So, I was meant to write a blog last Thurs as part of the Blog Action
Day whose theme this year was climate change. I didn't. This was for two reasons. Firstly, I forgot, and when I remembered, I also remembered that I was too busy. Secondly (and you can take this as an excuse if you like) I'm not sure raising awareness of climate change is really worth the effort. My argument is that we have reached a point now where 'awareness' initiatives are actually having a negative effect on motivating public or personal action and, perhaps more damagingly, they act as an excuse for governments unwilling to take they bull by
the horns and make policy (evidently they'd rather stroke the bull and
ask it not to hurt anyone).
While I appreciate the aims of Blog Action Day (while vehemently
opposing its tactless acronym), and find a certain academic intrigue
in the idea of using 'new media' to pressure policy action, I
ultimately think it may do more harm then good. To start with it only
raises the awareness of those who read blogs, in particular those who
read political, environmental, or current affairs blogs. These people
are generally pretty 'aware' as it is (you clever informed lot
you).Further to this, it may only serve to antagonise those who differ
in their views. Now, I genuinely think there are very few who 'deny'
climate change, and on the whole people seem to know a broad range of vague and difficult to quantify activities they can undertake to
mitigate for climate change (or environmental degradation more
broadly). But, nonetheless, people don't appear to like being told
what to do. They dislike it from their parents, they downright hate it
from politicians, so I'm not sure they're going to like it much from
faceless quasi-intellectual cyber monkeys. Now I know the point of BAD (I said I disliked the acronym, not that it wasn't easier to type -
particularly on a Blackberry) was not to directly influence actions of
the individual, rather it was to impore policymakers to take a stand,
but an indirect consequence of this is that a bunch of people write a
pile of stuff that makes them look like prescriptive moralistic
knowitalls. No wonder comedians and clowns (Clarkson included) are
starting to have a field day digging into the Green Brigade.
Beyond this though, and I feel far more serious, is the potential for
such activity as this to act as a smokescreen for policymakers and
politicians who continue to fail to implement policy that will
genuinly affect change. It gives them the excuse to point to groups
such as the BAD bloggers and say 'hey, look, we're doing our best, but
have you seen how wonderfully informed and active our citizenry's
are?' They cab claim some victory when there is none, and can continue to utilise 'awareness' campaigns as an excuse for their own relative
inactivity. After all its much easier creating a TV ad telling us all
how to recycle, then it is coming to comprehensive agreement on
climate change within the international arena.
My solution is thus; assume everyone knows, and point ot the fact that this has changed more or less nothing. Make a stand and say, 'I'm
aware so I've done my bit, now do yours'. I know, you know, we know so surely now its time to stop being so 'aware' and actually see those in
a position to do some real good sit down and write some damn policy
instead of wasting time on trying to make windfarms look pretty on the telly. I don't really care if 'the people' know why there's a new
carbon tax so long as there is one; and I'm not sure the planet cares
all that much either.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Monday, 18 May 2009
The solution to the expenses ‘scandal’? Get rid of them all
Recently, I’ve been asked by a few people what I think about the ongoing MP’s expenses saga. The long and short of it is this; I don’t really care. The system certainly needs reforming, I’m glad that those people milking their expenses with abandon have been caught out, and there is no moral justification for the way that our MP’s have behaved. There is, though, a more practical justification that I do think needs consideration, though it falls a long way short of a defence. In the private sector, these people would be paid salaries in a completely different tax bracket, and that’s without the private healthcare, plush hotels, business-class flights all as standard. It’s fair to presume that those who are Minister’s could have progressed to sufficient heights in the private sector to be paid in the millions, rather than thousands. And many backbenchers would be working their way up towards that level. Again, that is not to disregard the extremely liveable salary that MPs get, but to put it into some perspective. What is more interesting to me, though, is not the scandalous disregard for money, but for their careers. We’ve already had a few resignations by those wishing to jump before they’re pushed; leaving with their reputations relatively intact and making for the much warmer waters of the private sector as we speak. It is this aspect that has made me pause to consider a proposal that will be familiar to many a-level Politics students or those who have much interest in American politics but has not really emerged in the public debate at this stage – the idea of fixed term limits.
For those who didn’t have the pleasure of taking AQA’s ‘Politics and Government’ A-level Paper 3 back in 2005, fixed term limits is essentially the idea that people can only be in government for so long. In the US, the President is limited to two terms (so, eight years). (N.B. There are no doubt other good examples of this mechanism, but I’m most familiar with this example). The advantage of this system is that you get an enforced renewal of personnel every so often, bringing with it fresh blood and fresh ideas. If this were to be implemented in parliament, it would prevent anyone entering purely for financial gain as it would be hard to milk too much out of the state in that amount of time, and would prevent any real ‘expenses culture’ taking hold. The consequence of this could be that you get the richer contingent thinking “ah well, at best (or worst) it’s only eight years so I won’t lose too much before I can go back to being Mr CEO”, and you get the lesser-paid contingent eyeing up an attractive salary, knowing that it can’t be their meal ticket for life. This could potentially open up the system to far more people, presenting the opportunity of public service as a short-term ‘sacrifice’ to serve the people - presumably how it was originally envisaged – or a short-term opportunity to influence political happenings and open some doors without it being a long-term career aim.
This may complicate the parliamentary system, admittedly, given that most Ministers have been MPs for a very (sometimes very, very, very) long time and have supposedly been ‘rewarded’ for their competence on the backbenches and in their constituency roles. This argument, though, is nonsense. It assumes that longevity is competence, and wisdom comes with age, both non-starters (a quick look at most of the Cabinet supports my point). The unwieldy nature of government departments must be considered, but the system could be adjusted to allow an extra two terms for Cabinet Ministers to take effect (contingent, of course, on re-election), or acknowledged through some other mechanism. A key advantage of this system is that you get bright new young things coming in with fresh ideas – preventing anyone getting too comfortable and using their position for long-term personal gain. You could also avoid short-term politics as any measure that anyone implements will be unlikely to have properly taken hold by the time their next (and final) election comes around. It would force people to respect their predecessors, and consider their future replacements, moving towards a system of clean and consistent governance. Sure, it would place yet more power in the hands of the civil servants but, given recent revelations, is that really such a bad thing? It may be argued that these ‘bright young things’ don’t have the experience or expertise to be trusted with the oversight of the organs of the state. But if they aren’t qualified to govern, why are we electing them?
So, my solution is to get rid of them all – every now and again – and refresh our parliament and (hopefully) our government. Does anyone really want to tolerate Beckett’s screechy voice, Johnson’s “I’m a postman” declarations, or Gordon’s gurn for any longer than is absolutely necessary? Or have I got this completely wrong? Well... anyone got any better ideas?
For those who didn’t have the pleasure of taking AQA’s ‘Politics and Government’ A-level Paper 3 back in 2005, fixed term limits is essentially the idea that people can only be in government for so long. In the US, the President is limited to two terms (so, eight years). (N.B. There are no doubt other good examples of this mechanism, but I’m most familiar with this example). The advantage of this system is that you get an enforced renewal of personnel every so often, bringing with it fresh blood and fresh ideas. If this were to be implemented in parliament, it would prevent anyone entering purely for financial gain as it would be hard to milk too much out of the state in that amount of time, and would prevent any real ‘expenses culture’ taking hold. The consequence of this could be that you get the richer contingent thinking “ah well, at best (or worst) it’s only eight years so I won’t lose too much before I can go back to being Mr CEO”, and you get the lesser-paid contingent eyeing up an attractive salary, knowing that it can’t be their meal ticket for life. This could potentially open up the system to far more people, presenting the opportunity of public service as a short-term ‘sacrifice’ to serve the people - presumably how it was originally envisaged – or a short-term opportunity to influence political happenings and open some doors without it being a long-term career aim.
This may complicate the parliamentary system, admittedly, given that most Ministers have been MPs for a very (sometimes very, very, very) long time and have supposedly been ‘rewarded’ for their competence on the backbenches and in their constituency roles. This argument, though, is nonsense. It assumes that longevity is competence, and wisdom comes with age, both non-starters (a quick look at most of the Cabinet supports my point). The unwieldy nature of government departments must be considered, but the system could be adjusted to allow an extra two terms for Cabinet Ministers to take effect (contingent, of course, on re-election), or acknowledged through some other mechanism. A key advantage of this system is that you get bright new young things coming in with fresh ideas – preventing anyone getting too comfortable and using their position for long-term personal gain. You could also avoid short-term politics as any measure that anyone implements will be unlikely to have properly taken hold by the time their next (and final) election comes around. It would force people to respect their predecessors, and consider their future replacements, moving towards a system of clean and consistent governance. Sure, it would place yet more power in the hands of the civil servants but, given recent revelations, is that really such a bad thing? It may be argued that these ‘bright young things’ don’t have the experience or expertise to be trusted with the oversight of the organs of the state. But if they aren’t qualified to govern, why are we electing them?
So, my solution is to get rid of them all – every now and again – and refresh our parliament and (hopefully) our government. Does anyone really want to tolerate Beckett’s screechy voice, Johnson’s “I’m a postman” declarations, or Gordon’s gurn for any longer than is absolutely necessary? Or have I got this completely wrong? Well... anyone got any better ideas?
Thursday, 4 December 2008
You want to save the world? Forget Obama and go persuade the middle managers of the U.S.
Much can be said about the nature of American federalism - good, bad, and ugly. But when it comes down to it, the one thing that may actually save the world could be America's variety.
That a nation that has for the past 200 years had one President, one federal legislature, and one all powerful court yet remains as disparate and diverse as America demonstrates the determined individualism and persistent resistance to comprehensive homogeneity in the U.S. That you can wander through New Orleans and be dumb-struck by the devastation and destruction one day, and stroll through the beaches of California and be dumb-struck by the vulgar materialism of it all the next, illustrates the point. I'm not saying that were Coventry to be leveled by a Tornado that shopping in Chelsea would immediately cease, but i think it would probably continue to make the national news for considerably longer than Katrina did. American's love their State, not so much their nation. When they say 'God Bless America' what they actually mean is 'God Bless America; which is Texas; which is Me'. Herein lies what i believe could be the answer to saving the planet from the McAmericans; aim for the States.
There is an inherent symmetry in the American political systems that makes it much more effective to go for the middle-layer of influence (States), than for the top (federal) or bottom (the People). We can try to make people stop driving, turn off their air conditioners, and eat locally in the hope that essentially everyone does but, i'm sorry, IT WON'T WORK. We can hang on every word that Obama says and continue to acclaim him as the saviour of us all in the hope that he can persuade a resistant Congress and a difficult People that it's worth giving the green life a go but, sadly, IT WON'T WORK. We can go to the State legislators and suggest state-wide and regional emissions trading systems, and push for an increase in the use of sustainable transport but, i'm sorry, IT WON'T... oh, it has worked.
In the last couple of months alone, California - a state with more plastic than a bag of Haribo being run by a man who (until recently) looked more like an action figure than a real person - has just committed itself to producing a third of it's electricity from renewable sources. Hawaii has followed suit and has announced a mass network of charging points to accommodate all the lovely new electric cars they're going to get. And it's not just the States, thirteen major U.S. cities are part of the C40 climate leadership group which was set up by a president (Clinton), but only after he'd left office.
Looking further a field (or, as it were, closer to home) the UK continues to try to influence the behaviour of others, but shouldn't we tend to our own back yard first? Arguments persist that an EU-integrated approach is key to success at a global level. This is true. But it could also be true that national examples are the most effective way of persuading others to follow? Britain is very much taking it's wind policy prompts from Germany, and people in the UK continue to marvel at the relatively cheap, efficient, and effective transport infrastructure that is in place across most of the continent. The argument goes that a global deal saves the world; but the fact remains that a global deal only saves the world if it is a good one. In the meantime, why not look closer to home - not as individuals but as States and, if need be, large cities. Then we can go and say 'look, we have; so why don't you?' and, furthermore, 'this is how'. If France reduced it's emissions by 50% in the next three years without imploding then i'd be damned in the rest of the EU didn't follow suit. Likewise, if America could show China and India that it has 'gone green' then a comprehensive international agreement would be that much closer.
America is not a 'green' nation of 'green' citizens, and I don't believe it ever will be. What it can be, though, is an environmentally-friendly nation formulated on the collective efforts of the States. We don't need to persuade everyone to do what's right by the planet; we need to persuade the right people; and the right people are not always the most powerful. Instead of exhausting large expense and effort at the highest level trying to persuade actors with very little room to maneuver, lets expend a little more lower down and see if we can sort it out for ourselves. We need to aim efforts towards those who are essentially the middle managers, the 'Coca-Cola League 2', the 'Team GB's third bronze of the Games', of the most consuming country on the earth; not their Chief Executive. Ultimately, it may be the middle people who save us all.
That a nation that has for the past 200 years had one President, one federal legislature, and one all powerful court yet remains as disparate and diverse as America demonstrates the determined individualism and persistent resistance to comprehensive homogeneity in the U.S. That you can wander through New Orleans and be dumb-struck by the devastation and destruction one day, and stroll through the beaches of California and be dumb-struck by the vulgar materialism of it all the next, illustrates the point. I'm not saying that were Coventry to be leveled by a Tornado that shopping in Chelsea would immediately cease, but i think it would probably continue to make the national news for considerably longer than Katrina did. American's love their State, not so much their nation. When they say 'God Bless America' what they actually mean is 'God Bless America; which is Texas; which is Me'. Herein lies what i believe could be the answer to saving the planet from the McAmericans; aim for the States.
There is an inherent symmetry in the American political systems that makes it much more effective to go for the middle-layer of influence (States), than for the top (federal) or bottom (the People). We can try to make people stop driving, turn off their air conditioners, and eat locally in the hope that essentially everyone does but, i'm sorry, IT WON'T WORK. We can hang on every word that Obama says and continue to acclaim him as the saviour of us all in the hope that he can persuade a resistant Congress and a difficult People that it's worth giving the green life a go but, sadly, IT WON'T WORK. We can go to the State legislators and suggest state-wide and regional emissions trading systems, and push for an increase in the use of sustainable transport but, i'm sorry, IT WON'T... oh, it has worked.
In the last couple of months alone, California - a state with more plastic than a bag of Haribo being run by a man who (until recently) looked more like an action figure than a real person - has just committed itself to producing a third of it's electricity from renewable sources. Hawaii has followed suit and has announced a mass network of charging points to accommodate all the lovely new electric cars they're going to get. And it's not just the States, thirteen major U.S. cities are part of the C40 climate leadership group which was set up by a president (Clinton), but only after he'd left office.
Looking further a field (or, as it were, closer to home) the UK continues to try to influence the behaviour of others, but shouldn't we tend to our own back yard first? Arguments persist that an EU-integrated approach is key to success at a global level. This is true. But it could also be true that national examples are the most effective way of persuading others to follow? Britain is very much taking it's wind policy prompts from Germany, and people in the UK continue to marvel at the relatively cheap, efficient, and effective transport infrastructure that is in place across most of the continent. The argument goes that a global deal saves the world; but the fact remains that a global deal only saves the world if it is a good one. In the meantime, why not look closer to home - not as individuals but as States and, if need be, large cities. Then we can go and say 'look, we have; so why don't you?' and, furthermore, 'this is how'. If France reduced it's emissions by 50% in the next three years without imploding then i'd be damned in the rest of the EU didn't follow suit. Likewise, if America could show China and India that it has 'gone green' then a comprehensive international agreement would be that much closer.
America is not a 'green' nation of 'green' citizens, and I don't believe it ever will be. What it can be, though, is an environmentally-friendly nation formulated on the collective efforts of the States. We don't need to persuade everyone to do what's right by the planet; we need to persuade the right people; and the right people are not always the most powerful. Instead of exhausting large expense and effort at the highest level trying to persuade actors with very little room to maneuver, lets expend a little more lower down and see if we can sort it out for ourselves. We need to aim efforts towards those who are essentially the middle managers, the 'Coca-Cola League 2', the 'Team GB's third bronze of the Games', of the most consuming country on the earth; not their Chief Executive. Ultimately, it may be the middle people who save us all.
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
A dumbed-down election for the hyper nation; Obama and Decision Time 08
So, it's finally over.
You really can't beat a good old fashioned bit of hype, can you? Whether America made the right choice or not is currently beside the point (in essence because 'the right choice' is a ridiculous thing to try and calculate). But what does matter is that 'America' has chosen Obama - that's right a single man, not a deity or uber-being as we may have occasionally lapsed into thinking He was - to lead the world (so, America) out of the boggy marsh of economic recession and social delapidation that it has been wading through ever since 'America chose' the last time around. Is it just me, or does anyone else see a worrying consistency here?
George Bush Jnr was to be the antithesis to the Clinton years - clean and wholesome, with values that every American could be proud of. Eight years on and Obama is to be the antithesis to the Bush years - clean and wholesome, with values that every American can be proud of. Yes,...YES, that's what this country needs (yell all the fanatics swept up by the loathingly labelled Obamania), real CHANGE. And lest we forget... YES WE CAN!
While it would be foolish to make detailed comparisons between Obama and Bush (particularly at this stage), they did run their campaigns on a remarkably similar platform; that of 'change'. Neither really promised much (and, in most American's eyes, Bush delivered only on that front) but they didn't half promise to not do an awful lot. 'I will not sleep with my political aides' says Bush. Good, well done you. Faithful and wholesome and loeveable George, that's what's needed. 'I will not go to war unnecessarily' pledges Obama. Great, lovely. That sounds like a tip-top idea. Someone who's not a war-monger, brillo, get him in. ('I will not lead this country into recession' chips in McCain, before his aides quietly wheel him back inside and apologise for the old fella who has been under a lot of strain since around January and 'hasn't quite been there' for the last few months before promising that you wont have to see him again for some time.)
My point being that it is sheer genius to base an entire campaign on 'changing' things - and when asked what this change will look like, to deliver a bunch of promises to not do things. I don't plan on going to war or screwing up the economy but that doesn't really qualify me to be the next President, does it? I also don't plan on spouting patriotic nonsense until my eyeballs bleed and spending billions of dollars that could have gone elsewhere on what is little more than a long-running political soap opera; maybe that means i should become King.
I would love to take the 20 central concepts of Obama's acceptance speech and ask what 10 American's that have been cryogenically frozen for the past 18months thought they meant; i'd be surprised if you didn't get 10 much varied responses. He has managed to make himself appeal to all-comers - something that admittedly all politicians attempt to do - but his genius is that he has managed to do it without genuinely specifying anything. McCain was guilty of much the same - moving closer to the centre even when it was obviously too late and when saving face by returning to the right would have perhaps been the best option - but i believe that the fact that Obama actually won rightfully singles him out.
This election has been one sweeping statement after another. It has been reactive, not proactive (despite what Oba may try to tell you). Of course Obama looked at polls before and during his run. Of course he saw Palin and surged forth on her ground. Of course he saw the word 'crisis' in the headlines and returned to messages of hard-work and self-reliance. And, above all, of course he saw Bush's poll-ratings and thought 'change'. Even his Republican competitor (who, as we have all been made tremendously aware, voted with the administration quite a lot) tried the very same thing.
Has it really got to the stage now where politics has become so dumbed-down that we can only speak in sweeping concepts and allow the voter themselves to fill in the gaps? This election has been an ideal-type example in populism for the idiot. If anyone was confused as to the problems with democracy watch the tapes of the last 18 months. 'Decision Time USA 08' represents a continued slide towards formalised idiocracy. Obama may be a good President - i think he can be and i hope he is - but we have to face the fact that the first item on his Presidential CV will be 'won an election in 2008 by saying little, and doing nothing'. Lets hope his eventual legacy proves to be so much more than that.
Friday, 17 October 2008
Why do people in Britain care about the outcome of the upcoming US Presidential election?
Now, I should clarify. By this I am not questioning why do people care about the eventual outcome of an election that decides arguably (and misguidedly) the man who is the 'leader of the free world' and thus has the power and ability to effect us all. What I am questioning is why some people, particularly colleagues and specific friends of mine, throw themselves into this particular arena with quite so much passion - what is it that they actually hope to achieve?
Having sat through what was a deliberately provocative and not-particularly intellectual hour outlining the 'race so far I was surprised to find myself among about 6 others hanging around to further engage with the topic. It wasn't so much the engaging with the topic and subject matter of the comments that followed that took me by surprise, but the way in which they were delivered. One guy, from London, started to rant about how McCain was no different to Bush really and that the way that he was trying to distance himself from the administration was nothing short of abominable. Another then followed with a breathless retort about how Obama was at least, "and I mean AT LEAST" (he yelled), as guilty as McCain was of denying his ideological roots. While these are both valid points, the arena they were delivered in was fantastically bizarre. Here we were in the middle of a lecture theatre in Bristol (in the UK), in week zero of term, at lunchtime, surrounded by a handful of other non-US citizens hearing why "we" should or shouldn't support Obama/McCain. I appreciate the passion for politics, the interest in international affairs, and the general feeling of disgust about pretty much all aspects of the American electoral system (apart from its ability to stimulate debate, evidently). But what i do not appreciate is the egotistic view that 'my', or 'your', or 'our' support makes a bleeding smidgen of difference to these people!
I genuinely believe that foreign nations have the ability to affect American foreign policy, but in an arena that is pantomimic at its most sophisticated it seems wise to acknowledge that under such circumstances the Americans will only acknowledge we exist when we agree with them and support them, or disagree with them when they feel we shouldn't and they get hurt by it (freedom fries anyone?). So the chances of Obama, McCain, or - god forbid - Baden or Palin giving two hoots about what we think is minimal at absolute best.
Is it even possible for a foreigner to make a difference? I saw the Co-Chair of 'McCain 2008' on a special edition of Newsnight who simply patronised his way through a tremendously easy 20mins of 'questioning' on the basis that he was there to deliver McCain's message and if we don't buy it, who cares?! Either accept that McCain is the 'man of experience', 'the candidate of low taxation', 'the trustworthy American with a clean social past', or don't. What difference does it really make to his "friend". At least he wasn't as bad as the following Democrat spokeswoman who claimed that the recent debate turned a couple of her (most likely imaginary) relatives into Obama supporters. She was clearly able to deliver this at best demi-truth so confidently via one of the most respected broadcasters in the world on the basis that if it emerged that she was lying then again, so what?! Practically all the viewers will not be enfranchised in this particular election. Could we prosecute her? No. Could we even persecute her to the point that she is no longer taken seriously in her role? It seems unlikely. Really, who are we to do anything about this?
As such, please, I implore you all - anyone and everyone who ever meets me in the next eight weeks or so - to stop asking who I support. I don't support anyone. I may have a man who I would prefer to see in the White House but I can't affect his selection so therefore I see little point in declaring my interest. Equally if you happen to guess who my affiliation is with and disapprove then please, do not yell or debate with me. I won't listen, and if i did it wouldn't make any difference anyway. For those few who are in a position to affect such power time would be better spent preparing for the whoever it is that finally claims the ultimate throne of democracy than constantly trying to get involved in an issue in which they have to construct themselves as they otherwise simply won't have one. Lord knows, if we'd seen Bush coming and pre-empted the world that he is readying to leave in his wake then maybe we would have a better world right now.
Follow the election, certainly. Care about it, sure. But if you don't have a vote in this particular charade then do not, whatever you do, become so deluded so as to think that who you 'support' matters. I assure you, it doesn't. And in the meantime, most importantly, please stop bugging me.
Having sat through what was a deliberately provocative and not-particularly intellectual hour outlining the 'race so far I was surprised to find myself among about 6 others hanging around to further engage with the topic. It wasn't so much the engaging with the topic and subject matter of the comments that followed that took me by surprise, but the way in which they were delivered. One guy, from London, started to rant about how McCain was no different to Bush really and that the way that he was trying to distance himself from the administration was nothing short of abominable. Another then followed with a breathless retort about how Obama was at least, "and I mean AT LEAST" (he yelled), as guilty as McCain was of denying his ideological roots. While these are both valid points, the arena they were delivered in was fantastically bizarre. Here we were in the middle of a lecture theatre in Bristol (in the UK), in week zero of term, at lunchtime, surrounded by a handful of other non-US citizens hearing why "we" should or shouldn't support Obama/McCain. I appreciate the passion for politics, the interest in international affairs, and the general feeling of disgust about pretty much all aspects of the American electoral system (apart from its ability to stimulate debate, evidently). But what i do not appreciate is the egotistic view that 'my', or 'your', or 'our' support makes a bleeding smidgen of difference to these people!
I genuinely believe that foreign nations have the ability to affect American foreign policy, but in an arena that is pantomimic at its most sophisticated it seems wise to acknowledge that under such circumstances the Americans will only acknowledge we exist when we agree with them and support them, or disagree with them when they feel we shouldn't and they get hurt by it (freedom fries anyone?). So the chances of Obama, McCain, or - god forbid - Baden or Palin giving two hoots about what we think is minimal at absolute best.
Is it even possible for a foreigner to make a difference? I saw the Co-Chair of 'McCain 2008' on a special edition of Newsnight who simply patronised his way through a tremendously easy 20mins of 'questioning' on the basis that he was there to deliver McCain's message and if we don't buy it, who cares?! Either accept that McCain is the 'man of experience', 'the candidate of low taxation', 'the trustworthy American with a clean social past', or don't. What difference does it really make to his "friend". At least he wasn't as bad as the following Democrat spokeswoman who claimed that the recent debate turned a couple of her (most likely imaginary) relatives into Obama supporters. She was clearly able to deliver this at best demi-truth so confidently via one of the most respected broadcasters in the world on the basis that if it emerged that she was lying then again, so what?! Practically all the viewers will not be enfranchised in this particular election. Could we prosecute her? No. Could we even persecute her to the point that she is no longer taken seriously in her role? It seems unlikely. Really, who are we to do anything about this?
As such, please, I implore you all - anyone and everyone who ever meets me in the next eight weeks or so - to stop asking who I support. I don't support anyone. I may have a man who I would prefer to see in the White House but I can't affect his selection so therefore I see little point in declaring my interest. Equally if you happen to guess who my affiliation is with and disapprove then please, do not yell or debate with me. I won't listen, and if i did it wouldn't make any difference anyway. For those few who are in a position to affect such power time would be better spent preparing for the whoever it is that finally claims the ultimate throne of democracy than constantly trying to get involved in an issue in which they have to construct themselves as they otherwise simply won't have one. Lord knows, if we'd seen Bush coming and pre-empted the world that he is readying to leave in his wake then maybe we would have a better world right now.
Follow the election, certainly. Care about it, sure. But if you don't have a vote in this particular charade then do not, whatever you do, become so deluded so as to think that who you 'support' matters. I assure you, it doesn't. And in the meantime, most importantly, please stop bugging me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)