Quote of the Day: Nick Clegg on opposition to AV

When the vested interests of the old, tired, establishment of politics and the media are so opposed to a reform – turning so personal about it – you know there is something worth fighting for. It is a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible – the old politics of tribalism backed by dinosaurs on all sides of the political spectrum. It is the attack on people working together for the national good that is so dismal.

- Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal-Democrats (UK); Guardian newspaper

It has been nearly a year since the coalition government was formed in Britain.  The Conservative Party, lead by David Cameron, and the Liberal Democrats, lead by Nick Clegg, formed a coalition to bridge the fact that no one political party had gained sufficient seats in Westminster to hold the confidence of parliament, after the 2010 elections.  Things have not gone well amongst the ranks of Liberal Democrat supporters, and the biggest challenge advocated  by the party -alternative voting mechanism- appears to be withering.

So few people in any line of politics are willing to say the obvious fact that our current political systems are badly broken and those who talk dismissively about change, are the same persons who exploit that existing system to their maximum political advantage.  I have spoken briefly on what I think are some of the impressive qualities of Nick Clegg in previous posts.  Unlike either the corrupt Labour Party or post-Thatcherite crony-capitalists of the Conservative Party, Mr. Clegg has denounced the Iraq war (here and here), embraced environmentalism (here), and made some of the largest changes to Britain's security-state apparatus, promoted by Labour, to make government accountable to the true sovereign; the people (here).

The fact that so many voters will act with such myopic thinking in opposing the alternative voting system, in order to simply punish the Liberal Democrats for aligning themselves with the Conservatives, only proves that most people are not only unable to think rationally, but are petty to the point of being sadomasochistic.

Rise Up Canadians...

Exactly!

Canadians used to pride ourselves at being more versed in the nuances of global affairs and politics than our American brethren to the south. Politics, like hockey, has been a constant in our lives. The general population across the nation has always been aware of the pretentious and duplicitous musings of politicians and has punished those engaging in American styled demagoguery; until now.

In the above election ad, Michael Ignatieff discusses the level of apathy and disinterest in politics that has taken hold of Canadians. Some have referred to the above full throated stance as his Howard Dean moment. Maybe? However, we should remind ourselves that Dr. Dean was attacked from multiple flanks for standing up for beliefs that were fundamentally democratic and liberal. What those in opposition are really saying is that they want their team, the blue team, regardless of competence or adherence to accountablity, to win; even if it means jettisoning democratic values and principles to do so.

I think this is exactly what accountable government and liberal democracy is all about. As I've said before, Mr. Ignatieff's performance as Leader of the Opposition has been at best wanting. However, this call-to-arms of all Canadians to bring down the corpulent and criminally negligent Conservative party of Canada is what needs to be said. Every voter needs to carefully understand what is at stake to our democracy, if Stephen Harper and the Conservative party dimwits are elected to run the government again.

Stephen Harper and the Abuse of Power

I'm loathe to affiliate myself with Mr. Ignatieff, who has in my opinion been one of the most incompetent leaders of Canada's Liberal party in years. Given how bad things have been since Jean Chretien was pushed out of office, that is not an insignificant matter.

However, I cannot stand Mr. Harper and all the faux-patriots and ignoramuses of the Canadian Conservative Party. Their deceit, incompetence, indifference to the truth and their slavish want for power and authority over the lives of Canadians, is unbearable. Why the opposition parties haven't been taking the boots to the crotches of these so-called conservatives is beyond my understanding. Everyone knows Harper is a thug. So why then engage in a strategy where they play the role of the village idiot who gets his ass kicked every morning by the town bully.

If these right-wing wannabe crypto-fascists want to go medieval on us, the people, then I have no problem with the opposition parties dragging Harper's bloated and corpulent carcass across the television screen.

Robert Reich on Obama's Centrism

If you widen the lens, the public is being sold a big lie — that our problems owe to unions and the size of government and not to fraud and deregulation and vast concentration of wealth. Obama’s failure is that he won’t challenge this Republican narrative, and give people a story that helps them connect the dots and understand where we’re going.

- Robert Reich, UC Berkeley Professor, "Obama the Centrist Irks a Liberal Lion"

Glenn Greenwald on why the Democrats lost

With that strategy, the Democratic Party now reaps what it has sown.  Its message and identity are profoundly muddled, incoherent, unclear, uninspiring, and self-negating.  Worse, its policies are mishmashes of inept half-measures that, with a handful of exceptions, produce little good for anyone (other than Wall Street, the Pentagon and other corporate interests).  They are perceived as -- and are -- beholden to Wall Street, special interests, and the corporations they vowed to confront.  They are without any ability to confront the massive unemployment crisis and financial decline the country faces.  And as a result of all of that, they lay in shambles.  Anyone who can survey all of that and cheer for the strategy which Democrats have been pursuing -- let's build our majorities by relying on GOP-replicating corporatist Blue Dogs -- or who thinks that this election loss happened because "Democrats are too liberal," resides in a world that has very little to do with reality.  And that's true no matter how many times they repeat the simplistic snippets of exit polls to which they've obsessively attached themselves.

Glenn Greenwald in a blog post at Salon.com, takes on MSNBC commentator Lawerence O'Donnell in his assertion that the Democrats lost because they are too "liberal" and the country simply prefers "conservative" candidates and governance.

Over the past decade, I too have excoriated those who babble about the fundamental divide between philosophical and political liberalism and conservatism in America.  The terms in themselves are inexhaustibly used incorrectly by both sides to impugn their opponents and distort the overall discussion.  Virtually no credible conservative government has existed at the federal level in the past forty years in America.  Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Dubya were pro-corporatist presidents who advanced statist agendas.  Government under each of these men was widely expanded; the national debt ballooned; war and the invasion of numerous countries in violation of international law was conducted; treaties were maligned and rejected at whim; established precedents in US constitutional law were regularly dismissed and abrogated with presidential approval; corporate take over of the executive and legislative branches was perfected under Republican rule over these decades.  At what point did the fanatics of conservative causes rally against these changes?

The pro-corporatist Democrats have always used the excuse that they could not execute a liberal agenda, that was and is favored by a majority, because of the stalking horse of conservatism amongst the population.  People now realize that because of gerrymandering, corporate donations and special interest meddling, and a two-party system that invalidates third party politics, that there is very little that they themselves can do to upend and change a system.  America has for the past decade not been a democracy, but  a plutocracy governed by people who are servants, not to the constitution or the people, but to multinational corporations: including bankers, insurance companies, the military-industrial complex, oil companies, and a bevy of special interests that are more than willing to bribe politicians into executing their agenda.

O'Donnell represents the liberal version of a cultural manager; a person who nonchalantly bemoans the tyranny of the left-wing of the Democratic party, but refuses to address the perennial failure and Pavlovian response of the Democratic party hierarchy in pursuing Republican-light policies once they are elected.  Clinton was elected to improve the economy, introduce health care, and end the brutal twelve years of Republican mismanagement.  Instead, he pursed a strategy of triangulation and capitulated to conservative policies of energy and financial deregulation, which has left the American economy broken and on unsound footing.  Obama in the face of aggressive citizen support has sought legislative capitulation to the banks, big oil, big-pharma, insurance companies, and the Military-Security state.  Obama's claims which he made during the 2008 election, of attacking special interests and the oligarchs appear little more than pleasant lies told to naive children.

Tony Judt, Political Historian, Dead at 62

“A well-organized society is one in which we know the truth about ourselves collectively, not one in which we tell pleasant lies about ourselves.”
- Tony Judt.

Tony Judt, a historian of postwar Europe, Israel, and America's foreign policies, was one of those academics who was loathed by persons on both the right and left of the political spectrum.  As The Guardian UK newspaper succinctly put it:

In his guise as a political and historical essayist, he was a fearless critic of narrow orthodoxies and bullying cliques, from communist apologists to the Israel lobby, from "liberal hawks" to progressive educationists. And his political writings have proved not only perceptive but often prophetic.

The obituaries in the NY Times, The Guardian, and other pieces such as Stephen M. Walt's Foreign Affairs tribute, define a man of commanding intellect and fierce moral clarity. 

Mark Lilla, a professor of history, stated in the NY Times Obit that Judt, "had the unusual ability to see and convey the big picture while, at the same time, going to the heart of the matter...Most academics do neither — they float in between. But Tony was able to talk about the big picture and explain why it matters now”

The Guardian describes Postwar, Judt's seminal work on Europe, as:

A History of Europe Since 1945... it was recognised as a masterpiece, acclaimed by scholars and a bestseller in several languages. It described how Europe had remade itself after the horrors of war, totalitarianism and mass murder, helped by some degree of wilful amnesia, although towards the end of the century many repressed memories were at last being recovered.

Whereas Stephen Walt comments:

Postwar is easily the best history of post-World War II Europe yet written, and it provides a compelling account of how a battered and divided continent rebuilt, rose again, and charted a new course for itself. It weaves social, political, and cultural commentary in a clear and compelling narrative, but there are fascinating detours along the way and no shortage of heroes and villains to identify and assess. It is a tour de force that demonstrates Judt's broad and deep learning, sharp critical powers, and a masterful command of language.

His scholarship lead him to clash with intellectual classes of France, European communists, Zionists, the right-wing neo-conservatives who instigated America's Iraq war policy, and the American liberal intelligentsia who likewise supported the failed Iraq war and post-9/11 perpetual warfare narrative.

Tony Judt died at the age of 62 from a variant of the motor neurone disease known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or popularly referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease.

That Strange Concept Called Accountability!

Something remarkable happened last month that the press seems to have thoroughly overlooked here in the Americas.  The newly formed Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition government in Britain told the country that they were going to reform civil liberties that had been badly diminished under Labour and equally, hold the previous government accountable their years of participating in the kidnapping, rendition, and torture of persons across the globe.

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime-Minister, made a speech declaring that the coming changes would be the biggest shake-up in UK democracy since 1832.  He railed against a litany of previous Labour government policies that formed the basis of Britain's surveillance state:

• ID Card schemes
• national identity registers
• biometric passports
• the storing of Internet and email records
• DNA databases
• proliferating security cameras
• repressive restrictions on free speech and assembly rights

Mr. Clegg's party before the election didn't mince words.  The Liberal-Democrats stated in their party platform that, "The Government believes the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused fundamental human rights and historic civil liberties."  He further inveighed against the current criminal justice system which imprisons too many citizens without improving public safety, and "pledged radical reform to empower citizens" over entrenched and wealthy interests.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, announced that an independent judge will investigate whether the British government was complicit in the torture of terror suspects.  The Guardian summarizes:

The judicial inquiry announced by the foreign secretary into Britain's role in torture and rendition since September 2001 is poised to shed extraordinary light on one of the darkest episodes in the country's recent history.

It is expected to expose not only details of the activities of the security and intelligence officials alleged to have colluded in torture since 9/11, but also the identities of the senior figures in government who authorised those activities. . . . Those who have been most bitterly resisting an inquiry -- including a number of senior figures in the last government -- may have been dismayed to see the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed, as this maximised the chances of a judicial inquiry being established.

Glenn Greenwald describes the mindset of Barack Obama, who claimed during the 2008 election that it was his desire to hold the Bush junta to account for their crimes.  To date the Obama administration has held none of the fiends who lied and took America to war on bogus premises, engaged in wholesale torture across the globe, and violated the Geneva conventions.  George W. Bush has already admitted that he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details of the CIA's use of torture.  Earlier this month, he further admitted that "Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded by the US, and said he would do it again 'to save lives'." This is consistent with Dick Cheney's bold statement to the world, back in February,where he announced that he was a "big supporter of waterboarding."

Andrew Sullivan and Scott Horton have both said that president Obama and his AG are now obligated to prosecute both Messrs Bush and Cheney.

[T]he attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.... Cheney himself just set in motion a chain of events that the civilized world must see to its conclusion or cease to be the civilized world. For such a high official to escape the clear letter of these treaties and conventions, and to openly brag of it, renders such treaties and conventions meaningless.

How far down the rabbit hole have we all gone, where the Conservatives of Britain are willing to hold their people to account, while the Obama administration gives the worst government in the history of the American republic another "get-out of jail" card and the press doesn't bother talking about any of it?

You should know Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems

For Americans, Nick Clegg, the leader of the UK"s Liberal Democratic Party, remains a nobody.  After all who in the land of rape and honey would know about the leader of a party which at the dissolvement of parliament held a meager 3rd place standing in Westminster?  However, something extraordinary has happened since the first television debate held between the three leading parties a couple of weeks ago to which all persons in the West should be aware of. 

The people of Britain, who to this day remain weary of the Thatcherites and the mealy-mouth platitudes of the Conservative party and have grown equally unsatisfied with the perennial deceit of New Labour, decided that maybe it was time to give someone else a chance at governing.  The Liberal Democrats in the past few weeks have rocketed in national polls from 3rd place standing  to overtake both the Conservatives and Labour at different times.

Unlike the twedledum and twedledee politics of Labour and the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats have embraced real ideas and proposed real changes to make the UK a better and different place.  As today's Observer newspaper states,

The Lib Dems have in recent years developed a habit of getting things right. They were first of the big three to embrace environmentalism, first to kick back against the assault on civil liberties, alone in opposing the Iraq war.

However, it is Mr. Clegg who has infused the imagination of those who dare to think that the lesser of two evils is no longer an acceptable choice.  Unlike the slick talking David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, and the woefully dour Mr. Brown of Labour, Mr. Clegg appeared during those debates to be a very rare type of politician: a man with principles who could generally be described as decent. The Observer editorial elaborates,

Mr Clegg's mettle cannot be fully tested until he is in office. But he did manage, in the televised leaders' debates, to articulate sensible, liberal positions on immigration and on European integration that many Labour ministers might share but would be afraid to express. He resisted the temptations of casual populism and stated his case with passion and clarity.

On this side of the Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan's blog has been providing us with many key quotes and analysis during the British election.  Yesterday, he posited a quote made by Mr. Clegg that I thought was beyond anything I have heard from any serious politician during an election:

Every time I go back to Beckett he seems more subversive, not less; his works make me feel more uncomfortable than they did before. The unsettling idea, most explicit in Godot, that life is habit – that it is all just a series of motions devoid of meaning – never gets any easier.

It's that willingness to question the things the rest of us take for granted that I admire most about Beckett; the courage to ask questions that are dangerous because, if the traditions and meanings we hold so dear turn out to be false, what do we do then?

But amid the bleakness, there is also humour, and it's no surprise that there are so many comedians among Beckett's fans. His appeal lies in his directness – the sparse, unembellished prose that can make his meticulous stage directions unexpected. He leaves you with a sense that you knew what he meant, even if explaining it back would leave you lost for words. Direct and disturbing – it is impossible to grow tired of Beckett.

Can you imagine George W. Bush and his armada of maladroits possibly contemplating Beckett, much less philosophizing on the inherent existential meanings of his work?  In America, politicians that don't spout prefabricated and dogmatic responses are feared as subversive elite who couldn't possibility understand the woes of self-absorbed fatties who blame the world for their ills!

The people of the UK have a once in a lifetime chance to simultaneously throw-the-bums-out and reform their government while embracing modernity, everyday environmentalism, and pro-Europeanism in a single vote.  I wish them and Nick Clegg much luck on Thursday.

Stiglitz Calls the US FED Corrupt

Last week Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and recipient of the Nobel Memorial award in Economics (2001), made a set of explosive criticisms about the Federal Reserve at a public forum on financial reform that has largely been ignored by the mainstream media to date.    Tim Iacono at SeekingAlpha says, with respect to the comments, that they are, "patently obvious to anyone with a working knowledge of how the Federal Reserve system really works, yet, even to me they somehow seemed shocking."

What was it that Stiglitz said?

If we had seen a governance structure that corresponds to our Federal Reserve system, we would have been yelling and screaming and saying that country does not deserve any assistance, this is a corrupt governing structure.

The pseudo-public (and therefore pseudo-private) Federal Reserve has long pretended to the serve the public interest, while hansomely filling the vaults of the banks to whom they are supposed to supervise and regulate.  Since the the inception of the Great-Recession libertarians, progressive-liberals, and an assortment of economists have been asking tough questions about the conduct and competency of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and the entire Federal Reserve system, which to date has blocked, scuttled, or diluted any attempts to allow transparent examination of its activities.  I too have been questioning the basis for the US Federal Reserve system (here, here, and here) for some time, and Stiglitz's comments, which I do not consider hyperbole, are a refreshing anodyne to the usual mealy-mouthed platitudes offered by the MSM on why meaningful examination of the Fed and financial system reform cannot occur.

The Cult of Personality- Mr. Obama & Liberals

Glenn Greenwald has a wonderful post explaining how those on the political right, with George W. Bush, and on the left, with current US president Obama, voluntarily abdicated rationality and independence to engage in hero-worship of their beloved leaders. He elaborates

Those who venerated Bush because he was a morally upright and strong evangelical-warrior-family man and revere Palin as a common-sense Christian hockey mom are similar in kind to those whose reaction to Obama is dominated by their view of him as an inspiring, kind, sophisticated, soothing and mature intellectual. These are personality types bolstered with sophisticated marketing techniques, not policies, governing approaches or ideologies. But for those looking for some emotional attachment to a leader, rather than policies they believe are right, personality attachments are far more important. They're also far more potent. Loyalty grounded in admiration for character will inspire support regardless of policy, and will produce and sustain the fantasy that this is not a mere politician, but a person of deep importance to one's life who -- like a loved one or close friend or religious leader -- must be protected and defended at all costs.

A year into his administration, Mr. Obama appears either unable or unwilling to exorcise the demons of corporatism, militarism, and crony-capitalism that have long possessed congress and made any real reform, in favor of the public interest, impossible. Whether it is the promised reforms to Washington's corrupt and as usual politics or putting an end to the many reckless and undemocratic Bush era policies, a great many of those on the left who once believed Mr. Obama's exhubrant rheotric, are seething at the lack of change. As Bob Herbert of the New York Times said in his column, "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House."