A new President. Idealist, power seeker or patsy?

A few days ago I made a comment about idealism in one of my witterings. It was picked up by Mr Bob in the comments and expanded very nicely. I am not sure whether what I want to say today is a comment on idealism or greed for power, but I will say it anyway.

So far in this blog I have said relatively little about the EU. The reason I want to talk about it today is because today is Inauguration Day in America. From the way his imminent ascension to the Presidency has been reported, an unknowing observer would think Mr Obama gained 90% of the vote at the recent election. In fact he won a little under 53%. It is a large share compared to most recent Presidential elections but George Bush Senior won a larger percentage in 1988 without a lot of hoop-la resulting and Ronald Reagan was only just short of 60% in 1984. We seem to be seeing in Mr Obama's election an exaggerated reaction because he says nice things. He is yet to say anything of substance, but the sugar syrup flows profusely as it did from the charming, smarmy lips of Tony Blair.

Already Mr Obama is guaranteed a lifetime place at the top table of those dedicated to the concept of world government. Why him rather than his predecessor? Simple, because he says what the established group of self-appointed world rulers want to hear. He backs the great plans of the internationalists - taking wealth from the developed countries to give to the governments of the poor countries (not the people, the governments), using any environmental scare story as an excuse for increasing taxes domestically and passing a substantial proportion of that tax income to bodies controlled by the existing world elite and, most significantly, increasing the power of worldwide political organisations.

Now, I am not arguing that there is a wicked hidden conspiracy occurring. There is nothing hidden about it. They are quite open in wanting the UN and its panels and committees to be the basis of more and more policy-making. It's macro-everything regardless of the impact it might have on individual countries and their citizens. Blair is part of the in crowd. John Major is not despite being a far more competent government minister than Mr Blair ever was. Margaret Thatcher never got a look in, nor did Ronald Reagan. They were concerned with building strength from the individual upwards and decried the notion of strength being bequeathed by a greater supranational power. That disqualified them from membership of the club. Mr Obama has made clear already that he buys the internationalist idea so he's in already. Watch how he is feted by them just as Clinton and his weak Vice-President were, and compare it to how Reagan, Bush Senior and Bush Junior were opposed by them from day one.

The same pattern is seen in the EU. So many politicians rejected long ago by the voters in their own country are at the top table while those who won office domestically and performed well never even get a sniff at the pre-dinner sherry. The real power rests with those who got in early and took the institution to themselves. They realised that elections are a dreadful inconvenience. All those little people being given a chance to say they don't want what is good for them? How absurd. Far better to ensure that what is good for them is delivered, they can have elections about the other things that don't really matter.

The greatest problem with supranational institutions is that they can only set their central policies once. The stakes are so high, both in terms of the cost of change and the egos of those who have appointed themselves the guardians of all that is good, that central policy must remain sacrosanct. Even if it is proved to be unsuitable to the needs of the real world. We see this with the UN's leading role in promoting eco-fascism and its inability to tackle the corruption and brutality of so many African leaders and their cronies. We see it also in the EU's refusal to accept that its own law requiring unanimous acceptance of treaties by the member states should be enforced when a relatively small member state, like the Republic of Ireland, rejects a treaty. Larger countries, like France, can require them to re-phrase the proposal but the substance always remains intact in the next draft.

There is a pre-established programme set out from above which must be followed come what may. Those who issue the programme have no mandate from the people of any country and they perpetuate their position by inviting those of like mind only. So, what can a dissenting country do? Its economy is affected root and branch by the regulations imposed by the supranational body and its ability to do business internationally is affected by trade treaties entered into as part of the supranational body. To say "this is the end chaps, it's been nice knowing you, bye" requires the unravelling of countless sticky tendrils of regulation. It can be done, but it will take time and during that time there is the risk of trade links being severed with no ready replacement.

In theory supranational bodies are a fine idea. But the theory has a fatal limitation. It assumes that there is a single answer to problems, a single answer that covers every situation and remains valid in a changing world. In real life there is never a fixed answer. Circumstances change and sometimes those changes give the lie to something previously considered to be an unchallengeable truth. Not a single unqualified statement can be made about the law, or economics, or science, or art without countless examples being provided to prove that either qualifications are needed or the statement should be abandoned altogether.

One advantage Mr Obama has over any new US President in my lifetime is that he has not committed himself to any set policy on any issue. It is an advantage because it allows him a blank canvass, he can pretty much do as he wishes. But it is also a disadvantage because he enters office without a principled commitment in any area of policy. His choice is to be bold and take his own decisions based on judgment and principle or to seek continued popularity by swaying in the wind. His election campaign put him firmly in the latter camp. That is just what the established international oligarchy likes to see. In the seventy six days since the election was held Mr Obama has been schmoozed by all current leaders of the self-appointed elite. It is too much to expect a new President who has declared no political principle (other than the need for him to be elected) to take risks. I hope I am wrong, but I think he will take the path of least resistance. For a British Prime Minister that means doing what the EU wants, for an American President it means playing second fiddle to the failed and the corrupt egotists of the UN.

Things don't look good.

We must let the USA decide

I was sent a link recently by an American friend, it was to a site on which non-US nationals are invited to record their preference in the upcoming Presidential election. It made me think about something which is, I believe, of huge importance. I refer to self-determination.

Self-determination is at the heart of the concept of "liberty" so beloved of political speech writers on both sides of the pond. If you were to ask what was the purpose of World War II I suspect most would say "defeating fascism" or "preventing Hitler's annihilation of Jews". My answer would be "protecting self-determination". That Hitler was labelled a fascist is really neither here nor there, many a fascist has presented no threat to anyone. That he had a plan to exterminate all Jews in his path (and, incidentally, all gypsies and homosexuals and and and) was hardly apparent in 1939. He had railed against them in speeches but there was little evidence at that time of the rhetoric turning into gas chambers and starvation camps. British armed involvement in Europe in 1939 was the result of Germany seeking to take over sovereign nations and rule them as its own.

This country fought to preserve its independence. But why? What was that independence and why was it so important that a major war was a price worth paying to retain it? It was one thing only, the right to take decisions for Britain in Britain. However good or bad the decisions we made (and still make) might be, they are our decisions and we can change them later if they turn out to need change. However fair or unfair the process by which we select those who make the decisions, the process is ours and we can change it later if it needs to be changed. However well or badly our political system reflects the needs of the people of this country, it is our system and we can change it later if we wish to make it more responsive. Once we have made changes, we can can watch whether they improve things and then make further changes to either reverse an erroneous decision or build on an improvement. But we can only do these things for so long as we have the right of self-determination.

The most basic right of self-determination is the right of a country to make its own political policies. Nation states come from a combination of geographical and ethnic or religious factors. Islands are often single nations although ethnic divisions might cause a formal division (as with Ireland and Cyprus). It is not by chance that nations in Europe and Africa are often separated by geographical features such as rivers or mountain ranges. Over time those who live east of the river form their own cultures and values while those on the west follow a different path; at some stage the differences become so firmly established that they are recognised as separate nations. What causes the differentiation between them is that each has developed an internal coherence, the people feel bound to each other in numerous ephemeral ways. They have a common identity and it gives them stability, they find a benefit and a comfort from being part of that unit. The unit becomes a serious force for good and a new nation is born.

Artificial nation states can be created, such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, but each of these sought to force people into units which did not reflect established historical, ethnic and religious groupings. The common values which lay behind all true nation states were replaced by tension and conflict resulting from seeking to suppress such values rather than use them as a force for good. And in the same way that those three artificial nation states split into their historic parts, so East and West Germany have united in order to reflect the reality of forces far greater than any temporary political construct.

The desire for self-determination is an inevitable consequence of the formation of a nation state. Indeed, the formation of a nation state is of itself an assertion of the right to self-determination because you cannot say "we are now a distinct unit" without also saying "therefore we will now decide for ourselves as a unit".

The USA declared itself a distinct unit in 1776 (some would suggest earlier, the precise date matters little after more than three hundred years). It has an established way of taking decisions, one of which is to elect a President every four years. That election is part of America's right of self-determination. The way in which Presidential candidates come to the fore is not by any means a perfect system but it is their way and only they have the right to change it. The procedures by which US citizens can be rendered eligible or ineligible to vote are not by any means perfect, but they are their procedures and only they have the right to change them.

Only a fool would suggest that the choice of President affects America alone, of course it affects the whole world because of America's wealth and strength. But that does not give me or any non-US citizen the right to interfere in their election. Although we might be affected adversely by one choice rather than the other there is something much more important at stake. It is the USA's right of self-determination. American servicemen did not fight in Europe in World War II to preserve their country from Hitler, they fought to preserve our right to be us and to make our own decisions, be they good bad or somewhere in between. In consequence we must leave them to make their decision.

Whatever they decide next Tuesday I hope those who vote experience the same tingle of excitement I feel every time I cast a vote at a general election. Like each of the 120 million who will vote next week in America, I only have one vote at a general election. I cast it according to my judgment: my inadequate, flawed, selfish, biased, ignorant and bigoted judgment. And I do so knowing that I am exercising not just my right of self-determination but that of my nation, a right earlier generations fought and died to preserve. A right Americans fought and died to preserve for me. I treasure that right and I treasure the right of each American voter to make their decision according to their inadequate, flawed, selfish, biased, ignorant and bigoted judgment.

I decided not to visit the poll my friend sent me because it really is none of my business.

Mind your own business Hazel

There is a long-established tradition that the governments of the UK and the USA do not comment on forthcoming elections in the other country. It is a sensible tradition because, generally speaking, we are on the same side and the new Prime Minister or President will have to work with his opposite number across the Atlantic. A sure recipe for a rocky relationship is the knowledge that the person you have to work with wanted you to lose.

No surprise then that Labour has openly supported Mr Obama. It started with the Prime Minister who issued a statement praising Obama's policy platform, naturally he said it was not him when challenged by the McCain team but no head has rolled so we know he was, yet again, lying to escape the consequences of an error of judgment. Then Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, criticised Mrs Palin on Question Time. Poor Harriet is such an arrogant woman she thinks she is above the rules in every sphere. And most recently the utterly pathetic Hazel Blears joined in, seeking to justify herself by saying the Democratic Party is Labour's sister party.

The only example I can recall of an incumbent American President doing something similar was when the moveable feast of slime that is Bill Clinton was less than flattering about John Major in the run up to the 1997 general election.

What is so curious is that they feel it necessary to give an opinion when it is remarkably easy to keep to the rules. If asked about a candidate you say "the election in the USA is a matter for the American people, I am sure we can work well with whoever they choose". If asked to comment on policy in the other country you say "it is not for me to comment on the policies put forward by the candidates". So simple, all it takes is a little respect for the right of the voters to make their choice. One thing is certain, for every American swayed by an endorsement there will be at least one determined to give the interfering Brits a bloody nose. Or is it curious?

A feature of politics of the left is that it is a mission to change things for the better by government activity. Taking decisions for other people is absolutely at the heart of their philosophy. Politics of the right is, or should be, based on the belief that people should be left to take their own decisions and government should decide as little as possible for them. Against that background it is, perhaps, not surprising that someone mired in a bog of "I know what's best for you" thinking will carry that view into every area. As usual it will do their cause more harm than good.

It's President McCain (I think)

This year's Presidential election in America is warming up into a rather interesting contest. The primaries were keenly fought among a pretty good list of candidates and it became clear early on that John McCain was likely to win his party's nomination. The Democratic Party fight went to the wire and that, I believe, gives a strong clue to the likely winner in November. I will return to that point shortly, but first I want to explain what I see as the most important battle grounds over the next two months.

It is often said that the most important issue in a presidential election is the economy ("it's the economy, stupid", as Bill Clinton is reported to have said) but that is not to say that it is always crucial. An incumbent president seeking re-election will have difficulties if the economy is in tatters but neither McCain nor Obama is responsible for current problems. Indeed, America seems to be coping with the consequences of the credit crunch rather better than other countries and the sense of deep gloom across the UK is not matched on the other side of the pond. The candidates have a difference of emphasis in their economic policies but there is no stark difference of substance, so I do not see their positions on the economy as something of great importance. Far more significant, I believe, will be health care, McCain's age and Obama's pigmentation.

Health care is a major policy matter this year because it featured so prominently in the Democratic primary campaigns. It was all over the television, radio and newspaper coverage and featured highly in debates. Had it not done so it would probably be a peripheral issue as in almost all previous elections. Now that it has prominence it is the issue on which the main difference between the candidates' approaches can be judged. McCain is adamantly opposed to a national health service funded out of taxes because he knows such systems, as in the UK, are hopelessly inefficient and wasteful and far too open to short-term knee-jerk political interference. He proposes continuance of the insurance-based system but with greater availability at affordable premiums for the least wealthy. Obama has changed his position and has now adopted the Hillary Clinton NHS plan. I believe this will be a real weakness for Obama because what he is proposing will have to sit alongside the existing health insurance structure. It will be seen that, in effect, he is proposing a tax funded NHS only for the poor which will have to be paid for by those already paying their own insurance premiums. That is not a recipe of great appeal to the American mindset.

McCain's age is an issue because he has suffered medical problems and might be unable to see through a full four-year term. Therefore the light is on his running mate to a far greater extent than would normally be the case. Remember that George Bush senior won the race in 1988 despite having the hopeless Dan Quayle on the ticket. In that election the great strengths of the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Loyd Benson, could not rescue the inadequacies of Michael Dukakis for the top job. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin will prove to be either inspired or disastrous, it is too early yet to say which. What can be said is that Obama opting for Joe Biden was almost certainly a serious error of judgment. In a year when the vice-presidency is of special importance the last person to be chosen should be someone with a long history of foot-in-mouth disease. On the evidence so far Palin is likely to stick to the script, Biden is unlikely to do so.

The other respect in which McCain's age is relevant is simply by way of contrast to Obama's youth. Neither has ever run anything significant, Senators do not run things, they are like backbench MPs. However, McCain has been in national politics for a long time and has had plenty of opportunities to make serious gaffes. Because he has not made any serious enough to prevent his party nominating him he is seen as a safe pair of hands whereas Obama is a very new boy indeed. No one knows how he will react under pressure.

Kennedy got away with youth and inexperience through a combination of ostensible charm and a father who bought votes in sufficient number to sway swing States his son's way. It should not be forgotten that the questions about the legitimacy of Kennedy's win in 1960 were far greater than the dispute about hanging chads in 2000. His opponent, Richard Nixon (you might have heard of him) was urged by many in his party to challenge the result but he had the good sense not to do so for fear that it would suggest he wanted Washington rather than the people to decide the outcome of the election. Eight years later Nixon was in the White House. By contrast Al Gore was completely broken as a national politician by his failed challenge to the outcome in key states in 2000 because he knew he would forever be haunted by his sulking speech of concession.

Unlike Kennedy, Obama does not have a quasi mafia to manipulate votes. Also unlike Kennedy, Obama is not the first white-toothed, youthful charmer to stand. Kennedy had that privilege and turned out to be a disaster as President. When the chips were down his lack of experience and untested judgment combined to cause a series of decisions which blighted his country for years, the intervension in Vietnam being by far the worst. People have long memories and many will see too much of Kennedy in Obama. Interestingly, the oldest man to win a presidential election is also within memory of many, Ronald Reagan; now revered as one of the greatest presidents. I can see a lot of votes being influenced by the negative for Obama of being too Kennedyesque and the positive for McCain of being somewhat Reaganlike.

The final issue I consider of particular importance is Obama's skin colour. It will not be referred to by McCain except as an irrelevance but his words will not change the entrenched views of millions of Americans. Like it or not, America is a deeply conservative country, built with huge success by white settlers a very large number of whose descendants consider it important to have a white president. The question is often asked "is America ready for a black president?". Much of America is, but the rest also have votes.

In America, seemingly more so that in the UK, electioneering is as much about getting your dedicated supporters into the voting booth as it is about pulling undecideds into your camp. As the campaign proceeds over the next seven weeks scrutiny of the candidates will increase in intensity to a level far beyond anything that has been seen so far. In this age of 24-hour television everything they said during their push for nomination has been recorded and each side has a full library of these recordings. In addition, the things their opponents said during the primaries are stored, and ready for use. Many snippets will be brought out and given wide publicity.

This is where I believe the long and bitter contest between Obama and Clinton will be of greatest influence. While McCain was keeping his head down and travelling quietly round the country shaking hands and making generalised speeches, Obama was in the spotlight changing his position on issues to combat a good Clinton speech and being accused of every degree of incompetence and duplicity by a former First Lady. We can be in no doubt that his changes of policy and her strident criticisms will be aired by the McCain team with ruthless efficiency. They will also bring up Obama's tour of Europe which was played-out like a victory celebration. That sort of thing does not go down well in America, just as Neil Kinnock's victory rally in Sheffield in 1992 tipped the election in favour of John Major's Conservatives. Presuming to tell the electorate how they will vote is an expensive ploy.

Once it was clear that Obama and Clinton would be fighting for months while McCain was engaging in the rubber chicken circuit I predicted a McCain victory. Nothing that has happened since then has changed my mind and the clips of Obama flip-flopping and Clinton saying he is an incompetent and a liar will, I believe, seal his fate.