M2RB: Jesus Jones
A woman on
the radio talked about revolution
when it's
already passed her by
Bob Dylan
didn't have this to sing about you
you know it
feels good to be alive
I was alive
and I waited, waited
I was alive
and I waited for this
Right here,
right now
there is no
other place I want to be
Right here,
right now
watching the
world wake up from history
Have we rolled over and fallen back to sleep?
Obama looked to the discredit past; Cameron to an impossible future
By Janet Daley
As the football commentators might put it, it was a week of two speeches. I’m
not generally one of those people who believe that a political speech is an
actual event in the world: it’s only somebody talking, after all. A
political leader can say pretty much anything, and however moving or
courageous it sounds, the saying of it does not change the furniture of the
universe. As W H Auden wrote, “poetry makes nothing happen”. But the two
contributions last week were unusually significant, not just in terms of
political rhetoric, but as real historical moves on the field of play.
To put it at its most portentous, they were both steps into what may turn out to be a quite new stage of development in the life of the Western world. Barack Obama’s second inaugural address and David Cameron’s public challenge to Europe were both about the nature of government, and what it means to be a democratic nation in the 21st century.
Mr Obama’s oration got remarkably little analysis in the British press – perhaps because second presidential inaugurals are something of a dramatic let-down. Or maybe because what he said sounded so tired and familiar to British ears. Indeed, the words that created a storm of partisan recrimination in the United States because they were so contentious in domestic terms – an aggressively uncompromising new stand in the war of attrition between the Democratic White House and a Republican Congress – came across here as recycled New Labour-speak: “But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges: that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” (Note the New Labour trick of claiming that something can only be safeguarded by embracing its opposite: individual freedom requires submitting to the collective will.)
There were some quite surreal moments when Mr Obama seemed to be channelling Gordon Brown at his most self-congratulatory. Specifically rejecting the notion that America “must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future” (that is, we can afford to support both the old and the young), he said: “For we… understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.” Ah, yes – remember that refrain: we will govern for the many, not the few? Which turned out to be a euphemism for high tax, high-spend economics, galloping entitlements and an epidemic of welfare dependency? Warning to America: it didn’t work out.
To put it at its most portentous, they were both steps into what may turn out to be a quite new stage of development in the life of the Western world. Barack Obama’s second inaugural address and David Cameron’s public challenge to Europe were both about the nature of government, and what it means to be a democratic nation in the 21st century.
Mr Obama’s oration got remarkably little analysis in the British press – perhaps because second presidential inaugurals are something of a dramatic let-down. Or maybe because what he said sounded so tired and familiar to British ears. Indeed, the words that created a storm of partisan recrimination in the United States because they were so contentious in domestic terms – an aggressively uncompromising new stand in the war of attrition between the Democratic White House and a Republican Congress – came across here as recycled New Labour-speak: “But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges: that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” (Note the New Labour trick of claiming that something can only be safeguarded by embracing its opposite: individual freedom requires submitting to the collective will.)
There were some quite surreal moments when Mr Obama seemed to be channelling Gordon Brown at his most self-congratulatory. Specifically rejecting the notion that America “must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future” (that is, we can afford to support both the old and the young), he said: “For we… understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.” Ah, yes – remember that refrain: we will govern for the many, not the few? Which turned out to be a euphemism for high tax, high-spend economics, galloping entitlements and an epidemic of welfare dependency? Warning to America: it didn’t work out.
Mr Obama made no attempt to explain how support at both these ends of the age
range was going to be afforded. Or what effect his insistence that the most
expensive entitlement programmes – social security, Medicare and Medicaid –
were untouchable would have on the US deficit. Hard economic fact could be
countered by ideological passion: “[These entitlements] do not sap our
initiative; they strengthen us.” Well, maybe. But they have to be paid for
with hard cash – by somebody. Presumably that problem will have to wait for
the coming stand-off with Congress over the debt ceiling.
The core message was pounded home relentlessly: American government is now in
the redistribution and welfare-provision business, and this is not (contrary
to appearances) at variance with the founding fathers’ conception of a
nation that is inherently opposed to state interference and domination over
the individual. This is the new credo of American nationhood: the
government, not the community or the household, will be the moral arbiter of
social virtue. The traditional suspicion of the overweening power of the
state is now a thing of the past. Democracy is about electing a government
that will be there to protect you from hardship, shelter you from the storm
and absolve you from sin. Well, no, maybe not that last one – but the
concept of the state as moral saviour is not so remote from this, is it?
Then we got Mr Cameron’s offering, which, by comparison with the Obama
message, seemed to be coming from a future world: from those who had learnt
the lesson of overly powerful centralised political institutions that have
spent money like there was no tomorrow on programmes that were steeped in
benign rhetoric about “social fairness”. Mr Cameron had a dream of the
European Union as an open, flexible, freely diverse fellowship of nation
states, each of them democratically accountable to its own electorate, and
all of them able to cooperate in whatever ways suited their individual needs
at any given time. The speech was everything everybody said it was:
eloquently argued, irresistibly persuasive to British ears, and logically
faultless.
But does he not appreciate that this is the very antithesis of the founding principle of the EU? That its deliberate object was to curtail the power of its separate member states and the dangerous impulses of their volatile electorates, whose inclinations had a tendency to end in mass murder? It is not a travesty of the European project to say that it was a conspiracy of the European elites against their own peoples: it is the literal truth. Of course, the EU, with its unelected centralised governing bodies, overrides the democratic wishes of the nation states. That’s the whole point. This was a post-war French and German idea, devised to prevent any possibility of the hideous conflicts that devastated the continent during the last century. Its imperatives – the irreversible political integration of member states, a guarantee that national governments could never again go rogue, and the disempowering of electorates – arose directly from the 20th-century experience of criminal national leaders. The nation state, driven by the will of its own people, had been the demonic enemy of peace and the EU would put an end to it, once and for all.
So was Mr Cameron making the EU an offer he knew it could not accept? Or was he trying to appeal to the restive, disempowered peoples of Europe over the heads of their leaders? Mr Obama was speaking from what is, for us, a discredited past in which the will of government is always seen as just and merciful. And Mr Cameron seemed to be offering an impossibly perfect future, in which the power of distant governing institutions is once more made to answer to the people. Between them, they drew the outlines of a discussion that will certainly dominate our politics for a generation. What does it mean to be a democratic country? Does economic equality, or international stability, trump everything? Maybe this debate suggests that Western democracy is entering a new, more mature phase. Then again, perhaps it means that it is finished.
But does he not appreciate that this is the very antithesis of the founding principle of the EU? That its deliberate object was to curtail the power of its separate member states and the dangerous impulses of their volatile electorates, whose inclinations had a tendency to end in mass murder? It is not a travesty of the European project to say that it was a conspiracy of the European elites against their own peoples: it is the literal truth. Of course, the EU, with its unelected centralised governing bodies, overrides the democratic wishes of the nation states. That’s the whole point. This was a post-war French and German idea, devised to prevent any possibility of the hideous conflicts that devastated the continent during the last century. Its imperatives – the irreversible political integration of member states, a guarantee that national governments could never again go rogue, and the disempowering of electorates – arose directly from the 20th-century experience of criminal national leaders. The nation state, driven by the will of its own people, had been the demonic enemy of peace and the EU would put an end to it, once and for all.
So was Mr Cameron making the EU an offer he knew it could not accept? Or was he trying to appeal to the restive, disempowered peoples of Europe over the heads of their leaders? Mr Obama was speaking from what is, for us, a discredited past in which the will of government is always seen as just and merciful. And Mr Cameron seemed to be offering an impossibly perfect future, in which the power of distant governing institutions is once more made to answer to the people. Between them, they drew the outlines of a discussion that will certainly dominate our politics for a generation. What does it mean to be a democratic country? Does economic equality, or international stability, trump everything? Maybe this debate suggests that Western democracy is entering a new, more mature phase. Then again, perhaps it means that it is finished.
***************************
Sophie: I added the term "Inverted Totalitarianism" to Daley's title. "Inverted Totalitarianism" is a term coined by Sheldon Wolin. He used it to describe the United States and what he believed to be the emergence of an "illiberal democracy" where democracy is the cherished ideal allegedly pushed by the ruling elite, but is a façade to hide a system of corporatism, government-run media, sanctioned-only dissent, politically correct illiberalism, central planning, the illusion that personal rights must be reduced because they can only be produced by the collective, individualism is frowned up except in social behaviours and then only when those are considered politically correct, military intervention and nation-building are sold as democracy projects, and the state becomes ever more oppressive and larger as the citizen becomes smaller and more oppressed.
Interestingly, while I think Wolin originally struck upon inverted totalitarianism in response to the Bush administration, he does something that I have rarely seen by those on the Left or of the leftist/democratic (as opposed to constitutional republicanism) persuasion: He speaks of Naziism/Fascism and Sovietism/Communism in the same manner and, of course, in the crucial ways, they were.
Generally, I believe that history separates Fascism/Naziism and Marxism/Communism/Socialism in three ways:
1. F/N is nationalistic and appeals to patritotism; M/C/S is internationalistic.
2. F/N is based more on race, religion, and national identity; M/C/S is based on class.
3. M/C/S requires the state-ownership of the means of production; F/N allows for private ownership, but the state controls the means of production through the law, rules, and regulation.
All of these are gross generalisations.
1. Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. Hitler has global aspirations. In the Soviet Union, WWII was called - as it still is - "The Great Patriotic War." All communist regimes have appealed used patriotism as a basis for the sacrifices that are necessary for collectivism.
2. Both Mussolini and Hitler played the class card and Stalin played the Jew card.
3. Lenin experimented with private ownership with heavy regulation, as is Cuba today. China is still ruled by a Communist Party, but has allowed private property that is heavily controlled. Having thrown its hands up to a small degree in recognition of the black market, even North Korea has started to allow aspects of capitalism into the food market although these have been insufficient to prevent mass starvation and parental cannibalism.
On the other hand, Time Magazine wrote this about Nazi Germany in 1939:
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on
those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National
Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure
from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state
also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated
outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied.
Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing
Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from
the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in
Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food-
stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates
and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure
fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
- Time Magazine; 2 January 1939
It is refreshing to see someone on the Left recognise that both Fascism and Communism have in common that which is most important: TOTALITARIANISM and/or STATISM.
Right Here, Right Now - Jesus Jones
A woman on
the radio talked about revolution
when it's
already passed her by
Bob Dylan
didn't have this to sing about you
you know it
feels good to be alive
I was alive
and I waited, waited
I was alive
and I waited for this
Right here,
right now
there is no
other place I want to be
Right here,
right now
watching the
world wake up from history
I saw the
decade in, when it seemed
the world
could change at the blink of an eye
And if
anything
then there's
your sign... of the times
I was alive
and I waited, waited
I was alive
and I waited for this
Right here,
right now
I was alive
and I waited, waited
I was alive
and I waited for this
Right here,
right now
there is no
other place I want to be
Right here,
right now
watching the
world wake up from history
Right here,
right now
there is no
other place I want to be
Right here,
right now
watching the
world wake up from history
Right here,
right now
there is no
other place I want to be
Right here,
right now
watching the
world wake up...
No comments:
Post a Comment