First a word from Penny Red:

I rarely talk about American politics on this blog, and even less so since the hype has ramped up over the November election. Part of this has been because I believe that voyeuristic obsession over a political event with which British voters are relatively uninvolved exacerbates British political apathy.

Eloquently put, as ever. But also a policy which (as is most likely clear to our regular readers) which this blog has never followed. The reason is that although the democratic structures in place remain rigidly national, the economic and diplomatic ones are far less adherent to such localistic restrictions. Hence we became fantastically wealthy off of the internet bubble (with the internationalist elements blatantly obvious here: observe companies such as Amazon simply colonising with a .co.uk url) and then slumped once it burst, we became bloated courtesy of property markets and then were dashed against the rocks of Sub Prime (I was one of the few British victims, primarily the practice of mortgage selling is an American one).

Jonathan Freedland outlines this argument after joining Anatole Kaletsky in being an American writer who has become targeted by American right-wingers after writing an article that attracted their ire. The results were tiresomely predictable to any accustomed to their ilk:

I love it! A pansy-ass limey Brit begs the US to do his bidding while his own country slips further towards total Islamic rule.

As ever the American Right’s line on Europe can be summed up in a word: “Muslims”. As far as they are concerned Europe is socialist, thus needs a young workforce and as the only workforce available is the dreaded Muslims they are doomed to be taken over completely. So far as can be determined this is all the view they have of the Europeans, since their eschatological view of the outcome of immigration allows all other facts to slide into insignificance.

Unfortunately there seem to be an awfully large number of these cretins, with most of them being vocal to a disturbing degree. For the most part they congregate on The Times’ website (which seems to host an extraordinary amount of Americans) but that they found their way onto the Guardian’s comment section and into Freedland’s inbox fails to surprise me.

His response to the shout-down is also entirely correct: you can not establish yourself as a world power and expect none to be concerned about your leadership. If you begin intervening with the affairs of other nations they have a considerable stake in your government, as it is exerting an influence upon them regardless of whether or not they have an opportunity to hold it accountable.

But this also leads to a rather grim consideration: in many ways the American election matters significantly more to Britain than does the British one. Consider: the next prime minister will either be atlanticist interventionist Gordon Brown, atlanticist interventionist David Cameron or perhaps avowed atlanticist interventionist David Miliband. Now does it truly matter more which shade of poodle will trot along obediently with the American line, or is the dichotomy between McCain or Obama more important?

With regards to Iran, the difference between the potential Prime Ministers is minimal. Americans get a real choice and the American President is who matters when it comes to British foreign policy. Just one reason amongst many that the run-up to the presidential election is worth watching.

The text of Obama’s Berlin speech can be found here. Video:

A recent quote from a member of cabinet struck me as particularly enraging:

British businesses, and ultimately the British people, would not forgive us if we shirked our responsibility to do what’s right because we wanted an easy ride from green lobby groups.

At the time I was unaware of the identity of the man, but should probably have guessed. It was none other than John Hutton, the arch-Blairite who earlier this year made a speech concerning the rich that set my teeth grinding. Like a true Tory he declared that:

Rather than questioning whether huge salaries are morally justified, we should celebrate the fact that people can be enormously successful in this country… Rather than placing a cap on that success, we should be questioning why it is not available to more people

Because, of course, the cause could not possibly be that if there is a finite amount of money a few people hoarding enough for entire cities to live lifetimes off the consequence is horrifying inequity. How foolish of anyone to suggest as much. And if a couple of connected city boys can make a killing then that’s worth a party.

His latest piece of nonsense is just as repugnant and left me struggling to comprehend the idiocy in much the same way: the green lobby groups he cites are interested in averting the end of mankind as a viable species on a planetary level. In terms of “Responsibility to do what’s right” you would struggle to do much better. He continues, however:

we will continue to show leadership and commitment in advancing the sustainable aviation agenda. We will help make flying greener rather than restricting people’s opportunities to fly altogether.

which is nothing short of baffling. I should clarify: at present the only approach to flying which can make things “greener” is for it to happen less. The damage inflicted upon the environment by releasing vast quantities of CO2 directly into the skies is massive and unless there are less planes doing as much we will continue to have a problem. If Hutton wishes to see less damage inflicted through producing alternative measures then he should announce policies funding the massive costs which any such development would entail. As far as I can tell all that he has done is announce an airport will be expanded.

Furthermore this is clearly not a matter of “restricting” anything. The argument is not over whether or not existing runways should be closed down, it is over whether a new runway should be opened. Therefore Hutton is arguing in entirely the wrong direction: he is not arguing against restriction but in favour of expansion. The two are obviously distinct but with this underhand sophistry he pretends to be acting against forces demanding regression, while in fact making the case for a destructive development.

The reality of the matter is that the effects of the expansion upon both the local and global environment would clearly be disastrous. By focusing upon the fact that there are groups which will give the government a hard time over policies which will inflict such damage rather than the perfectly legitimate arguments which they make Hutton performs a neat but dishonest sidestep. This is, of course, a totally short term approach to the economy: in a globalised economy the impact of large tracts of the planet vanishing beneath the sea and vast areas becoming uninhabitable owing to heat would ineluctably impact Britain. Unpleasant though it undoubtedly is emissions of carbon dioxide must be reduced, both here and everywhere.

If India and China produced as much of the stuff per head as Britain does the planet would be rapidly rendered uninhabitable, and if we do not reduce emissions then what grounds will we have for expecting them to restrain themselves? Hutton, however, does not feel that we should establish ourselves as the example which we could easily become. He is of the view that the British economy here and now, or perhaps for the next few years, is all that matters and that what occurs in a few decades is not a concern. Just as well, given that the consequences of environmental disregard will be economic disintegration.

And this is with restraining myself from even mentioning the narrow-minded callousness of focusing solely upon the “British economy” and disregarding the truly vast amount of suffering caused to vulnerable areas of the planet (Bangladesh, the warmest parts of Africa, need I continue?) by climate change.

What with his calling Labour the “Natural party of business” and vigorous defence of the 10p tax rate debarcle is there any option but to consider this foul man the epitome of all that’s wrong with the New Labour project?

Quite why am I reading Robespierre? Specifically, his Justification of the Use of Terror. It’s terrifying (hah…):

It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized subjects; he is right, as a despot. Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty’s despotism against tyranny. Is force made only to protect crime? And is the thunderbolt not destined to strike the heads of the proud?

Emphasis mine. The doublethink inherent here boggles the mind. State-terror is justified should it be directed at enemies of liberty, he cries. That this terror requires a basic negation of liberalism appears beyond him. If some people are legitimate target of oppression, and others are not, then clearly freedom from that oppression cannot be a universal value. If that freedom isn’t a universal value, then we clearly aren’t born equal or free - and so on. Robespierre’s words are those of a tyrant.

They represent an extreme perversion; the enabling state gone bad. He posits that we must rid ourselves of tyrants to be free. True enough. But here he falters, with crashing rhetoric demanding an outright tyranny against tyrants. That requires a universal negation of liberty - and a restoration of tyranny. The enabling state exists to make basic freedoms viable for all. When, in order to create liberty, those basic freedoms are cut off - very literally, in Robespierre’s case - that concept ceases to make sense.

Now, let’s put this arcane rambling into a modern context. Quoth Robespierre:

Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people’s mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonour the people’s cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?

Emphasis mine. The same principles abound as before; some are permissible targets for Terror, and so liberty isn’t a universal value. We can kill some of you to make the rest free, and you’d better appreciate it or you’ll be next.

And guess where that logic crops up today? Substitute, “terrorism,” or, “anti-social behaviour,” for, “counterrevolution,” and it becomes clear. The same clear logic of the, “Justification of the Use of Terror,” runs through virtually all modern counter-terrorist thought.

Even the rhetoric matches, give or take the linguistic drift of 214 years and translation. Take that last question - on whether the servants of tyrants are as guilty as those tyrants. Doesn’t that sound just like Bush’s axiom that, “if you feed a terrorist, or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist?” It’s exactly the same principle; if you’ve any connection with terrorism/counter-revolution, you are a terrorist or counter-revolutionary.

Thus, Melanie Phillip’s, “terrorist nation.”  A wall around the West Bank because Hamas exists there, regardless of the blameless children who also happen to exist there. Because, in this system, they’re not blameless.

And it goes beyond that. The enabling state and the values of positive liberty again become perverted. The 42 Days detention farce serves as the perfect example. Labour claims it protects the basic freedoms of life and liberty by introducing the measures; but effectively jeopardises those basic freedoms by allowing the police to grab a citizen off the street and hide them away for 6 weeks without telling them why. In a perverse twist of illogic whereby liberty becomes tyranny for liberty’s sake, liberty loses. And so do we.

It’s absurd to equate Revolutionary Terror with the present situation. But it’s the same thought that underlies both; freedom must be restricted for its own sake. It’s a perverse step which attacks the real purpose of the Enabling State. Certain intervention can make greater liberty available to all - but not when that liberty is undermined at a basic level. Modern politicians would do well to learn that, or face the consequences of their own petty tyranny.

Brown suggests we waste less food and money. Eminently sensible, if a rather obvious point. So, presumably, he’ll be the first to tighten the belt? It’d be totally hypocritical to go on a long, entirely unnecessary trip to Japan (via Russia) to conduct a meeting which rarely achieves much beyond irritating a few anarchists. And, of course, while under protection from those anarchists by 21,000 police, he wouldn’t dine luxuriously on a menu like this.

Oh. Wait. Perhaps he will.

Hello to all from Chennai, Hyderabad, Bhubaneswar, Mumbai, Mahape, Iwade, Kaizuka, Osaka, Higashiosaka, Sakai, Izumisano, Naniwa & Yuasa. We hope you enjoyed the blog.

Also: hello to our lone reader in St. Helier.

The BBC carried some alarming statistics today:

More bloggers than ever face arrest for exposing human rights abuses or criticising governments, says a report.

Since 2003, 64 people have been arrested for publishing their views on a blog, says the University of Washington annual report.

In 2007 three times as many people were arrested for blogging about political issues than in 2006, it revealed.

The worst offenders include China, Egypt and Iran - so little surprise there. What’s less expected is that police in Britain, France, Canada and the US. And arrests look to increase this year in the wake of elections around the world and the Beijing Olympics.

So, a thoroughly depressing read by the sounds of it. The WIA reckon that the increased arrests reflect a growth in the blogosphere. Usually growth would be encouraging, especially in areas challenged by repressive governments where the subversive power of blog should be at its best. But when that subversiveness is crushed at the point of entry, its effect must inevitably be limited…

Can anything be done? Certain nations’ laws are effectively beyond assault from bloggers - if China manages to ignore its people so easily, it’ll hardly have a problem ignoring us. About the most that can be done is making sure any content that does escape makes its way to foreign websites and news-agencies which can’t be shut down with a few arrests. At least someone might take note then.

In the UK, though? Some bloggers surely run into trouble simply through misunderstanding our tortuous libel laws, or making another stupid mistake. And unlike journalists, most of them don’t have a union to step in when they do get into trouble. The obvious solution is to set up a body able to provide some basic protection to bloggers. A website with a clear outline of libel laws in simple (hah…) language would help; so to would a contributory defence fund in case anyone did get into trouble. Bloggers would be welcome to pay in as much or little as they could afford - and would receive the groups’ support in the future should they need it. So - not quite a bloggers’ union, but approaching that.

But, enough talking. I should check whether one exists already, or whether there’s a reason why I haven’t spotted any before. Otherwise…

Miliband seems to think it is worthwhile ratifying the Lisbon treaty despite it having been vetoed by Ireland.  Why?

1. The EU bigwigs have demanded 26 ratifications.
If everyone else signs up, it is easier to see the Ireland vote as a hiccough rather than a final breath.  They will likely ignore the fact that 100% of the countries given the chance to decide to sign up decided to reject it.

2. It keeps the Tories in a sticky spot.
Cameron clearly opposed the Treaty, and gambled that the country would reject it in a referendum.  He was denied the opportunity by the Labour and LibDem promise-breaking, so Ireland’s decision seemed like a gift.  Labour hope to milk this for what it’s worth, though.  Cameron avoided ripping his party up over Europe again, but he will soon find that sweeping difficult issues under the carpet is no alternative for tackling rebels.  The damage this does Labour is nothing to the damage it does the Tories - at least Labour have an (almost) consistent policy on Europe, referenda aside.

What should Miliband do?  If he won’t do as I suggested earlier, he should at least accept that the decision to break his referendum promise was wrong.

One of the main beneficiaries of the EU over the last few decades has, it seems, rejected the Lisbon Treaty.  The only country given the chance to vote on the rehash constitution (after France and the Netherlands blew the original out of the water) has sent a fairly clear message.  Three of the most typically pro-European countries in the Union have rejected the bureaucracy’s advances.  The message must be learned.

1. Europeans citizens do not want a mega-country.
The economic and political benefits of a union of European nations are undeniable.  We have to co-operate as a continent, and a union body is the best possible way to achieve it.  But most people in Europe rather like being national citizens, not international ones.  They like national elections, not international ones.  They like the closeness and accountability of national decision-making, not the faceless international superbody of the EU.  The Constitution, Lisbon Treaty, or whatever you want to call it was an attempt to formalise this continuing development into a superstate and those countries which would most benefit have rejected it.

2. The EU is governed by the bureaucracy, not politicians.
The EU is constructed to channel power to the bureaucracy, not not the pseudo-politicians elected to the Parliament.  The recent Tory MEP expenses farce demonstrates how MEPs are encouraged to exploit the system to their advantage while sitting back from decision-making.  Little legislation is crafted in the European Parliament, but is rather dreamed up by the bureaucrats and waved through with little consideration in the Parliament.  There is next to no accountability for MEPs, with party lists promoting those who would not otherwise be elected and no public knowledge of what MEPs are doing with their time in the Parliament.  It is telling that the media do not cover debates or votes in Europe, and we know nothing of our MEPs - if their work is unimportant, it should stop, and if it is important, it should be made far more accountable than it currently is.  The Constitution was pushed by the bureaucracy, not the politicians, and the dirty tricks employed to replace it with the Lisbon Treaty were the work of deceptive cynics with no belief in accountable politics whatsoever.

3. If this is how the bureaucracy works, we should resist its advances.
The EU is designed to make nations insignificant.  It functions as if it knows best, but lacks the courage to test its convictions in the minds of the people of Europe.  We should resist the whole EU mentality.  We should seek a European Union which promotes economic and political co-operation in a way similar to the UN, which stops far short of trying to dominate nations.  We should defend national self-determination, not allow nations to be subsumed by the giant machine of Brussels.  We ought to reform the EU into a United Nations of Europe, functioning on very different lines to those it currently does.  In short, the failings of the EU should prompt a desire to reform it, not to walk further in - we will only encourage them.

The EU has no respect for nations - indeed tries to promote itself as one.  The longer we take to seek reform, the harder it will become.  There need not be any showdown or hostility, just a new focus in halting the EU’s growth while we reassess its direction.  I hope that Ireland’s rejection of the Constitution / Lisbon Treaty gives the opportunity for this to take place.

This is, at first sight, and then throughout, an article of clichés.

It fails to surprise me that Peter Hitchens {a man not to be confused with his better known and far more intelligent but equally controversial brother under any circumstances} recently wrote a piece on Chavez that consisted of the crude hack-job which has proven ubiquitous on the right. His wielding of the machete is more elegant than most but still presents moments of jaw-dropping idiocy, for instance:

Revenge is already being prepared. Chavez is now demanding that the universities drop their entrance examinations so that he can pack them with young half-educated supporters who can elbow aside Geraldine and her liberty-loving friends.

he alleges, as if there is no other reason at all for such a policy being brought into place in a developing country. He does have some valid points, chiefly the worrying treatment of anti-Chavez protesters by the police. But to connect these instantly with the man himself seems unwise given that in our own nation there was an innocent man gunned down for boarding an underground train. By raising this I intend not to indicate that there are no grounds for Hitchens raising the point but rather that overly brutal policing is seemingly ubiquitous through the world {as also demonstrated by the tendency of American police to use pepper spray upon peaceful protesters until this was outlawed by court} rather than something which is a feature of any “autocracy”.

Indeed the liberal usage of the word “autocratic” is another hackneyed feature of his criticism. As ever though, evidence is thin on the ground. Hitchens, like all in his position, attempts to raise the removal of a programme highly critical of Chavez from terrestrial airwaves. Given the support that the aforesaid channel gave a violent coup staged by militant rightist forces to depose Chavez and then no coverage to the simply immense protests in the wake and in absolute action to this move I should perhaps make another comparison to Britain, this one a conjecture of fantasy. If Channel 4 had, as I personally suspect it might, given full and vocal support to a Marxist coup against Gordon Brown and then had pretended that no dissent in the country over the issue had occurred would Hitchens really imagine Brown to be acting out of bounds if he forced it to function solely as a satellite, cable and digital channel from then onwards?

Indeed, if anything it is remarkable that the network was permitted to remain on publically accessible airwaves from 2002 until over half a decade later.

Unfortunately the unoriginality is seemingly fathomless, entirely in disregard of the faded nature of over-used cards never worth much to start with. He accuses Chavez of

Plotting what was effectively a coup on the constitution

yet if it truly was one Chavez surely has learnt from past experience {both while he was planning them and when victim}. This time around rather than making a military effort to seize control he staged a referendum. Truly dastardly, isn’t it? Now if Hitchens considers the Venezuelan people to be inadequate judges of the conditions their nation faces then he should say so, but as it is he has used a highly intellectually dishonest tactic by associated the forced seizure of power to an attempt by a democratically elected president to obtain a democratic mandate upon the conditions under which Venezuela would function as a democracy.

There is an argument against this, one which does not rely upon distortion and spin. Instead Peter writes in a fashion that he is aware his American audience will respond to with a vigorous knee-jerk {despite the fact that it is highly likely a substantial number of the readers supported Bush’s attempts to amend the American one over gay marriage in what would have amounted to a far less democratic manner, had he had the 2/3s of both houses of Congress required}. What makes his failure especially galling is that in the country he tends to operate there is no written constitution at all. If he truly considers a constitution to be worthwhile and worth adhering to rigidly and making no efforts to amend I consider it peculiar that I have no recollection of him writing an article advocating we create a written document outlining the rights inalienable to us as Queen’s subjects.

Indeed the powers of Parliament are entirely unrestrained owing to the potency of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which states that no government in power may make laws incapable of being over-ridden by those that follow. Given that the executive has a vigorous grasp over self-interest {the quantity of MPs willing to oppose important bills that will lose them their current jobs in government or/and deny them any chance at future positions is not negligible but generally insubstantial} and the First Past the Post electoral system tends to ensure that there are no minority governments in parliament we are effectively left with an executive capable of doing as it pleases, with Blair only prevented from exerting his will over the country once in his ten year tenure. By no means does this mean that Hitchens’ definition of autocracy is rationally bankrupt, but I would suggest that he start raging about the shoddy state of our means of government a little more at home given how abhorrent he appears to find democratic governments having excessive power abroad.

Presumably Peter Hitchens’ concern for the liberty of the Venezuelan people and longing to protect them from themselves is greater than for his own countryman.

His intellectually insubstantial rant is in places unintentionally hilarious:

If there were any justice, Chavez would long ago have been forced from office by bankruptcy. His economic management is wasteful and sloppy and involves a great deal of expensive largesse to the poor in return for their votes,

In my piece on Pragmatic Socialism I suggested that the simple fact that it works justifies its usage where perhaps some more intellectual considerations of it do not. I think that upon some levels Hitchens accepts that Venezuela has made great progress but unfortunately he has shied away from this. He rails that it is unjust for somebody who performs the largesse of offering the basic facilities such as a solid education and healthcare along with less than extreme redistribution of wealth remain in office. This is perhaps acceptable on some ideological levels but the reality of the matter is that Chavez remains immensely and nearly overwhelmingly popular amongst the impoverished masses that make up the vast majority of Venezuela.

This is for the simple reason that he, for the first time, was a man pursuing their interests. He, for the first time, helped.

Of course, this should come with a cost. According to the doctrine of the New Right the state’s intervention into the private sector’s affairs ought to cause calamity. There is no way that it is conceivable that statist policies could improve the economic situation of a nation and even by the inadequate basis of GDP per capita {which, of course, fails to asses how much each person is worth and assumes that everyone is of equal value and thus deserves and equal amount of cash} it will bring more woe overall as the state strangles business and this throttling results in the economy falling to pieces.

Alas, for Hitchens at least, “the proportion of Venezuela’s GDP in the private sector has actually increased.”

Compounding his error Hitchens references the state of Venezuela’s

And here is the usual trite contrast, long common in the Third World and rapidly spreading to the First World—gross wealth on display next to rancid squalor. Yes, there really are hovels a few hundred feet from a freeway crammed with new SUV’s. How obvious. How stupid.

In the aforelinked article by Johann Hari it is exposed exactly how foolish this point being raised is. In South America it would be a struggle to find a government that has done more to bridge this gap than that of Chavez. The damage done by this dichotomy of wealthy and poor has been reduced considerably and how exactly the lazy claim of Chavez being “The Next Fidel” {which, to Hitchen’s defence, was a headline and thus he may well not have written} is reconciled with his claims here is beyond me. For any earnest socialist intending to “Revive socialist Marxism” would not have done so in the fashion chosen by Chavez. Firstly they would have began by executing the wealthy once they seized power, or at least enslaving them, and secondly they would certainly have seized power rather than it being politely given them by the people of Venezuela acting in a democratic fashion through what Marx considered “A committee for the organisation of the bourgeoisie”. Reformist Marxists moved away from such talk while Revolutionary Marxists most certainly did not.

Which rather brings us to our next point:

Many believe he wanted to ignore the result—he is widely accused of constant, highly scientific ballot-rigging of the kind that is very hard to prove—and was only dissuaded from doing so by a phone call from his friend Fidel Castro.

The emphasise for “Many believe” was my addition, for this form of statement permeates Hitchens’ essay. In Wikipedian terms this pattern of writing is referred to as “Weasel Words” and I consider Hitchens to be a man who would do well writing a few articles for Wikinews and seeing how they were received. Effectively he uses this phrase and its variants to avoid explaining exactly who he is talking about.

Furthermore his allegations concerning vote-rigging fall foul of what his brother Christopher considers amongst “The elementary rules of logic”, to wit: “that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” I am tempted to invoke this, but would also point out that the testament of various independent election observers {every one that has observed, in fact} combined with the fact that when it came to the referendum Chavez lost suggest against such a claim.

If he is intelligent enough to make things “Very hard to prove” he surely should be capable of making sure it works.

Venezuela ought to be an advanced and free country under the rule of law. It has plenty of educated, articulate people. It has wealth. It has most of the constituents of a serious civil society, including strong public opinion.

To conclude Hitchens is educated and articulate. He has wealth. He observes the problems facing Venezuela to which there are no short-cut solutions. But in his failure to realise that Chavez could not have established himself without the popular approval and repeated mandates given to him by the vast majority of Venezuelans he also fails to make any proper assessment of the man. Constantly seeking out negatives and seeking a totalitarian iron fist where none exists he transforms the narrative of a man offering the poor a slice of the national wealth that no other would give to them into one of a vicious autocrat scheming his way into office.

Doubtless this article was highly pleasing to its readers, who wanted their suspicions of a leftist loved by his people and doing much to help them besmirched as thoroughly as possible in order to avoid their preconceptions being challenged. I have little suspicion that it failed at this but these predictable, tiresome smears do nothing to tarnish the true success of Chavez.