My local team, Brighton and Hove Albion – strugglers in the second tier of football here in the UK – met the former giants Leeds United today. Leeds were relegated from the top flight last year, after a nail-biting ever-so-near-escape. Surely tiddlers like Brighton couldn’t overcome the recently great Leeds?
Final score: Brighton & HA 1 – Leeds United 0
And it was an own goal, too. Ouch.
(Minutes from the No. 10 Lobby briefing of journalists)
“Asked if the Government remained committed to a draft Bill on [corporate manslaughter laws], the Prime Minister’s Spokesperson said that it would be inappropriate to comment on the contents of the forthcoming Queen’s Speech. Put to her that she had commented in detail on the Gambling Bill, the PMS pointed out that the Gambling Bill had been included in last year’s Queen’s Speech.”
There is an interesting piece of opinion research available today from the Programme on International Policy Attitudes. The document itself is not long, and worth reading, but the take-away is that the Bush and Kerry supporters questioned don’t merely disagree on matters of policy or principle, they disagree on some fundamental matters of fact. Facts subject to partisan difference include whether Iraq was involved in 9/11 (Bush supporters: yes, Kerry supporters: no), and whether the world supports the Iraq war (Bush supporters: yes, Kerry supporters: no).
It’s just a pity that Jacques Derrida isn’t around to appreciate this.
There are a few theories floating around as to the reasons for this strange disjuncture. These range from “the Bush supporters have been deceived by the Government”, to “George Bush’s supporters are a horde of ignoramuses“. The last is a pleasing historical echo of John Stuart Mill’s description of the Tories as “the stupid party”.
My guess is that those polled are engaging in a bit of reverse-justification: they know the political mast they’ve nailed their colours to, and they have to mangle the facts to get to the answer they had already thought of. Rather like the reverse of this opinion poll (RealAudio file) from Yes-Minister.com.
Apologies for mounting a personal hobby-horse again.
The websites Voter Fraud Clearinghouse (Democratic-leaning), and HobbsOnline (Republican-leaning) contain a wide selection of reportage on alleged voting fraud.
If even half the stories are true, it says a lot about the perversion of democratic governance that partisan office-holding covers in the US. Aside from the accusation-slinging, a good number of frauds and perceptions of fraud could be controlled by appointing an independent body to supervise elections.
There are times when even a politophile (or whatever you’d call it) just wants to fold his tent and slip away. Just stroll away from the issues that matter, and try and have what fun I can before the end comes. I’m getting that feeling again as the US election hurtles ever closer, and Salon writes two terrifying pieces.
That Ron Suskind piece in the New York Times Magazine today is worth reading in full. It reinforces one of my central political views, that easy agreement is dangerous, and powerful people agreeing with each other is even more dangerous. Debate is not, to put it another way, a means of gaining agreement for the right view, it is a way of making the policy (or whatever it is) better, just by talking it through.
The president who comes across in Mr Suskind’s piece is solitary and proud. Perhaps these are appealing traits in a leader – they seem to have played well in kings and princes throughout history. But is it a Christian attitude? I’m sure I remember singing something in my school chapel that went:
When I survey the wond’rous cross
On which the Prince of Glory died
My richest gain I count but loss
And pour contempt on all my pride.
Ron Suskind, quoted at William Gibson’s blog offers a startling view of the current administration’s effect on the world.
Simon Hoggart‘s parliamentary sketch yesterday (which is not yet online) referred to a long-forgotten Lincolnshire MP from the 1830s and 40s. He was a perfect picture of the Tory grandee – opposing the railways, the expansion of education (because he had hated reading at Oxford) and the Great Exhibition (because it would attract foreigners to the country). Will it be 170 years until the views of some modern politicians are the topic for sketchwriters’ derision?
The reference comes from Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon’s new history of the Conservative Party. An article by Mr Seldon on the future prospects of the Tories can be found here.
The Center for Responsive Politics has a fascinating table showing a selection of ambassadors appointed by President Bush, and their campaign contributions to the Republicans, the Democrats, and the President personally.
David Neiwert is four sixths of the way through his series of pieces on fascism and the conservative movement. A longer exposition on a similar topic can be found at his “Rush, Newspeak and Fascism“.
Both are worth reading, but I am not entirely convinced. Mr Neiwert has built up a rich collection of circumstantial evidence, but the killer punch never comes.
There is no doubt that the conservative movement is right-wing, and that some of its policies are on the far right of political discourse. But for all the problems with the current Administration’s views, it is possible to make a reasonable intellectual case that the current global situation is definitively different from the situation in 2000, and that special measures are needed to combat the threat. This is certainly the position of Tony Blair’s centre-left government, as it is of the former communist President Kwasniewski in Poland. Neither are prime candidates for fascist status.
The polarisation of American political discourse has been a pull in two directions, partly due to the inability of the Democratic party to offer a thoughtful centrist alternative to the current Administration’s policies. The one side may be tending to fascistic views at the extreme, and such views should certainly be fought against, but that is just a part of the wider fight against extremism at both ends of the political spectrum, and the rebuilding of democratic discourse.