Reading The Runes: the times, they are a changin'

Recently read an article from "The Economist" talking about the changing face of politics in much of the West: the main point was the gradual disintigration of traditional, mass political parties as people turned away from them. Either they turned to fringe parties (as in Europe), or have become more disconnected from the political establishment than ever (as in the USA).

The evidence is all there:

In the USA the number of people who call themselves "Independents" (as recorded in a recent Gallup Survey) is higher than those who call themselves Democrats or Republicans; this has never been the case before. In other words, a two party system exists where one-third of the population no longer supports either main party. The result of this? The growth of the Tea Party, although it attracts the wilder element of the Republicans, also attracts a fair number of Independents who see them as seperate from the mainstream establishment, especially when Tea Partiers talk (rightly or wrongly) of going back to the purity of the Constitution and see governmenet bureaucracy as the source of America's malaise.

In the UK, with the rise to shared power of the third party, the Liberal Democrats (happening due to the deadlock of the other two main parties) sees a possibly permanent shift away from the old FPTP system with a referendum of voting reform chalked in for next May. That said, this is complicated by the fact that since "going to bed" with the Conservatives, the Lib Dems were cajoled (tricked?) into making painful (for the party members, infuriating) compromises and policy shifts that has badly damaged their legitimacy as a "third force" in UK politics. For this reason, the former governing Labour party has quickly benefitted from this, though all three parties now face different kinds of credibility issues with the economy and other issues. This puts the state of UK politics in an uncertain time; like in the USA, a portion of the population may feel that the established parties no longer reflect, and deal with, their concerns.

In Europe, the trends here are towards (usually right-wing) fringe parties. In Holland the nationalist racist Geert Wilders now shares power in a coalition; in Hungary, the same can be said of the racist "Jobbik" party; Belgium, due to the unsolvable linguistic political divides, hasn't had an effective national government for years. Of the larger countries, Italy's Berlusconi is already well-known for his increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric, and shares power with the racist Northern League (who want the Italian north seperated). France's Sarkozy has been trying to shore up his increasing unpopularity by turning Gypsies into an easy target.

Only Germany bucks this trend slightly, in that the Greens are quickly becoming the voice of the left (due to the German system, they have a lot of say in state politics, and were in the former SDP coalition government) and may well even eventually overtake the SDP as the rival to Chancellor Merkel's conservative CDU coalition with the more economically-conservative FDP.

Why is all this happening? Short answer: the fallout from the financial crisis. People in all the USA and Europe see a failure of the political establishment in reacting to (and predicting) the meltdown of the financial industry. Everywhere, there are stronger and stronger shades of anger, unemployment and general financial hardship. People blame the politicians and the banks in equal measure, then see the collusion over how the crisis was dealt with by the same politicians and bankers.
No wonder then, that people are either turning to the extremes (as in Europe) or becoming more and more disillusioned (as in the UK and USA); though this disillusionment can easily turn to extremism also, given time.

This is all nothing new, of course. It happened after the last global financial crisis happened; the Great Depression. And right now, many people in the industrialised West are feeling there own kind of great depression, turning on the streets to great frustration and great anger. Where (and when) can it all end? Well, we all know where it ended last time. The economic and political circumstances are not so much different now. Of course, things never repeat themselves exactly. But a real danger is that the USA and Europe could become immersed in their own difficulties, creating a geo-political vacuum that other powers and rising powers can easily exploit. Although, perhaps this was inevitable anyway.
China is rising unstoppably (though historically this was always just a matter of time); Brazil is fast learning how to apply her increasingly useful position in the world; Russia has always been there; India may be in the future (given a decade or two). Then there are other forces to be reckoned with or respected: the Gulf States, though small in terms of population, possess great economic power with their oil and strategic location. Nations like Turkey, which hold a great strategic position, are bound to have even more influence as deal-brokers between the larger powers, and to their own benefit.
This leaves other regions, frankly, to be fought over for influence by the Great Powers: Africa is resource rich (although, tragically, dirt-poor); Central Asia is also rich in fossil fuels. These are the two main areas of contention geographically stuck between various larger powers. That leaves the seas and oceans (and the Artic is already being carved up in advance for future oil exploration).

If this all seems depressing, it shouldn't be. Not because what I'm describing is good, but it all seems inevitable as part of humanity's great game. It's an inevitable part of humanity's progress to the next stage. Where we are all heading after these issues have all been resolved depends on us.

Ayn Rand: She´s The Devil In Disguise

In a second hand bookshop I recently found a book (published in the 1960s) which was a series of essays in praise of capitalism, by Ayn Rand and a few others.

The most striking thing about her ideas is how they became so popular. Rand was a Russian immigrant who fled the Bolshevik Revolution, and thus became an ardent anti-Communist and arch-capitalist. Considering her traumatic early life experience, it´s not hard to see why.
Her school of thought can be traced through the 20th century to today: from the the actions of financiers that led to the Great Depression; to the formation of the Chicago School; to the establishment of Monetarism and "Reaganomics"; to Newt Gingrich´s "Contract with America" in the 1990s; to the actions of the "Neocons" during the Bush II administration; and finally to the beliefs of the Tea Party.

What all these successive "belief systems" share is a core value that government (and collective action) is by nature evil, and that individuals (human beings) are by nature good. Looking at this viewpoint from a different, moralistic, way: altruism and selflessness (according to Rand´s logic) is precisely what led to Communism, therefore the only way to defeat this "evil" is to abolish government and allow private individuals the right to figure things out for themselves.

From Dante´s description of Lucifer as the fallen angel who fell in love with humanity and loathed the collective moralising of God, Rand´s moral compass seems very close to the beliefs of Lucifer. Because, in essence, it could be argued that Lucifer was humanity´s first model for anarchism: to destroy all things that hold humanity back from the unrelenting pursuit of self.

This, then, is the conclusion of Rand´s creed: the ultimate, individualistic pursuit of selfishness. Rand argues that human progress only happens in societies which are rational and free - by which she means free of government regulation, government welfare (because she sees "welfare" as an intrusion into the lives of individuals) and so on. She argues that all human discovery happened when people were free to pursue their goals free of government influence.
All this sounds idealistic and appealing to an extent (as it is meant to), but it disguises a ruthless truth: that unregulated capitalism in the real world leads inevitably, not to a free market heaven, but to an oligarchic hell. Companies, by their nature, are psychopathic: they care about the profit motive, and are very far from "rational". Short-termism, making a quick buck, cutting corners, downsizing, these are all words that abound in the capitalist world created by the disciples of Ayn Rand like Alan Greenspan and the like. Let´s not forget that now there are only a few major banks left in the USA, thanks to the deregulation that Rand promoted, and created the conditions for the financial crisis. Goldman Sachs is now the primary shareholder of the USA; many of its former employees now run the government, or ran the last one.

So the primary economic model that runs the largest, most important economy in the world, was devised by....well, you know what I mean.

Obama´s Luck: is he a Clinton, or a Carter?

With the midterm elections this November, and the fact that Obama and the Democrats are expecting to lose out to the Republicans, what might this mean for Obama´s presidency?

The fates of the last two Democratic presidents at the same point in their terms may hold some answers, both positive and negative.

Carter, coming to power on the back of a wave of anti-Republicanism in 1976, faced a host of domestic problems. In the midterms if 1978, inspite of these problems, and the fact that he was quickly seen as well-intentioned but ineffective leader, the Democrats lost only a small number of seats. That said, two years later, with a resurgent GOP and a charismatic leader, Ronald Reagan, Carter was trounced in the 1980.

Clinton came to power in 1992 but made a number of mistakes, so by the 1994 midterms the resurgent Republicans, led by aggressive speaker Newt Gingrich, wiped out much of the Democrats power base. That said, Clinton quickly found his feet and bounced back, Gingrich´s power went to his head, and by 1996 Clinton was a shoo-in to win a second term, and did. We all know the rest.

So where does this put Obama in 2010? The way that the Republican grassroots base has been hijacked by the Tea Party seems similar to the way that Reagan took the Republicans in a new, even more right-wing "free market" direction after 1976, when the Monetarists and bankers took command of Reagan´s economic policy.
The problem with drawing too many similarities to Carter´s fate is that the Republicans of 2010 do not seem to have a charismatic leader (as they had in Reagan in 1978), apart from the antics of Sarah Palin, who largely appeals to the party base rather than the wider public.
This is why the fate of Clinton might offer more hope for Obama. The antics of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party have more in common with the theatrics of Newt Gingrich in the ´90s. Assuming that the Democrats are badly defeated in November, the Tea Party may well commit the same error that Gingrich made - becoming arrogant in the extreme, to the point that turns off ordinary people.

This is the Democrats secret hope now, no doubt. This gives Obama hope for the chances of winning a second term if the Tea Party bandwagon´s wheels quickly start falling off once it is given the limelight of political responsibility after success in the midterms. Certainly, the behaviour of the partisan Tea Party gives some weight to this point of view.
The Democrats dread, therefore, is that the "guy on main street" may see the antics of the Tea Party, but still consider them the lesser of two "evils" - the "evil" of big government versus the "evil" of no government, and prefer no government interference to well-intentioned initiatives from Washington.

The complicating factor in all this is the economy. The "recovery" has yet to really take hold, and the country may well remain sluggish beyond 2012, because recoveries after crises are never quick to take hold. After the "lost decade" of the 2000s that the Bush administration presided over added weight to the lie that Republicans are responsible managers of the economy (under Reagan and Bush Jr, they allowed the national debt to balloon to offset low taxes). And yet, people are turning back to them so quickly after the tumultuous first two years of the Obama administration. Patience may be a virtue, but it is one that is sorely lacking in many Americans in need of jobs and financial assistance.

The horrible irony is that the Republicans may be rewarded for not only wrecking the economy, but also sabotaging the recovery.

The Devil Votes Republican

The popularity of the Republican is a true work of art. It is a political organisation whose continual success and re-invention can only be explained through the kind of cunning that Satan himself would be proud of.

First of all, a brief history.
Created around the time of the Civil War, the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln (who has been admired by many ever since). Although he was assassinated, the party went on to dominate US politics for the rest of the 19th century, being in power almost continually throughout the Gilded Age, all the way up to the Great Depression (excepting Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleveland). Its low point was the twenty-year absence from power while FDR and Truman ruled the roost at the White House.
The modern Republican Party came about through the efforts of Ronald Reagan (for Eisenhower and the Nixon-Ford administration ran the country as moderates in the traditional Republican mould). Since the time of Reagan, the GOP has morphed into something else; an altogether more fearsome creature.

What does the Republican Party stand for?
A good question, considering its continual success and re-invention. First of all, who votes for them, and why?

A short answer could be average God-fearing, socially-conservative patriots, who fear the government, want to pay low taxes, have the right to earn their money and defend the "average guy on the street", be fiscally responsible, and to be defended against foreign enemies. In other words, traditional Protestant values that have existed in the American psyche since Washington´s day.

The beauty of the Republican Party is that they have successfully been able to persuade people that the country´s best interests are best served with them, and been able to persuade them that this is still true even when faced with clear facts that show them the opposite.

"The country´s best interests" though, depends on how you define them. Where most people might see "the country´s best interests" as meaning "the people´s best interests", the Republican Party sees this as meaning "the best interests of those who own the most in the country".

Foreign policy is an instrument of trying to expand the commercial interests of its funders. This does not equate to the same thing as the people´s interests, as the companies that fund the GOP simply want to expand abroad; if that means closing a factory in Michigan to relocate abroad, then great, as money knows no borders. In this logic, there is no such thing as the "national interest"; as these companies own or buy influence over the nation´s assets, these companies are the "national interest". Patriotism is nothing more than a

The Republican Party´s Foreign policy is, in fact, it´s only real "policy".
What stands for "Domestic policy" is nothing more than another instrument to make the conditions best for those who control the most; deregulation of banking (as first pushed by Merril Lynch´s Don Regan, who acted as Ronald Reagan´s Treasury Secretary and later Chief of Staff) is essential to this function. As are all forms of deregulation. For the companies with the most can only flourish the most if there are no rules holding them back.

"The government does best when it does the least" - this is the Republican slogan. A beautiful logical absurdity: by definition government exists because there is an absence of something. If government exists only to destroy then government by definition is no real government at all. In its place there is a vacuum; anarchy.
The Republican Party seems to want to create a form of anarchy whereby the American people simply pay taxes to fund the "defence of the nation" (meaning "commercial expansion of the elite´s foreign interests"). Taken to its logical conclusion, domestic policy would no longer exist: the government has outsourced all its domestic operations so that it no longer needs to directly spend money on any of its citizens. The people fend for themselves while the "government" uses its taxes to expand its foreign operations. And as the government´s interests expand abroad, this necessarily leads to a further degradation of the conditions at home.

There is a word for this. It´s called tyranny.

This is the Republican dream. To allow this dream to become a reality, vote Republican. Vote Satan

Progress...and the real meaning

Stood in crowded conditions, barely able to move, for hours each day.
These were the conditions that slaves in past centuries were shipped in to their new places of work.
These are also the conditions which millions of us tolerate today when we go to work.
The difference? Slaves had no choice. People today choose to tolerate much the same conditions every day that slaves fought to break away from two hundred years ago.

Transport to and around town was fifteen miles per hour by horsecarriage.
In many cities in the world, it takes about the same.
The difference? Horseback was the fastest way of getting around. Now we have buses and the technology for more efficient transport networks. But most people still prefer to go by car and sit in the traffic jam. So people choose to tolerate (while stressing about) travelling at the same speed society did a hundred years ago.

People work twelve-hour days, but are paid for only eight of them.
During the Industrial Revolution this was the norm, as workers rights were still in their infancy. In the 21st century much of industrialised society work exactly the hours, just doing different jobs.
The difference? Two hundred years ago workers had no rights. Now workers still work under the same conditions because they feel "obliged" by the work environment.

So what happened? Where is the "progress"?
Johnathon Swift got it right in "Gulliver´s Travels" when he said that all that changes in human society were simply advances in technology, not society. He used the example of warfare, but it could be applied to just about anything; the media (newsprint giving way to TV and the internet); working conditions; lifestyle.
Real progress should be about human life becoming easier - that´s what all the scientists of the past fantasised about: humans having no work. But the reality has become the opposite. Human society merely uses technology for its own ends.
Email and the internet brings more obligations to our lives (if no-one is ever out of touch with the office any more, where does quality free time come into the equation?).
Increased traffic slows down our lives precisely while we are expected to work and operate faster. The result: stress.
As cities get bigger as we are encouraged to move into them for work purposes, it makes travel more a part of life than it was for workers even before the Industrial Revolution: "commuting" is just another word for slave transportation.

So what is the answer?
Think about this: time and money are all relative concepts. Does it matter if we work an extra few hours per day, or a few less? Does "work" ever stop? Saying that "I need to get these things done" at work is a meaningless statement because there´s ALWAYS something that needs to be done: that´s the nature of work.
Better for society to think like this: keep to regulations about working hours (as in France). Because if we all stick to the same standards, nobody will be competing to do too much, or worry about trying to do more than someone else. If we limit the amount of commuting in cities (by trying to organise society better so that cities don´t get too big, but grow at a sustainable rate) then society will be better overall.
Health suffers from all the stresses caused by the "pressure" from modern living. The problem is that the human mind is expanding at a rate that out human metabolism has difficulty in keeping up with. Don´t forget that we´re only a few thousand years a from hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Our bodies need time to regenerate each day; psychologically, we need quality free time. We need trees. We need silence, at least once a week.

OK, that´s all. Thanks for your time.
Good day and good luck, people!