The polarisation of political views is exercising observers in the US at the moment. There is a flurry of publications from journalists and scientists at present about why democracy is bound to disintegrated under the onslaught of centrifugal forces. The lack of political consensus and the unwillingness of compromise in the House of Representatives in the US are often cited as examples of increased polarisation. And psychologists like Danny Oppenheimer and Mike Edwards (Democracy despite itself, MIT Press 2012) provide empirical material to support the claim of a doomed democratic politics.
While there can be little argument over the rise of the 'fringe or anti-politics' politician, and the popularity of Tea Party Movement in the US, the numbers are not really bearing out a significant flight of the moderates into the extremes of the political spectrum. If anything, the opposite is the case. Wherever important electoral battles are waged, moderates such as Obama win with comparatively large majorities with mainstream political programmes. So what is going on?
In a sense, it is the location of politics that is changing, not the balance between mainstream and the fringe. Politics is increasingly played out in the media at the expense of a wider public domain and the preferences for political confrontation over political consensus in the media are well documented.
Yet, there is another aspect to it. The rise of the politician who holds immoderately questionable views is not just a problem of how politics is portrayed. It is above all an issue of mobilisation.
This is where the gulf between electoral victories of fringe politicians and their relative lack of success in important electoral competitions comes into view. UKIP and the National Front in France struggle to win any important electoral battles but often succeed in local or by-elections. Why?
Mainly, because the broader moderate electorate does not assign much significance to these battles and stays away. They only feel sufficiently motivated to vote as and when important issues are at stake. So, in effect, it is a question of how to mobilise whom and when. This is where political parties increasingly struggle and come under what often looks like the polarisation drag. To campaign for a political party you have to have at least two sorts of resources at your disposal: a lot of time and deeply held views on particular issues. Moderates rarely possess either. Hence they stay away from party politics and are seldom found to stuff letter boxes with campaign literature on a rainy day.
This is often interpreted as political apathy. But I think to do so is a misunderstanding. What leaves political moderates actually disengaged is an acute sense of when and where really important issues are (or aren't) at stake. In a way, moderates trust the political system to bear some extreme weather in the turbulent to and fro of daily politics. They bank on the belief that the inertia of the democratic system wears extreme views thin in the long run. This may be an error but as long as the electoral map still shows not a single member of UKIP in Westminster, I think their calculation is right.
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
Monday, 3 February 2014
The Smell of Reading
I often wondered why I never caught on to the Kindle craze. Electronic books are so convenient, aren't they? You can carry hundreds of them around with you and not feel the weight. You can also skip from one to the other without reaching for another volume.
Displays, the great bane of electronic devices, have also improved over the last years and Kindle and others have managed to simulate paper like qualities and appearance. Yet still, I dislike them with a passion.
The reason of my annoyance with electronic books may be simple however. They don't smell. This may sound odd and slightly OCD but it is something that falls into the category which others describe as 'the experience of reading'. For many, including me, reading is not just about a string of letters and words, it is about an experience that opens up another world and, strangely enough, the odour of book glue and acid coming from the pages are an integral part of it.
German books for example have moved to acid free paper which is a real downer for me. American hardbacks are still a blast in terms of their smell and books from the 1950s and 1960s which have lingered in public libraries for decades (often unread) are the pinnacle of joy. Nothing compares to the blend of collected dust and heavy paper acid!
This may sound very obsessive compulsive but I think part of it can be explained by the fact that reading is actually (in evolutionary terms) a very un-human activity. It requires concentration and cognitive skills applied to a string of horizontal letters which is biologically alien to us. It takes something special to keep us reading, in other words, and that something for me is the accompanying smell of the pages which forms part and parcel of the reading experience. In fact, the odour of a book often becomes part of the story that unfolds on the pages. I think I may even remember John Dos Passos U.S.A. simply by the smell that come from its bend pages of the ancient Penguin edition I have.
I guess as long as there are people like me out there, printed books will have a future.
Displays, the great bane of electronic devices, have also improved over the last years and Kindle and others have managed to simulate paper like qualities and appearance. Yet still, I dislike them with a passion.
The reason of my annoyance with electronic books may be simple however. They don't smell. This may sound odd and slightly OCD but it is something that falls into the category which others describe as 'the experience of reading'. For many, including me, reading is not just about a string of letters and words, it is about an experience that opens up another world and, strangely enough, the odour of book glue and acid coming from the pages are an integral part of it.
 |
| Can you smell the reading? |
German books for example have moved to acid free paper which is a real downer for me. American hardbacks are still a blast in terms of their smell and books from the 1950s and 1960s which have lingered in public libraries for decades (often unread) are the pinnacle of joy. Nothing compares to the blend of collected dust and heavy paper acid!
This may sound very obsessive compulsive but I think part of it can be explained by the fact that reading is actually (in evolutionary terms) a very un-human activity. It requires concentration and cognitive skills applied to a string of horizontal letters which is biologically alien to us. It takes something special to keep us reading, in other words, and that something for me is the accompanying smell of the pages which forms part and parcel of the reading experience. In fact, the odour of a book often becomes part of the story that unfolds on the pages. I think I may even remember John Dos Passos U.S.A. simply by the smell that come from its bend pages of the ancient Penguin edition I have.
I guess as long as there are people like me out there, printed books will have a future.
Philip Seymor Hoffman 1967 - 2014
There are few actors that struck me as genuinely original when I watched a movie and Philip Seymor Hoffman was definitely one of them. I will never forget watching him in the role of personal assistant in The Big Lebowsky. His deference mixed with badly concealed menace and contempt was absolutely stunning. This was my first 'brush' with watching an actor who was absolutely top class and next came his portrayal of the male nurse in Magnolia and the CIA agent in Charlie Wilson's War (alongside Tom Hanks) which displayed his breathtaking versatility.
There were moments of intensity in his acting that came close to those by Al Pacino (in his better roles), yet in addition, Hoffman added an authenticity to his characters that was almost shocking. His acting breathed a depth of performing that was simply unrivalled by most English speaking actors. Whilst others manage to genuinely transform themselves into their characters (think of De Niro), Hoffman didn't just transform himself in his acting, he revealed full scale personalities through it. That's why he was the best choice to play Truman Capote, a role he not only mastered but made come to life for those who watched.
Hoffman must have been one of the few actors I would make a point of going to see in a newly released movie. He will be missed.
 |
| Philip Seymor Hoffman |
There were moments of intensity in his acting that came close to those by Al Pacino (in his better roles), yet in addition, Hoffman added an authenticity to his characters that was almost shocking. His acting breathed a depth of performing that was simply unrivalled by most English speaking actors. Whilst others manage to genuinely transform themselves into their characters (think of De Niro), Hoffman didn't just transform himself in his acting, he revealed full scale personalities through it. That's why he was the best choice to play Truman Capote, a role he not only mastered but made come to life for those who watched.
Hoffman must have been one of the few actors I would make a point of going to see in a newly released movie. He will be missed.
Thursday, 2 January 2014
From Populism to Occupy
Observers of the political landscape are often puzzled by the disappearance of the Occupy Movement from public view. Another mystery however is also its emergence in the first place. What was it that motivated people to camp out in the cold in cities across the world?
If there is a unifying theme across the Occupy Movement then it is probably discontent. But discontent with what? The original thrust was directed against Wall Street, or what Occupy participants dubbed 'greed' amongst bankers. Many have commented that this was more an observation of human frailty than a clear cut analysis of what ailed the economy. So, perhaps the reason why the Occupy Movement fizzled out was that it lacked a coherent understanding of what it wanted to change.
Recently, I have been reading Richard Hofstadter's seminal study on Populism in America, 'The Age of Reform'. When I say Populism I don't refer to populism as an opportunistic appeal to popular support. Rather, Populism between 1890 and 1930 was a significant third party movement in the United States with socialist and agrarian undertones. It led to some electoral surprises in some states but ultimately, its main contender William Jennings Bryan was defeated in the presidential elections of 1896.
What does this have to do with the Occupy Movement? Hofstadter's account is fascinating because it charts the diverse origins of the Populist movement and its highly incoherent ideology. It was a manifestation of protest against the status quo, but never achieved any ideological coherence or consistent electoral strategy. In effect, its diversity of themes was probably one reason for its temporary local success, bringing together discontented farmers as well as more dubious figures of public life with anti-semitic tendencies. Yet, what united them all was a yearning for a glorious past and the railing against an 'out of control' finance system that punished ordinary folk by keeping inflation low (the discussion was mainly around the Gold Standard and so-called Bi-metalism).
There is no doubt that there was serious hardship in the United States at the turn of the century. The longing for a harmonious past however where the finance sector is doing the bidding of the economy and greed as a human trait is morally castigated charts a significant parallel between the Populist doctrine and the Occupy Movement.
The most interesting parallel however is the inconsequentialism of either in the long term. The main reason seems to lie in the fact that neither movement managed to undertake a serious analysis of the capitalist system. The Populist pamphlets of the early 1900s read just like some declarations of the Occupy Movement: like a rag bag of moral invectives and disenchantment. The moral tone of both movements is strikingly different to the hard headed Marxist analysis of the capitalist system. Marx's capitalist contributes to the rise of the working class by ruthless exploitation, hence his actions are justified through fulfilling his destiny in the unfolding history of class war.
For the Occupy Movement, just like for the Populist Movement at the end of the 19th century, what was the core of evil was usury or greed, themes that were often laced with anti-semitic rhetoric. As a movement, Populism and Occupy may never have had great chances of success although it certainly galvanised many people who sympathised with its (fuzzy) aims. As an analysis of the weaknesses of capitalism however, both miserably failed and it's this weakness that contributed to the lack of significant reforms of the financial system. It seems we are all the poorer for it.
If there is a unifying theme across the Occupy Movement then it is probably discontent. But discontent with what? The original thrust was directed against Wall Street, or what Occupy participants dubbed 'greed' amongst bankers. Many have commented that this was more an observation of human frailty than a clear cut analysis of what ailed the economy. So, perhaps the reason why the Occupy Movement fizzled out was that it lacked a coherent understanding of what it wanted to change.
Recently, I have been reading Richard Hofstadter's seminal study on Populism in America, 'The Age of Reform'. When I say Populism I don't refer to populism as an opportunistic appeal to popular support. Rather, Populism between 1890 and 1930 was a significant third party movement in the United States with socialist and agrarian undertones. It led to some electoral surprises in some states but ultimately, its main contender William Jennings Bryan was defeated in the presidential elections of 1896.
What does this have to do with the Occupy Movement? Hofstadter's account is fascinating because it charts the diverse origins of the Populist movement and its highly incoherent ideology. It was a manifestation of protest against the status quo, but never achieved any ideological coherence or consistent electoral strategy. In effect, its diversity of themes was probably one reason for its temporary local success, bringing together discontented farmers as well as more dubious figures of public life with anti-semitic tendencies. Yet, what united them all was a yearning for a glorious past and the railing against an 'out of control' finance system that punished ordinary folk by keeping inflation low (the discussion was mainly around the Gold Standard and so-called Bi-metalism).
There is no doubt that there was serious hardship in the United States at the turn of the century. The longing for a harmonious past however where the finance sector is doing the bidding of the economy and greed as a human trait is morally castigated charts a significant parallel between the Populist doctrine and the Occupy Movement.
The most interesting parallel however is the inconsequentialism of either in the long term. The main reason seems to lie in the fact that neither movement managed to undertake a serious analysis of the capitalist system. The Populist pamphlets of the early 1900s read just like some declarations of the Occupy Movement: like a rag bag of moral invectives and disenchantment. The moral tone of both movements is strikingly different to the hard headed Marxist analysis of the capitalist system. Marx's capitalist contributes to the rise of the working class by ruthless exploitation, hence his actions are justified through fulfilling his destiny in the unfolding history of class war.
For the Occupy Movement, just like for the Populist Movement at the end of the 19th century, what was the core of evil was usury or greed, themes that were often laced with anti-semitic rhetoric. As a movement, Populism and Occupy may never have had great chances of success although it certainly galvanised many people who sympathised with its (fuzzy) aims. As an analysis of the weaknesses of capitalism however, both miserably failed and it's this weakness that contributed to the lack of significant reforms of the financial system. It seems we are all the poorer for it.
Monday, 30 December 2013
Why UKIP will win the European Elections in 2014
The elections to the European parliament couldn't come at a worse time for mainstream political parties. Whilst the Labour Party under Miliband are desperately trying to move the public debate to the 'cost of living', the coalition parties would like to glow about their economic track record as the first green shoots are beginning to spring.
Europe however is the white elephant in the room and neither Labour nor the Conservatives can hope to gain anything from the coming European elections in 2014. The only party that is bound to shine is UKIP, the strongly anti-European party that has consistently made the case about the drawbacks of European integration.
Many pundits predict that UKIP will win most votes and emerge as the strongest party. As Europe is gripped in anti-European rhetoric from left to right, the next European parliament looks going to be an interesting one with anti-European parties making up a substantial minority.
The fascinating aspect of UKIP's rise however is the paradox that fuels its potential electoral success. UKIP's mantra has been that Europe has become the predominant (undemocratic) force in the lives of British people. The reason many Brits will vote for UKIP rests exactly on the opposite calculation. Many British feel that they are free to vote for the 'Kippers' exactly because their vote is so ineffectual. Few people in this country care (and I cannot blame them) who represents them in a Brussel's parliament that resembles more a talking shop than a properly legitimated legislature.
The main reason is that, contrary to life on the continent, Europe is far away from the British way of life, and seen more as a nuisance than a benefit. That's partly because Britain is an island but it is also because it is only partially integrated into the European treaties. Anybody who has gone recently through British immigration when coming off a plane can attest to the strange feeling, that Britain is somehow part but not quite inside the EU. What is missing is the 'lived experience' of Europe as it presents itself on the continent, from missing borders to integrated local services in the heart of Europe.
Paradoxically, that's the source of UKIP's electoral chances. Despite Farage's rhetoric, it is the irrelevance of Europe, its undemocratic institutions and its clownish 'president' Van Rompuy that makes the European Elections in 2014 the perfect target for voters who want to send a signal to all established political parties.
So, I am convinced that UKIP will win the European Elections, just as it will sink without a trace again in the General Elections in 2015.
Europe however is the white elephant in the room and neither Labour nor the Conservatives can hope to gain anything from the coming European elections in 2014. The only party that is bound to shine is UKIP, the strongly anti-European party that has consistently made the case about the drawbacks of European integration.
 |
| In the best of moods - Nigel Farage |
The fascinating aspect of UKIP's rise however is the paradox that fuels its potential electoral success. UKIP's mantra has been that Europe has become the predominant (undemocratic) force in the lives of British people. The reason many Brits will vote for UKIP rests exactly on the opposite calculation. Many British feel that they are free to vote for the 'Kippers' exactly because their vote is so ineffectual. Few people in this country care (and I cannot blame them) who represents them in a Brussel's parliament that resembles more a talking shop than a properly legitimated legislature.
The main reason is that, contrary to life on the continent, Europe is far away from the British way of life, and seen more as a nuisance than a benefit. That's partly because Britain is an island but it is also because it is only partially integrated into the European treaties. Anybody who has gone recently through British immigration when coming off a plane can attest to the strange feeling, that Britain is somehow part but not quite inside the EU. What is missing is the 'lived experience' of Europe as it presents itself on the continent, from missing borders to integrated local services in the heart of Europe.
Paradoxically, that's the source of UKIP's electoral chances. Despite Farage's rhetoric, it is the irrelevance of Europe, its undemocratic institutions and its clownish 'president' Van Rompuy that makes the European Elections in 2014 the perfect target for voters who want to send a signal to all established political parties.
 |
| The dim lights of Europe - Van Rompuy and Ashton |
So, I am convinced that UKIP will win the European Elections, just as it will sink without a trace again in the General Elections in 2015.
Friday, 20 December 2013
From Iraq to Syria and Woolwich
When the first tanks rolled into Iraq during the last military adventure of the Bush family, there was talk about a new coalition between those who favoured military intervention for political reasons, and those who did so for humanitarian reasons. A new creed seemed to be born, based on a supposed obligation of Western governments to protect and safeguard civilian populations from evil dictators or irresponsible governments.
This new doctrine was always shot through with loopholes and exemptions however for those states that happened to be allies of the West. Saudi Arabia could merrily continue to disenfranchise half its population without fearing Western bombers. North Korea had bought itself an insurance policy through nuclear armament. So in the end, Western governments intervened where political expediency and moral indignation converged.
There was little principled thinking in this doctrine and eventually, as the Syrian civil war broke out, hypocrisy reached extraordinary heights when Obama and Cameron prepared for military strikes against the Syrian government.
How ever you look at it, the doctrine lacked consistency and its shoddy application in practice roused the suspicion that it was just another tool to justify Western intervention wherever it pleased. Seumas Milne wrote in The Guardian today that the inability to draw an association between Western military intervention in the Middle East and the repercussions in the Muslim communities in Britain is at best naive.
What is needed now is a serious re-appraisal of this doctrine and the re-application of principled policy making in foreign policy. Western governments do have obligations. Yet taking sides in a civil war is not one of them. This is where Robin Cook, long time ago, started the reform of British foreign policy and we have to pick up where he left it.
This new doctrine was always shot through with loopholes and exemptions however for those states that happened to be allies of the West. Saudi Arabia could merrily continue to disenfranchise half its population without fearing Western bombers. North Korea had bought itself an insurance policy through nuclear armament. So in the end, Western governments intervened where political expediency and moral indignation converged.
There was little principled thinking in this doctrine and eventually, as the Syrian civil war broke out, hypocrisy reached extraordinary heights when Obama and Cameron prepared for military strikes against the Syrian government.
How ever you look at it, the doctrine lacked consistency and its shoddy application in practice roused the suspicion that it was just another tool to justify Western intervention wherever it pleased. Seumas Milne wrote in The Guardian today that the inability to draw an association between Western military intervention in the Middle East and the repercussions in the Muslim communities in Britain is at best naive.
What is needed now is a serious re-appraisal of this doctrine and the re-application of principled policy making in foreign policy. Western governments do have obligations. Yet taking sides in a civil war is not one of them. This is where Robin Cook, long time ago, started the reform of British foreign policy and we have to pick up where he left it.
Thursday, 19 December 2013
Under the shadow of Iraq
As the barristers in the trial of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale prepare for sentencing, the full story behind this gruesome killing is still emerging. There can be no doubt that this is a case that will shock all decent people living in Britain. My main reaction however is one of confusion, confusion mainly about how two people could have concluded that murdering an innocent person would bring justice to those killed in Iraq.
The guilt of both defendants was never in doubt, yet what is less clear is how we should deal with people who have become fanatic followers of a religion. In a way, religious fanaticism has been with us for centuries, and blinding, at times murderous, loyalty to Christianity, Judaism or Islam has continuously challenged our belief in humanity. Yet, it seems to me that this is not just a question of religion.
There remains the nagging thought in the back of my head that the radicalisation of Adebolajo may not have happened without the disastrous adventure of Iraq which cost hundreds of thousands of lives. And it is not just that. When the Iraq war devastated lives, many didn't act and felt powerless. In a sense, Adebolajo was determined not to remain powerless, but ultimately only became a pawn in a larger game.
During the trial and in his police interviews, Adebowale instinctively put his finger on the nub of the problem when he tried to claim for himself the status of a combatant, a fighter for justice. If you wear a uniform and follow the misguided orders of deluded politicians, you are a hero. If you do not wear a uniform, any retaliation for the suffering we have caused in other countries is murder, plain and simple. As long as the balance of recognition for a just cause is so heavily weighted in favour of 'legitimate force', some may try to take justice into their own hands whilst creating only more sorrow and pain.
The guilt of both defendants was never in doubt, yet what is less clear is how we should deal with people who have become fanatic followers of a religion. In a way, religious fanaticism has been with us for centuries, and blinding, at times murderous, loyalty to Christianity, Judaism or Islam has continuously challenged our belief in humanity. Yet, it seems to me that this is not just a question of religion.
There remains the nagging thought in the back of my head that the radicalisation of Adebolajo may not have happened without the disastrous adventure of Iraq which cost hundreds of thousands of lives. And it is not just that. When the Iraq war devastated lives, many didn't act and felt powerless. In a sense, Adebolajo was determined not to remain powerless, but ultimately only became a pawn in a larger game.
During the trial and in his police interviews, Adebowale instinctively put his finger on the nub of the problem when he tried to claim for himself the status of a combatant, a fighter for justice. If you wear a uniform and follow the misguided orders of deluded politicians, you are a hero. If you do not wear a uniform, any retaliation for the suffering we have caused in other countries is murder, plain and simple. As long as the balance of recognition for a just cause is so heavily weighted in favour of 'legitimate force', some may try to take justice into their own hands whilst creating only more sorrow and pain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)