Wednesday, 3 November 2004

four more years

As US President Abraham Lincoln famously observed, you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you cannot expect to fool all the people all the time. He might have added that, in his chosen profession of politics, you only need to fool half the people at any one time.

Following today's election result it is clear that President George W Bush has managed to follow Lincoln's rule for the past four years. It is difficult to believe that any leader so obviously lacking either in competence or intelligence could fool so many of the American people, but clearly he has. At this point the news media are still focusing on the story that the election remains too close to call, though Bush appears likely to shade it.

That story misses the point: of course Bush has won, but more importantly the country has swung slightly but significantly towards the Republicans, who have strengthened their grip on both houses of Congress, and with every likelihood of increasing control on the third element in government by appointing more conservatives to the Supreme Court in the next four years.

More than ever before, the United States is about to be ruled by a single party at a time when the country is divided more rigidly than ever before into left and right. The Republicans have achieved this hegemony with the most narrow of margins - after four years in office at a time of major crisis, Bush achieved just over half the popular vote. Hardly the most ringing endorsement of a sitting president.

Had John Kerry been elected he would still have had an enormously difficult job to do - not only with a hostile Congress but having to spend the early years of his term lumbered with the decisions of his predecessor - disentangling from the Iraq fiasco and reversing a disastrous set of economic decisions.

With so little to hold him back, and with a marginal but decisive vote of support from the public, the temptation for Bush must be to continue as he did over the past four years, only more so. It is hard to believe that he can go on for much longer without being found out. Can he really go on fooling the majority for another four years?

Lincoln's faith in the basic good sense of the public was probably justified. It is based on the simple principle that, sooner or later, the incapable are bound to be found out. How long can it be before the American public notice that Bush's many errors are part of a greater pattern of disabling incompetence? How soon will hubris lead the Republicans to rely once too often on the trust of the common people? How long before their mistakes finally catch up with them?

The traps that would have awaited Kerry are now lying in the path of Bush. In Iraq, a civil war can probably be avoided for the time being, but a heavy assault on Falluja will almost certainly lead to the creation of an Iraqi Islamic Republic dominated by Shiites and under constant and murderous attack from the Sunnis. Whatever fabric of democracy can be put together can scarcely survive for long, except perhaps under a thin facade. Dictatorship of some sort is by far the most likely outcome: it always was.

The worldwide terrorist threat continues, with young people throughout the Muslim world inspired by the example of Osama Bin Laden as a hero standing up to the Americans, and Iraq as the model of what happens to those who do not stand up to them. The virus of terrorism will mutate, as ever, impossible to entirely defeat for as long as the basic reasons for its support exist. Perhaps in twenty years it will die out by itself.

Emboldened by some sort of success, it is possible that the neoconservatives in the Bush White House will continue their attempts to establish a liberal democratic model everywhere else in the world. Neither Iraq nor North Korea will prove as easy to defeat as Iran and the US army simply lacks the resources to take serious action in either.

As for the economy, of all the areas where government policy determines public support, this is the one most likely to count at the ballot box. In two years time, the disenchanted voters are certain to punish the administration by voting against their supporters in Congress. 200 billion dollars squandered on the Iraq disaster will hardly help to prop up the economy; and other Bush measures are unlikely to lift it either.

Will it be in November 2006 that the American voters finally wake up to the realisation that the Republicans have been fooling them for this long? Or can they really go on until 2008? Only time will tell.

Posted by Rodney @ 02:36 PM GMT [Link] [Karma: 11 (+/-)] [19 bites back]

Thursday, 7 August 2003

twisted logic

Here's an interesting opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal, quoted approvingly by the doyen of warbloggers, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit:

'Because the mass graves and accounts of torture by Saddam's regime are too real, the BBC has grabbed onto the fact that WMDs have not yet been found to justify its animosity toward the liberation of Iraq. And this animus sprang from the consensus that the West is always wrong.

As Conrad Black, owner of the Telegraph newspapers, wrote in a letter in the July 26 Daily Telegraph: "The BBC is pathologically hostile to the government and official opposition, most British institutions, American policy in almost every field, Israel, moderation in Ireland, all Western religions, and most manifestations of the free market economy."'

Now, frankly I think the BBC does tend to be simplistic and sometimes patronising in its coverage of the US. But I suspect that Glenn Reynolds needs a course in common sense if he can approve such a piece of twisted logic as the suggestion that "the BBC has grabbed onto the fact that WMDs have not yet been found to justify its animosity toward the liberation of Iraq".

Back in February, Glenn was giving his approval to this quote:

"No doubt about it, Colin Powell laid out a brutally compelling case for war with Iraq at the U.N. Security Council today. The audio tapes of high-ranking Iraqi military officers conspiring to hide evidence of chemical and biological weapons; the satellite footage of Iraqis sanitizing chemical and biological weapons facilities; the descriptions of Iraqi mobile production facilities and un-manned delivery vehicles--all these pieces of evidence were both damning on their merits and dramatic in their effect."

WMDs were the sole basis - as far as its statements to the UN was concerned - that justified the US's animosity towards the Iraqi regime. The BBC has not 'grabbed onto' this vital and inconvenient fact - it is a searching question that needs to be asked.

Posted by Rodney @ 06:37 PM GMT [Link] [Karma: 15 (+/-)] [16 bites back]

Monday, 7 July 2003

what a gray day

It seems my hunch about the Bishop of Reading was right. His friends confirm he was leaned on.

Not much for the traditionalists to crow over, though:

BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the victory for traditionalists prove short-lived.

The US may make the blessing of gay relationships official policy within the next few weeks, and confirm the election of an actively homosexual bishop, he said.

It's all very sad. Not that many people take any notice of the Anglican church these days, but it's still an important body and ought to speak out - and act clearly - in favour of tolerance.

Posted by Rodney @ 11:21 AM GMT [Link] [Karma: 20 (+/-)] [16 bites back]

the church that dare not speak its name

It seems I spoke too soon about the Bishop of Reading.

After all the controversy, gay priest Jeffrey John has decided against accepting the job. While it's entirely possible that he simply didn't feel he wanted the post, bearing in mind the fuss that has been created, it is also likely that if he had not, he would have been leaned on by the church authorities. The cause is clear: the fear that if it had gone ahead, the church would have split - or to put it another way, the traditionalists (in this case, 'traditional' in the sense that flat-earthers are 'traditional') would leave.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is a liberal anglican, but also an astute politician, and he can see the problems such a split would cause. For one thing, the anglican churches of Africa and Asia are still very 'traditionalist' and would almost certainly walk out. The very threat of this was enough for the Queen to intervene (by having her spokeskman tell the Telegraph that it would be 'inappropriate' to intervene). Williams does not wish to mess with the Queen.

Neither, sadly, is he willing to mess with the evangelicals in this country. The problem here is that, while they are a vocal minority, they contribute a lot of money to the church. Without their dosh, the Anglican church would have to have massive cutbacks.

It could be argued that keeping the connection to churches in the developing world is a vital issue, and it is wrong to force them to adopt liberal western approaches. But this development will send a very negative message to gays in these countries.

As with most theological issues, the matter in question is almost laughably obscure. The anglican church long ago decided that being gay is not wrong. But doing gay stuff - like having sex or being in a relationship - is wrong. So it's okay to want to put your willy up another man's bottom. But actually doing it is a sin. Jeffrey John apparently used to do the willy/bottom thing with another man, but has stopped. The reason he can't be a bishop is that (a) he never said he was sorry about having done it; or (b) he is still in a gay relationship, even though it's a celibate one ('this will cause,' one group thundered ridiculously, 'confusion and distress'); or (c) 'continued public advocacy of non-abstinent same-sex partnerships'. It sounds as if even they are not sure.

Although Rowan Williams has distanced himself from this controversy, insisting that he had no part in the proposed ordination, it is clear that he himself was in favour, and it is hard to believe was not consulted before the appointment was made - if only through a nod and a wink. This is a dramatic setback that will cast a long shadow over his reign.

Posted by Rodney @ 12:05 AM GMT [Link] [Karma: 16 (+/-)] [14 bites back]

Friday, 27 June 2003

reading between the lines

More bad news for the anti-gay movement. First the Evangelical Anglicans seem to have got their frocks in a bunch over the appointment of a gay bishop, only to be told by the Archbishop of Canterbury that the sex obsession must stop.

Then the US Supreme Court decided that the law banning homosexuality in the State of Texas was unconstitutional - chiefly on the basis of privacy: (This is 32 years after the British Parliament came to much the same conclusion):

'It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice. ... The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.'

The Court's finding points out that most laws against homosexuality in the US are of quite recent provenance, and takes note of the striking down of antigay legislation by the European Court of Human Rights - at least some Americans are not horrified at the thought of considering European opinion.

Not so the antigay clerics - still 'rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture.' It's okay to be gay, just not to do anything about it. If that does not demean the existence of gay people, I don't know what does.

Meanwhile, one of the signatories to the most recent antigay letter is Bishop Gregory Venables, whose title is Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone. Surely he is a character from Harry Potter, no?

Posted by Rodney @ 04:06 PM GMT [Link] [Karma: 4 (+/-)] [15 bites back]

Thursday, 26 June 2003

searching questions

I was very disturbed to read this story. The British public have been led to believe that the British Army has been welcomed into the hearts of the people of Basra, and that their 'softly-softly' approach was much more successful than the heavy-handed approach of the Americans.

What bothers me is that it all seems horribly familiar.

I remember back in 1969, when British troops were sent into Belfast and Derry in response to rioting there. They were welcomed with cheers and cups of tea. But within months, public opinion had changed, soldiers were being attacked by rioters and snipers, petrol bombs and nail bombs were being thrown at them on a nightly basis, and the Army had become ensnared in a long urban guerilla war that went on for years.

And the thing that triggered the original change of opinion? House searches for arms.

At the beginning of the campaign, the British authorities were suggesting that their experience in situations such as Northern Ireland would allow them to manage any problems in the ground in an effective way, with minimal violence. What they seem to forget is that troops are never effective for long in a situation like this. Armies are usually very poor peacekeepers.

In Northern Ireland, the death rate was eventually reduced by putting soldiers in heavily-defended bunkers and letting locally-recruited locals take over most of the policing. While army casualties fell to almost nothing, it cannot be said to have contributed much to the peace process.

I hope they have an exit strategy here. And this time, I hope it doesn't last for 30 years.

Posted by Rodney @ 10:50 PM GMT [Link] [Karma: 1 (+/-)] [16 bites back]

Wednesday, 28 August 2002

distant voices prophesying war

In 550 BC, King Croesus of Lydia went to Delphi to consult the Oracle about his plans to invade the Persian Empire. The oracle informed him that, if he crossed a river, "Croesus will destroy a great empire." Encouraged, he proceeded to invade. His armies were defeated, and he himself was taken prisoner. He sent a message to the oracle, complaining that her prophesy had been false.

"On the contrary," she replied. "Croesus did destroy a great empire - his own".

This ancient story is one that those who write about the Iraq situation would do well to remember. Because much of the argument hinges on whether an invasion of the country would succeed - and what the outcome would be.

Anyone who tells you they know the answer to that question is lying. Every war is a gamble, and history is littered with examples of unexpected outcomes. The truth is that no one knows.
[more]

Posted by Rodney @ 05:49 PM GMT [Link] [Karma: 17 (+/-)]

powered by
greymatter