The Lady U-Turns on Human Rights

Queen of the quick change!

ON the 27th, May, Tim Harford, the undercover economist, in the Financial Times writing on the virtues of changing one's mind wrote:
'The leaders of the US and the UK have become so proficient at changing directions that "U-turn" no longer seems adequate.  Donald and Theresa are spinning policy doughnuts.'
Trump, for example, has reversed direction on issues as varied as whether he would put Hillary Clinton in jail (yes, the no), whether he would force a vote on healthcare reform (yes, then no) and whether it was wise to attack Syria (no, then yes).
But, Mr Harford claims Mrs. May has gone further:
'Mrs. May has changed her mind on everything from Brexit to a bill of rights, energy pricing to nuclear power.  She reversed a 2015 manefesto commitment, reersed the reversal, and has now taken the unpresidented step of tearing pages out of her own manifesto just before launching it.  She offers a "strong and stable" slogan, a weak and wobbly reality, and a rich seam of irony.'
Now almost at the last minute before the eve of the election she has just stated, according to a current Guardian report:
'Theresa May has declared she is prepared to rip up human rights laws to impose new restrictions on terror suspects, as she sought to gain control over the security agenda just 36 hours before the polls open.  The prime minister said she was looking at how to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and how to increase controls on extremists where it is thought they present a threat but there is not enough evidence to prosecute them.'
Mr. Harford argues:
'Such changes of direction are what grown-ups do - and any well-run coutry should expect to see them regularly.  Unfortunately there is no sense that either Mr. Trump or Mrs. May have changed direction on anything because they have been  moved by new evidence on whether it works.  Instead, they promised what seemed popular, and flinched at the first glimpse that it may not be popular at all.'
It's not a very convincing way to proceed,, and gives the impression that these people will say anything to gain our votes.

Avaaz team analysis of 'Trumpism'

WE wanted to write from the heart about what just happened in the US, and what's happening around the world.

 The shock is justified - the most powerful nation in the world will be led by a breathtakingly ignorant, bigoted, violent, pathologically lying, sexually predatory, vengeful, authoritarian, corrupt reality TV star. Those aren't insults, they're facts.

 How is democracy coming to this? How do we deal with it? We want to offer 5 points:

1.Acceptance - we can't wisely change anything about the world or ourselves if we don't first accept it. So take a deep breath, and let's face it. President Trump. And Trumpism striving for power in many of our countries.

2.Holistic Evaluation - I can't find a better phrase for this idea, but our brains have a deep negativity bias. We are easily overwhelmed by fearful focus on the negative, and we make awful judgments when we are. This is how demagogues rise. We can't let it happen to us. So looking at the situation holistically, here's some reassuring points: ◦He's not all-powerful - The US President faces many checks and balances from Congress, the constitution, the courts, his own party, and foreign leaders.

◦He was recently a liberal! - Trump is dangerous, but not a maniac. He has praised Hillary Clinton and donated to her campaigns and many of his positions are more reasonable when you scrutinize them. "Building a wall" is just saying he will physically police the US border. It's distasteful, but not crazy. Much of his party opposed him because he wasn't conservative enough!

◦He's tapped into legitimate concerns - Trump's supporters are not simply a racist ignorant mob. Polls show at least half are people who are well aware of his faults but are desperate for change, hate Hillary Clinton, and are willing to gamble on him.

◦The "people" are not with him - Trump lost the popular vote in the election (he just won through the US's quirky 'electoral college' system). So don't think this was a landslide.

3.Focused Alarm - now that acceptance and holistic evaluation ensure we're not freaking out unproductively, let's focus our concern where it most needs to be: ◦Climate Change- Trump says it's a hoax and wants to tear up the Paris climate agreement. Climate Change threatens our species and we're running out of time - but IF we can make sure that world leaders don't slow down, but speed up, the US alone can't destroy us. The rest of the world will drive a clean energy revolution that will make renewable energy much cheaper than fossil fuels - the US will be forced to switch by simple economics.

◦Fascism - we just don't know what kind of leader Trump is. Is he a Berlusconi, the Trump-like Italian billionaire Prime Minister who was outrageously corrupt and ridiculous but not a fascist? Or is he a Mussolini? We will have to watch like hawks and respond fast to the tell-tale signs of eroding the rule of law, rigging the electoral system, intimidating the media, or promoting hatred of some minorities.

◦Terrorism and War - Trump's instincts in the campaign were to call for things like murdering the families of suspected terrorists and introducing widespread torture. This direction is a gift to ISIS and will fuel the global conflict with militant Islam. His ideas are mostly illegal, but we'll have to watch closely and push back hard - domestically and through US allies - if this erratic man-child uses the US military brutally.

4.It's the Media Stupid - Despite ALL evidence to the contrary, the American public overwhelmingly sees Hillary Clinton as MORE dishonest and corrupt than Donald Trump. This, by itself, is the reason why Trump is president. And it's the media's fault. US network news devoted more time to coverage of Clinton's totally BS email scandal than TO ALL POLICY ISSUES COMBINED. One the one side, we have ruthlessly sophisticated partisan propaganda media pushing Trump, and on the other an 'impartial' media that chases fake scandals and ratings and suggests false equivalence between the sides in the name of appearing balanced. This is the dynamic that gave us Brexit as well. We desperately need a smarter media. Very few organizations campaign on this, and Avaaz needs to.

5.This is a HUGE opportunity, let's rise to it - change doesn't happen in a steady, linear way. We human beings learn best from crisis and calamity. Our brightest lights emerge from our deepest darknesses. World War II gave us human rights and the United Nations. And the darknesses of Trumpism could help us build the most inspiring movement for human unity and progress the world has EVER seen, to not only beat back the Trumps in each of our countries, but to do so with a new, people-centered, high-integrity, inspiring politics that brings massive improvement to the status quo. Let's get to work on it :).

 With hope, and apologies for the long memo,

 Ricken and the Avaaz team. 

Lets Play Hypotheticals

by Les May

LET's play hypotheticals and rerun the US presidential election race.

 

Sarah Palin wins the Republican nomination on a ticket of offering tax breaks to the very wealthy, promising a fence along the Mexican border, no gun control and turning back Obama’s health care reforms.  Bernie Sanders wins the Democrat nomination on a platform of debt free college, tackling income inequality, universal healthcare, campaign finance reform and the Nordic model of social democracy.

 

A few weeks before the election a video emerges which shows Bernie making some disparaging remarks about women.  Who do you hope wins the presidency?

 

The rise of identity politics has had a paralysing effect on the political Left.  A less than wholehearted commitment worn on ones sleeve, to feminism, anti-racism and the whole alphabet soup of LGBTQIA+ is enough to sideline a wholehearted commitment to economic equality.  The sad thing is that whilst politics can do very little to change personal attitudes it can do a great deal to change the economic prospects for millions of people irrespective of their sex, ethnic origins or sexual orientation.

 

So in our little game who would you want to win the presidency?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

 

http://observer.com/2016/10/bernie-sanders-won-the-trump-clinton-debate/

Corbyn, Donald Trump & Power in a Democracy

by Brian Bamford

IN the context of the forthcoming Presidential election in the USA it may be worth considering what Bertrand Russell has said in his essay 'Forms of Power'.

Russell writes 'Power may be defined as the production of intended effects', he determines different types of power:  'traditional' which gains respect due to custom; 'revolutionary' which depends upon a large group united by a creed, programme, or sentiment, such as Protestantism Communism, or desire for national independence; and 'naked power' which he sees as psychological and results from the power-loving impulses of individuals or groups, and wins from its subjects only submission through fear, not active co-operation. 

Russell goes on to distinguish differing categories of power such as 'hereditary power';  'Heredity power has given rise to our notion of a “gentleman”.'  Of this type of power Russell argues:  'This is a somewhat degenerate form of a conception which has a long history, from magic properties of chiefs, through the divinity of kings, to knightly chivalry and the blue-blooded aristocrat....  Where power is aristocratic rather than monarchical, the best manners include courteous behaviour towards equals as an addition to bland self-assertion in dealing with inferiors.'

In the U.S. case of Donald Trump; political power, in a democracy, tends to belong to men (and women) of a type which differs considerably from the aristocratic hereditary type.  As Russell says:  A politician like say for example Trump, 'if he is to succeed, must be able to win the confidence of his machine, and then to arose some degree of enthusiasm in a majority of the electorate.'

Clearly the qualities needed for these two stages on the road to power are by no means the same, and, as Russell states: 

'Candidates for the Presidency in the United States are not infrequently men (and perhaps soon women) who cannot stir the imagination of the general public, though they possess the art of ingratiating themselves with party managers.  Such men (and perhaps soon women) are, as a rule, defeated, but the party managers do not foresee this defeat.  Sometimes, however, the machine is able to secure the victory of a man (or even perhaps in this case a woman) without “magnetism”; in such cases, it dominates him (or her) after his election, and never achieves real power.'

Of course, as Russell observes, it is sometimes possible for a man (or perhaps, in the case a woman) 'to create his own machine;  Napoleon III, Mussolini, and Hitler are examples of this'.

In Donald Trump's current case it seems to me that if he is successful in gaining the presidency that though he presently doesn't yet fully control the machine that in the course of time he will seize control, in Hillary Clinton's case I think she is a good example of a machine woman. 

The astute reader will be aware of the curious UK situation of Jeremy Corbyn in this respect is in control of the party machine in so far as he helped to create the Momentum machine, but that he has been singularly unable to enthuse the other vital engine of the party and win over the parliamentary party.  However he proceeds from here, and I think Corbyn win be re-elected as leader of the Labour Party,  it looks like that the Labour Party will go into the next election like an aeroplane operating on one engine.  Aeroplanes can still fly on one engine!

Free speech in the 'Land of Freedom'!

)

Back in February, I happened to be watching the 'Russia Today' presenter, Abby Martin, on her RT show 'Breaking the Set'. She referred to the case of Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst and anti-war campaigner, who had been hauled out of a meeting at George Washington University after staging a protest when Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, gave a speech about Internet freedom and the crackdown on free speech in Egypt. 

It seems that McGovern simply stood up at the meeting and turned his back on Clinton to display a message on his T-shirt. He was then dragged out of the meeting and can be heard saying: "This is America!" Although he only suffered minor injuries, he was later charged with 'disruptive conduct' (later dropped) and was then investigated about his personal and political activities and was then put on stop and search procedures.

Of course, that famous American writer, Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain), wouldn't have been surprised by any of this. He once said: "In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the prudence never to exercise either of them." So much for free speech in America.