politics

nick clegg's vision

Submitted by antarchi on May 10, 2010 - 10:06

My colleagues at the human rights charity are in a frenzy of excitement about Nick Clegg. Cleggomaniacs, to add to their Obamamania (still!). Clegg's vision is even being posted round the office to illustrate the great white hopes of this great white well-educated, well-spoken and well financially endowed young man:

"I believe every single person is extraordinary. The tragedy is that we have a society where too many people never get to fulfil that extraordinary potential. My view – the liberal view – is that government’s job is to help them to do it. Not to tell people how to live their lives. But to make their choices possible, to release their potential, no matter who they are. The way to do that is to take power away from those who hoard it. To challenge vested interests. To break down privilege. To clear out the bottlenecks in our society that block opportunity and block progress. And so give everyone a chance to live the life they want."

So here are a few articles and nuggets to suggest the clear blue sea between the Deputy Prime Minister and his new coalition partner is not so very clear (though very blue):

Praise from the Torygraph:

the two main contenders for the Lib Dem crown are Nick Clegg, the party's home affairs spokesman, and Chris Huhne, the environment spokesman who was runner-up to Sir Ming at the last contest.

They, and indeed almost all the others whose names are now being dropped, both contributed in 2004 to the now celebrated Orange Book, a work of political philosophy of which I fear we shall be hearing a great deal in the weeks to come.

The book was about "reclaiming liberalism". It had a sensible and attractive theme running through it. This is, after all, the inheritor party of Gladstone, Cobden and Bright. In its DNA is to be found a belief in free trade and free markets. Tactfully, and with surprisingly little shock being caused, these ancient doctrines were dusted off, and suggestions made about their possible relevance to the future governance of Britain.

Mr Clegg is felt to be more of a "Tory" than Mr Huhne. This is not just because he once worked for Leon Brittan, but because his belief in traditional liberal values of the sort adopted by Margaret Thatcher in her economic programme is thought to be rather strong.

His detractors call him "Right-wing", an absurd phrase at the best of times, and probably ludicrous in his case.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643387/Lib-Dems-would-be-better-off-...

resume your obedience

Submitted by antarchi on November 14, 2009 - 20:33

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.

Magna Carta

Quite right too. Let the barons look after us and keep the king in check. But whatever the rulers may do or have done, let us continue to obey them.

So what's new.

only a campaign promise

Submitted by antarchi on June 7, 2009 - 19:33

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You've heard from a lot of Latin America leaders here who want the U.S. to lift the embargo against Cuba. You've said that you think it's an important leverage to not lift it. But in 2004, you did support lifting the embargo. You said, it's failed to provide the source of raising standards of living, it's squeezed the innocent, and it's time for us to acknowledge that this particular policy has failed. I'm wondering, what made you change your mind about the embargo?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, 2004, that seems just eons ago. What was I doing in 2004?

QUESTION: Running for Senate.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it while -- I was running for Senate. There you go.

— Barack Obama

press conference, April 2009

not condemning gaza

Submitted by antarchi on January 13, 2009 - 00:00

letter to my MP. His reply below

Dear David Cameron

I am disappointed but not wholly surprised that you are unable to condemn outright Israel's actions in Gaza. This is an act of vicious collective punishment, coming on top of a lengthy siege that has been condemned by human rights activists and lawyers worldwide.

Why does Obama get a prize whilst Bush gets shoes?

Submitted by antarchi on October 10, 2009 - 16:13

Today, when I came home from our nonviolent demonstration in Bil'in, after the soldiers shot tear gas and after seeing the violence of the Israeli soldiers, I heard that President Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. When I heard this from the media I started to go crazy. I asked myself why. The Americans are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Palestine is still occupied. In the recent news I saw that the Israeli soldiers closed Jerusalem, and I heard that many people were injured. We haven't seen anything changed. Why didn't the committee give the prize to Bush? I remember nine years ago Bush had a good speech about the establishment of a Palestinian state in the year of 2005. We saw after the speech that Sharon invaded Al Aqsa mosque, and the American army invaded Iraq. Why didn't you give the prize to this man at that time, and he got shoes instead? This is injustice! I am so sorry Mr. Bush.

strange relations

Submitted by antarchi on August 15, 2007 - 00:41

One might expect there to be a strong correlation between the amount of time that someone spends reading or thinking about the terrible things that humans do to one another; and their view of human beings, of humanity in general, and of what is possible and desirable in a world created largely by humans. What seems strange is that the correlation appears to go in the wrong direction: those who are best informed about human rights violations - in other words, those who are most aware of the horrific things that some humans do to other humans - tend to be those who actually believe that (all) human beings are worthwhile individuals and that the world can be made into a place where people treat each other fairly, with respect1.

On the other hand - those who appear to know least about the horrific experience and consequences of oppression, inequality, injustice - those with their heads in the business clouds, or anyway somewhere other than the human rights clouds - those people tend, in general, to have a less idealistic - some might say more cynical - view of humankind. (They would say, of course, that their view was more real-istic.)

* * *

Perhaps the second half of that 'correlation' is less universally true, but it is the first half that is so surprising. If anything ought to shake a belief in universal human dignity, then evidence of brutal, callous, selfish, devious behaviour by human beings on a widespread scale should do so. If anything ought to undermine our faith in the potential for universal human justice in the future, then evidence of fairly universal injustice in the present, endlessly rewarded, ought to do so; and if anything should breed cynicism, a resigned acceptance that the world is pretty grubby, always has been, and likely always will be - then an awareness of the impact and extent of human beings cheating, exploiting and oppressing one another surely ought to do so.

And yet... still it doesn't. I think we can even say with certainty that it will not do so: no amount of reading the reports of Amnesty International could make a human rights believer stop believing that even torturers are human beings, and even they deserve some minimal respect. More surprising, perhaps, no amount of seeing the depths to which human beings can sink appears to dampen hope that one day, if we were to do things differently, humanity just might stop sinking altogether.

* * *

It could be the case that the correlation (if indeed it exists) is coincidental: it could be the case that our belief in the possibility of a better world develops in parallel with, but wholly independently of our awareness of the inadequacies of this world. That seems unlikely - not least because the correlation seems so strong.

Perhaps it is that those who have their heads in the human rights clouds - or in the smog of violations - have more need for something to believe in, something that will clear the smog. So their belief in the fundamental dignity of terrorists, torturers and - even - US Presidents, however brutally and inhumanely they have all behaved, could be just a form of faith. I do believe to some extent it is (as I have said before).

Or then there are two further possibilities: the first is that by bumping into violations (intellectually, because I don't believe it holds on other levels) we come to see, to understand, how 'worthy' human beings can engage in brutal treatment. So the brutal treatment is viewed in context, rather than just being seen as a freak event, as evidence of 'evil'. That may be why someone like Eugene de Kock ('prime evil') who showed humanity in his genuine remorse is in some ways such a comfort: he confirms what we hope, desperately, is true of those who act in brutal ways.

But even so, and although I think that seeing things in context plays some part in explaining how the human rights believer can continue to believe - even so, I rather doubt it plays the most important part. I feel sure that we think we know the answer to the question about context before we bump into the 'evidence'. I feel sure that human rights believers start out believing, and then reshape the evidence they come across to fit it to the theory (just as the other side do too, undoubtedly). A suicide bomber, for example, must have had a reason; a torturer was almost certainly a victim; a president... Well, I'm not quite sure...

That isn't quite as hopelessly irrational as it may appear - and as the other side would paint it. It is certainly no less - but probably no more - rational than the other side's behaviour. It is just a very different view of human beings. And given that we start out with a different understanding of human beings, it cannot be surprising that we end up with a different explanation for why people do what they do. Their explanation doesn't work for us, because human beings are not like that (not evil, for example); and ours doesn't work for them for the same sort of reason. Human beings are not like that, they say, so they will not behave significantly differently in different circumstances.

The catch is that we can't change the circumstances without their help, and that means that it's very hard to prove to them that we are right.

* * *

A wonderful quote2:

"the forward-looking moral vision of human nature that is the source of human rights provides the basis for the social changes implicit in claims of human rights... We say: if you treat human beings this way, you will get truly human beings. They say: no you won't. So we don't need to treat them this way"

- - - - - - - - -

1I mean armchair awareness, of course. I make no claims for those who have experienced real human suffering on themselves.

2I cannot for the life of me remember where I found it, but I will trace the author. I have the page number (18!)

Syndicate content