get that party to unite behind one individual presidential candidate - and there is no guarantee that this candidate will be credible.

Finally, Obama has one massive advantage - incumbency. For the next two years, he could effectively campaign for re-election from the White House, showing that he is presidential, a real leader and with every pronouncement he makes heading to the top of the news bulletins. Contrast with the Republicans, who don't have a figurehead and aren't likely to have one for a good eighteen months. Obama has two years in which to get that formidable publicity machine that got him elected in the first place going again. As long as he understands that the voters aren't happy, he can do something to change that in his favour.

So I think Obama will re-election, and history has shown time and time again that presidents who suffer mid-term setbacks can go on to win again, sometimes by landslides. Of course, nothing is set in stone, and the Republicans may yet turn this muted victory into the start of a real campaign to take back the White House. But the Republicans aren't as strong or as united as they might appear to be, and Republican triumphalism over this election win is likely to be as damaging to their cause as apparent Democrat complacency was after Obama's win in 2008.

The Tea Party, Palin and The Republican Nomination

Some interesting commentary from Mark Mardell on the Tea Party successes in Republican primaries:

Both the polls and senior Republicans suggest that Tea Party favourite Christine O'Donnell hasn't a hope of winning the seat. But the Republican voters wanted her as their candidate nonetheless.

So when people tell you that Sarah Palin will not win the nomination in 2012 because she cannot beat President Obama, remember it is grassroots Republicans who make that decision, not party strategists or commentators.

There's a curious tension between the Tea Party and the Republicans; there is a sense in which each wants to co-opt the other, despite the fact that they are not actually compatible. I reckon this struggle will continue right up to the 2012 election; however, I don't doubt that the Republican party will end up absorbing the Tea Party movement. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way these things go.

Mardell's right, of course - if the Republican grass-roots want an unelectable candidate, then they can nominate one. And this may well be the way in which Palin wins the nomination in 2012. Yet the more I think about, the more I would sound a note of caution about assuming Palin will be the 2012 Republican nominee. While it is true that both parties in the US have nominated inept candidates (Goldwater and McGovern spring to mind), they have noted the result of this - landslide defeat. And you can see recent examples of how even the party faithful have ultimately decided to choose the credible candidate over the unelectable. That's why the likes of Howard Dean and Mike Huckabee - despite being the favourite for a substantial minority of their respective parties - were ultimately passed over in favour of more mainstream (and perhaps less inspiring) candidates. Despite the lack of a credible alternative at the moment, I suspect that this is what will happen with Palin; in the end, the party will almost certainly choose a more credible candidate than Palin because, ultimately, they want to beat Obama - not hand him a landslide re-election.

The Tea Party Movement

The Adam Smith Institute has a post up about the Tea Party designed to ask a key question about that movement - and it's this:

Is this the change we should believe in?

Meh. I certainly hope not.

The Tea Party movement is, as far as I can see, just a lot of hype. There is nothing new about the Tea Party movement; not even its name. There have been grassroot campaigns in the USA before - and very successful ones to boot. Such campaigns saw Barry Goldwater being drafted for the Republican nomination in 1964, and the creation of the primary successes of Eugene McCarthy (which, in turn, led to LBJ refusing to stand for a further term) four years later. The Christian Coalition - that pernicious body of Christian Fundamentalists - is a recent example as well. But more often than not such organisations have been the result of one of the two major parties in the USA losing their way. And those movements have ended with their incorporation into the party that had lost its way. And I think that is what has happened with regard to the Tea Party - it was formed because the Republicans have lost their way (remember, people, it was formed when Bush Junior was still President). And it will end when the Republicans take over the Tea Party (probably using the ever cretinous Sarah Palin) and fully incorporate it.

Part of the reason for this is the fact that there is nothing radical in what the Tea Party movement stands for. Look at its Contract From America - this is nothing more than the smaller government agenda that should be, and has been, the bedrock of the Republican party. Sure, we can call this programme Libertarian - and in some respects it is (in the sense that any programme calling for lower taxes is Libertarian). Yet what, as far as I can see, is missing from the Tea Party movement is any sort of commitment to genuine social freedom alongside their admirable commitment to economic freedom. Which is why they would be perfect for incorporation into the Republican party, and why they really aren't as radical as they are sometimes made out to be.

On some levels, I'd love to be wrong - I'd love to see the Tea Party movement breaking the mould of US politics, and becoming a genuine alternative to the two mainstream US parties. But there is nothing in either history or the nature of the Tea Party movement to make me convinced that this can actually happen. As it stands, I think we will see this movement becoming a footnote in the 2012 US Presidential election, and then disappearing into the Republican party forever.

Obama, Islam and The Daily Mail

Oooh, it has been a while since I last tore apart a Daily Mail article. Then I saw this one, that combines largely incoherent rage against two of their favourite targets (Islam and Obama) and... and how could I resist?

The headline is:

'Provocative, insensitive and uncaring': Fury after Obama backs mosque near site of September 11 disaster

Two points - first of all, being "provocative, insensitive and uncaring" is something that The Daily Mail should know all about - it is what they do all day, every day. In fact, it should probably the tagline for their hate-rag.

Secondly, I thought that September 11th was a terrorist attack - the use of the word "disaster" seems curiously restrained for the Mail. They missed a chance to be hyperbolic there.

On with the article:

Barack Obama has been hit by a furious backlash from victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks after he backed plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

As we shall come to see, the sentence above should read that Obama "...has been hit by a furious backlash from some victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and some Republicans..." An important qualification that the Mail didn't see fit to mention. Then again, imprecise terms help to create the hysteria, don't they? As this next section shows.

The proposed site for the 13-storey building is close to where almost 3,000 people died nine years ago after Muslim hijackers flew two jet airliners into the World Trade Center.

Oooo, and there is is - the motherload. Note the phrase "... Muslim hijackers". Can we dispute that? Technically not - the hijackers were Muslim. Yet they were also male - so why not write "male hijackers"? They were also human - so why not write "human hijackers"? Why not list their individual ethnicities? The problem with the use of the term "Muslim" - what makes it misleading at the very least - is the broad nature of the phrase. Islam is a religion followed by millions across the world and has different factions that believe in different things. The 9/11 hijackers were a particular kind of Muslim - they were Islamic fundamentalist militants. And as such, they were divorced from the vast majority of Muslims across the world. The use of the word "Muslim" in this context is misleading as it does not take into account the breadth of beliefs and different levels of fundamentalism inherent within that religion.

BTW, fact fans, the new mosque is two blocks away from the site of Ground Zero. Just in case you are wondering.

Mr Obama expressed his support for the mosque, which will replace a building damaged by the attacks, at a White House meal celebrating Ramadan.

He said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.

‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’

Let's have a round of applause for Obama - a man who thus far in his presidency has been more than a little underwhelming has said something that is simultaneously courageous and absolutely right. America was founded on the principle of freedom of religion - and this freedom has to be protected, particularly if the religious building is being built on private land in accordance with the law.

His speech on Friday was heavily criticised by a group representing the families of victims of the terrorist attack, who called the plan a ‘deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah’.

Bullshit. It will have quite the opposite effect - by not discriminating against Islam based on the fanaticism of a tiny minority of Muslims, his speech will reduce and slow the rate of radicalisation. To do the opposite - to ban this mosque on the basis of an ignorant tainting of all Muslims as fundamentalist will increase alienation and in doing so increase the chance of more bloodshed in the name of Allah.

Debra Burlingame, a sister of a pilot killed when his plane was flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon and a spokesperson for victims’ families, said: ‘Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see.’

Barack Obama was actually talking about a site two blocks away from "the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago". Furthermore, religious tolerance is part of America's values - and what Obama said is completely in line with those values.

BTW the Pentagon, where this lady's brother died, is in Washington, not New York. Wonder whether she objected to the rebuilding of the Pentagon? Probably not, because that wasn't about the "Muslims", just the US war machine that has, through years of attacks and aggression, helped to provoke the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists.

Peter King, a Republican congressman in New York, said the President had been wrong to back the plan, adding: ‘It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero.’

Ooo, looky, a Republican congressman in an election year who doesn't agree with the sitting US Democrat president. Who'd have thunk it, eh?

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, condemed the President for a 'gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost.'

Well, Regenhard is entitled to her opinions. Just as Muslims are if they want to express their religious beliefs in a mosque a few streets away from Ground Zero. In this case, on private property. The fact that Regenhard has lost someone does not make her opinion more valid that the opinions of others - tragedy is not a trump card in public political debate.

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.

'The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding,' he said.

So, the House Minority Leader is opposing the sitting President in an election year - again, nothing startling here. It would actually be more startling - and, indeed, interesting - if said representative agreed with Obama. As it stands, the correct response is "of course he'd say that - it's his job."

New York Republican Congressman Peter King added: 'President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero.'

Hmmm, hasn't this already been said?

Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida said: 'President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

'Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else.'

This is more interesting if only because the person speaking is a Democrat. However, for all the world, he sounds a lot like a candidate in an election year trying to jump onto a populist bandwagon. And he's also wrong - he's conflating "Islamic terrorists" with "Islam".

However, Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill in the 9/11 attacks, disagreed and claimed a mosque would be 'a fitting tribute'.

'This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience. This is what moderate Islam is all about,' she said.

A-ha! Someone who gets it! Magic. And the fact that she tragically lost her brother shows that the families of the bereaved are not the homogenous entity they are sometimes made out to be for the sake of political expediency.

Challenged about his comments during a family trip to Florida yesterday, the President said: 'I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.'

Obama said that 'my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.'

Uh-huh. Obama also gets the point about religious freedom in the US - a principle on which that country was founded that appears to be on the cusp of being forgotten.

The White House insisted Mr Obama was not backing away from his initial comments.

Spokesman Bill Burton said: 'What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.'

Good - Obama shouldn't back away from his comments. And I'd have more sympathy with the anti-mosque brigade if they were looking to ban all religious sites of worship within a two block radius of Ground Zero. But they're not; and even if they were, I'd only have more sympathy with them - not believe that they are correct.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist said: 'I think he's right - I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others.

'I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't.'

Excellent! A Republican who gets it as well! No wonder he's having to run for the Senate as an Independent rather than Republican, though.

There had been mounting pressure for Obama to speak out on the issue after his political enemies, including former candidate for the vice presidency Sarah Palin, criticised the plan.

How predictable - Sarah Palin adopts the ignorant, populist stance on a issue. How deeply tedious that woman is.

The site was bought by the not-for-profit group the Cordoba Initiative for £3 million.

It plans to spend £75 million on a complex including a prayer room, mosque and ‘September 11 memorial and contemplation space’.

Developer Sharif el-Gamal said: ‘We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our President’s words.’

In a sense el-Gamal shouldn't be grateful to Obama - he should be grateful to the fact that America was based, in part, on the concept of religious freedom.

Which is the point here. Muslims have a right to worship just as much as any other religious believer. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that Islam is a load of toss just like every other religion. But if you are going to have a free society, then you have to allow people to be free to believe in nonsensical toss. Otherwise, you are discriminating; you become illiberal. You become an enemy of freedom.

And if you want to understand just how crass the whole idea of not having a mosque near the site of Ground Zero, then just imagine the outcry if Northern Ireland banned Catholic Churches because the IRA once carried out terrorist atrocities in that country. Same principle here; just a different religion...

Obama: One Year On

Happy first birthday to the Obama administration. Of course, it isn't all good news: the loss of Teddy Kennedy's seat to the Republicans is a blow, and one that may scuttle Obama's already faltering health plan. It is tempting to paint Scott Brown's victory as a crippling indictment of Obama's first year in office; while Obama's presence in the Oval Office may have been a contributing factor to some people's votes, it is equally possible that the voters of Massachusetts simply wanted to vote Republican after decades of mindlessly voting for Teddy Kennedy. God knows, I would. So be warned; losing the Senate super-majority does not mean that Obama is set to lose the White House in three years time.

See for Obama, it's one year down, and most probably seven years to go. Because while Obama has done little that is memorable in his first year other than creating a shit storm on the issue of health care, he has managed not to fuck up too badly. In the pantheon of Democratic presidents, he's no FDR - but he isn't a Jimmy Carter either. In fact, Obama is doing a hell of a lot better than Clinton was at this point in his presidency, and Clinton won a second term easily.

So I reckon Obama will win re-election in 2012, even if the mid-term elections later this year don't go tremendously well for the Democrats. Not least because the Republicans have, over the course of this year, done nothing to sort themselves out and find someone decent to fight Obama in 2012. Despite the Brown setback, the best birthday present the Obama administration could get from the Republicans is the one they are offering - the ridiculous Sarah Palin is still that party's leading light.

Speaking Ill of the Dead: Teddy Kennedy

Ted Kennedy, the last of the that fabled trio of brothers who once looked set to dominate US politics, has died. The fact that Teddy Kennedy managed to outlive his brothers is perhaps yet another example of the ongoing tragedy of the Kennedy clan. Because, at the risk of speaking ill of the dead, he was the least effective and least able of those brothers.

If you support social democracy and what the US incorrectly dubs as liberalism, then I suppose you can point towards some sort of a legacy from Ted Kennedy. Yet anyone who was in the Senate for as long as Kennedy should be able to point towards a substantial legislative legacy. And besides, it may be carping a bit but it is instructive to think just how he was able to run for the Senate and stay there for so long. Daddy's wealth and the high profile of his brothers meant that this Kennedy had a head start that few others could ever dream of. For all those talking about how Teddy Kennedy represents the Liberal dream in the US, think again. Those who came from nowhere to achieve great things are truly indicative of the American dream. It is Harry Truman, LBJ and Barack Obama who truly show what ability in the USA can do. All Teddy Kennedy showed is what you can do if you have a boat load of cash and a respected name behind you. And that is sit in the Senate for decades, representing a very liberal state.

Of course, no obituary of Teddy Kennedy would be complete without a reference to Chappaquiddick, which surely remains one of the worst political scandals of all time. Nixon helped to cover up a burglary, Clinton smoked a dubious cigar; Teddy Kennedy killed someone. Yeah, read that again. Teddy Kennedy left someone to die. If you want a good description of the full horror of what he did, read this extract from a Guardian article that tries (and fails) to show how Kennedy overcame the stigma of his killing:

Kennedy chose to flee the scene , leaving the young woman to die an agonising death not of drowning but of suffocation over a period of hours. Incredibly, it was 10 hours before Kennedy reported the accident, by which time he'd consulted a family lawyer. The senator's explanation for this unconscionable, despicable, unmanly and inexplicable behaviour was never convincing: he claimed that he'd struck his head and was "confused" and "exhausted" from diving and trying to rescue the young woman and had gone home to bed.

So... Teddy leaves a party with a woman who wasn't his wife, crashes his car into water with her inside, and then leaves that woman to slowly die. This probably cost him the chance of winning the presidency. Can you imagine what it would have cost someone who wasn't part of the Kennedy family? For this sort of thing, the average person in the street would be looking at a lengthy prison stretch. Kennedy got two month's probation. Why? Because of his family name. And because of his family connections. Daddy's wealth and the good name of his brothers saved him from having to take the full punishment for his utterly reprehensible crime. I know I won't be alone in asking why so many people are mourning Ted Kennedy - reasonably competent legislator and killer.

The true success of the Kennedy clan - and where they have proved to be most effective - is in creating an aura, a mystic, a cult around themselves that just does not match up to reality. Nonetheless, people had faith in JFK. And then in RFK. Because of what those two were perceived to stand for. And when both of those figures went to their early graves, the only person left to carry on the dream was Teddy. He didn't earn that position, and the only reason why he became such an icon to so many people is because of his surname. So it goes. Inheriting titles, wealth and power is a part of human society, and always will be. Yet I can't help but think that, outside of his circle of family and friends, most people are mourning the death of the Kennedy name, rather than the death of this particular Kennedy.

No shit Sherlock time:

"More than 6 in 10 Republicans today are white conservatives, while most of the rest are whites with other ideological leanings; only 11% of Republicans are Hispanics, or are blacks or members of other races... The results show clearly that the Republican Party today is first and foremost a political entity dominated by white Americans. Eighty-nine percent of rank-and-file Republicans are non-Hispanic whites, leaving just 5% who are Hispanic (of any race), 2% who are black, and 4% of other races."

Still, good to see that the true legacy of the Bush Junior years - and his so-called "compassionate Conservatism" - is a Republican party less inclusive than ever...

Obama: 100 Days

So, Barack Obama has been in power for 100 days, and a Republican Senator has given him the extra special gift of a defection. I find it mildly amusing that the press has suddenly picked up on the first 100 days of the Obama presidency again - most of their coverage petered out at around Day 36, when the media realised that Obama wasn't really going to do anything other than be a President - and that role isn't actually that newsworthy on a day to day basis.

They'll be some celebration and some commiseration about Obama's achievement today - if you can call being in power for 100 days an actual achievement. After all, all he has had to do is not die or be impeached. Which most US Presidents, but not all, have been able to manage.

Whether you think Obama has been a success of not is really down to your political views - he's certainly done a great deal, but sadly spent a lot of money and grasped a lot of power for the state in the process. No-one should be surprised, though, at his actions in his first 100 days. He's been a Democrat; not exactly a revelation given the party he's a member of and leads.

But it is this defection - which puts Obama very close to having a filibuster proof majority - should be the big story now the first hundred days are at an end. And it is the motivations of Senator Specter that fascinates me. He's moved to Democrats because the Republicans have moved so far to the right. And with Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin acting as the de facto leaders of the Republicans, his claim can't really be disputed. And the Republicans are beginning to resemble the Conservatives in 1997 - lurching to the right because the party doesn't know where to go but instead is listening to the loudest voices.

The problem is that whilst a small minority love Limbaugh and Palin and their rabid ilk, it does not provide a coherent platform for realistic opposition within US Politics. Obama and co can laugh off the Republicans as fundamentalists, reactionaries and far right. They can dismiss their case without breaking into a sweat. Which further negates and already crippled opposition in the US.

The Republicans need to take the media manufactured landmark of Obama's first 100 days to take stock and find a platform that will appeal to the people. That is the first step to them becoming an effective opposition again. It may not win them control of Congress in two years or the White House back in four years, but at least they will have a coherent argument to oppose Obama. It is a first step in their recovery. However, this lurch to the right moves them further away from a coherent platform and being a credible opposition.

And they need to be a credible opposition more than ever now. Because, as the example of Britain in 1997 shows, a photogenic, popular young leader with absolute control of the legislature and no credible opposition can wreak havoc in that country. Unless the Republicans remember how to be in opposition, the same could happen in the US.

Quote of the Day - Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton on Barack Obama:

"Everything I learned in my eight years as president and in the work I've done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job," the former president said.

Love it. “The right man for the job.” Not the right person, or the best person, but the right man. Even as the Democrats shout to the rafters about their newfound party loyalty, you can still see it, And still feel it - the slight, bitter rancour that the Clinton faction still feel about their defeat. Obama is the right man for the job; they still feel that the best person didn’t win.

Election 2008: The Clinton Millstone

On some levels I feel sorry for Barack Obama. Yes, he’s got what he seems to lust after – the chance to run for President. He actually stands – despite a massive lack of experience – the chance to get elected President. He’s not done too badly for himself.

Yet he has a massive headache. In fact, he has an eyeball popping migraine of a problem. It is, of course, Hillary Clinton. Now, Obama and his campaign might feel she is no longer a problem – after all, he seems to have finally consigned her campaign to the dustbin of history. Yet she still looms over him, like a shrill, demented sword of Damocles. Because, having failed to win the nomination, she now has set her razor sharp, Terminator-esque eyes on the vice-presidential nomination.

The simplest thing to do would be to offer Clinton the vice-presidency. He would have her onside, and he would have the considerable support she mustered in the primaries behind him as well. Yet how long would it be until she started to think that she was the one running for President rather than Obama? If their ticket won the White House, how long would it take her to assume she was President? You’d have to be delusional and arrogant to make that that sort of assumption – but after her endless campaign for President, you could argue that Clinton is both.

However, the latest intelligence seems to suggest that Obama is shunning Clinton. Fair enough, but this strategy has risk attached to it as well. And that risk can be summed up by the question “just how insane is Hillary Clinton?” If she is snubbed again, what will she do? I doubt, given her campaign for the Presidency increasingly showed the *tenacity* of a rabid poodle savaging a child’s face, that she will simply shrug and walk away. So how destructive will she be? Will she just refuse to campaign for her unlikely victor? Will she start a whispering campaign against him? Will she completely lose the plot, and run as an Independent - thus throwing the chances of the Democrats winning the White House back straight down the crapper?

Make no mistake; Hillary Clinton is a millstone around the neck of Obama. And it is a millstone that could drown the Obama campaign, just as surely as it drowned the once invincible Hillary ’08 campaign.

Election 08 - Obama-Clinton?

The new strategy of the Hillary Clinton campaign - position her to be Obama's Vice-President.

Seriously, I'm impressed with this idea. Not because I think it is a good one, but rather because it shows Hillary's courage. It takes a lot of fucking courage to spend the best part of a year telling a guy he's rubbish and not up to the job of fighting an election in November (at the same time as losing a series of elections to him) only to turn around and beg him for a job as soon as he has convincingly defeated you. It moves beyond "ambitious" part of the electioneering spectrum and moves more towards the "naked, unthinking lust for power" part.

Still, Obama could do a lot worse than getting her on the ticket with him. After all, if she is running for office with him, even she will have to concede that the nomination race is over and she can finally turn her relentlessly, energetic hectoring on the Republicans. Surely not even Clinton would have the naked audacity to continue to run for the Democratic nomination for President even after she has been nominated for Vice-President?

Actually, I'll stop right there. Don't want to give Hillary any ideas...

Ted Kennedy And US Nepotism

So, Ted Kennedy has a brain tumour. Bad news for him, bad news for his family. For what it is worth, I hope he gets better.

But I really can’t understand all the attention that this news has got. Seriously, when I was (half) watching Channel Four news last week there were crowds outside the hospital, cheering as he walked out. I know he is fat, old and ill, but walking can’t be much of a problem for him, surely?

Which got me wondering exactly why so many people care about Ted Kennedy. Because on paper, he isn’t the most likeable or capable of politicians. In fact, he’s pretty crap. I mean, his career has hardly been scintillating. His main claim to fame is that he has been in power for a long time. Well, whoopee-do – but by that logic we should also be celebrating Fidel Castro, because he spent ages in power. Aside from that, his career is mainly misjudgement and scandal. Take his run for President in 1980 – a glaring example of disloyalty to (the admittedly dreadful) man who was then President of his party, he managed to assist Reagan into the White House and helped to bring in 12 years of Republican rule. And no criticism of Kennedy would be complete without the obligatory mention of Chappaquiddick. Any other Senator with this record would be rapidly consigned to life outside of the public domain. Ted Kennedy is treated as a hero, despite his many flaws.

And it shouldn’t be a revelation to anyone that the reason why those glaring flaws are overlooked is because of his family name. Lacking the charisma of one brother and the political acumen of another, he is pretty much the shallow end of the Kennedy clan gene pool. He only found the limelight because of the tragedies that befell his older siblings. People care about Ted Kennedy because of his surname and because of his brothers. It is not a personal thing, it is simply the natural extension of the unpleasant nepotism that tars so much of modern American Politics.

Look at the current election. Obama’s fight against Clinton has at least stopped (unless something goes badly wrong) the US from having Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in the White House. So what do people do? Start talking about the ridiculously named Chelsea Clinton making a run for the White House in eight years. The Bush dynasty seems to have been (temporarily) stopped from achieving further power – but as soon as Dubya is out of the White House, memories of his misrule will fade and the talk of Jeb – or some other moron with Bush for a surname – in the White House will start. This website, presumably intended as satire, has more than a ring of truth to it.

Nepotism is a signpost of the death of democracy – that the talent pool of politicians has become so woefully shallow that people with a surname that harks back to better times is the way to go. It may be difficult for people in the UK to understand just how bad this is for democracy. But look at it this way: imagine if people were seriously talking about Euan Blair as a future Prime Minister. How pissed off would everyone be, given it took us ten years to be rid of his twat of a father? Even worse, imagine if the off spring of Gordon Brown were credible future leaders in this country. The thought sends shivers down my spine.

So America should stop thinking in terms of Kennedys, or Bushes, or Clintons. They should look for people whose main claim to power is more than simply being the spawn of or spouse to someone who was once in power. Kennedy’s illness should be the starting point of this – he should be allowed to heal in private, away from the glaring gaze of the media that focuses on him purely because of his name.

Iowa, 2008

There will be an election in a few days time. Not in Pakistan, it seems, but rather the Iowa caucus in, well, Iowa. For anyone who doesn’t understand the way the US election system works, it must be faintly bemusing to see a small number of US voters going to the polls 11 months before the Presidential Election actually happens. But the Iowa caucus is crucial. And more for the Republicans than for the Democrats.

Those vying for the Democratic nomination this time out are quite middle of the road for their party. On the one hand, you have the experienced but also the charisma vacuum that is Hilary Clinton. And then on the other side you have the audacity of hope but paucity of policy, experience and maturity that comes with Barack Obama. Actually, if you combined the two together, you would probably have a very interesting ticket. Any road, you certainly don’t have anyone as extreme and unelectable as Howard Dean running for the Democrats this time.

The Republicans don’t quite have the same strengths when you review the front runners for their nomination. On the one hand you have the charming but terrifyingly loopy Mike Huckabee. On the other hand you have the charmless and moronic Mitt Romney. Both could be classed as religious fundamentalists, both are shit choices if the US wants to recover from the disaster of the Bush years. Between them, though, they have 32.3% of the Republican votes. Sure, Guiliani is ahead – but is beating Huckabee by just 1 point in some polls. McCain – once the presumptive nominee and the most experienced of all those candidates running – is behind Huckabee and is struggling to better Romney – in some cases he is ahead by just 0.7%, in others he is behind. You could take some comfort in the fact that Guiliani is ahead, but it is worrying that he is not much, much further ahead. And there is always the danger in a caucus or primary of an upset victory – hell, even a victory can be considered not strong enough for a sitting President to continue. Neither Guiliani nor McCain are likely to win an upset victory, and the danger of a loss of momentum (and with it the election) is palpable.

As I’ve mentioned before, this is a crucial election for the US. The electorate will need to decide which moderate candidate is best placed to repair the damage done by the eight terrible years of the Bush administration. And that choice will be far more worthwhile if the electorate can choose between a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat rather than between a Democrat and a Christian fundamentalist. I’ll be watching the Iowa caucus with a lot of interest and more than a little concern, because those few voters who decide the Republican caucus could be contributing to who will become the most powerful person in the world.