One surprising outcome of the credit crunch that began in 2008 was the resurfacing of the ideas of Karl Marx. Many commentators, from all sides of the political spectrum, turned to Marx as they attempted to grapple with the complexities of the causes of this extraordinary event. Some even went so far as to say that liberal capitalism as we know it in the West was dead, or at best, irrevocably changed.
What was interesting about this debate is the lack of impact. Though Marx may have resurfaced as a critique of capitalism, the Left almost universally failed to provide a constructive, unified alternative to the system. Even at the most populist level despite the almost universal condemnation of those who work in the banking sector, many are still receiving huge bonuses. Though state intervention has been considerable in Britain and the USA, and has arguably contributed to the survival of their economies, the current political debate in the UK is centred on who will cut public services the most in the coming decade, not who will provide for the poor or tackle the inequalities that deregulated, free markets have produced. Even in America where President Obama has sought to expand healthcare to include the 40 million or so who do not have access to adequate medical treatment, he has been branded as a socialist for proposing a shared state/private business partnership. Capitalism has prevailed. How did the Left fail to take advantage of this moment?
Thursday 19 November 2009
Thursday 30 July 2009
Monday 1 June 2009
Obama's values...
In his first full interview with the BBC, Barack Obama has said that the US cannot impose its values on other countries. Some Republican critics have immediately accused Obama of apologising (once again) for the actions of the Bush Administration. This Obama flatly rejected. But they are missing the point. If anything, Obama reinforced America's belief in its own exceptionalism as the basis of its foreign policy, saying that the rule of law, democracy and freedoms of speech and religion were "universal values".
"These are values that are important, even when it's hard," he said.
Obama might have conceded that "The danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture," but his message was nuanced. When asked whether he would encourage other countries to adopt such values, Obama replied "absolutely we'll be encouraging". The question is, in what way? One would hope through soft power, and not the hard edge of the Bush Doctrine. Only time will tell, but the belief in exceptionalism remains...
Check out the full interview at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/8078217.stm
"These are values that are important, even when it's hard," he said.
Obama might have conceded that "The danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture," but his message was nuanced. When asked whether he would encourage other countries to adopt such values, Obama replied "absolutely we'll be encouraging". The question is, in what way? One would hope through soft power, and not the hard edge of the Bush Doctrine. Only time will tell, but the belief in exceptionalism remains...
Check out the full interview at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/8078217.stm
One man's terrorist...
The murder of the late abortion doctor George Tiller in the USA touches on a thorny question many of my students have grappled with - was the man who killed him a murderer or a terrorist? Dr Tiller's clinic had previously been bombed and an assassination attempt had already been made on his life. Do we brand those who carried out these acts as terrorists, particularly if they were religious extremists? They would argue they were preventing the deaths of hundreds of babies. There are no easy answers, which is, perhaps, why even the UN still struggles to agree on a clear definition of a terrorist.
Thursday 30 April 2009
Get real - Obama is not a socialist
To those critics of Obama who claim he is, the president is NOT a socialist. He, like all presidents before him, has been entrusted with the continuation and survival of American capitalism. Franklin Roosevelt faced similar accusations from his political opponents on the Right. Lyndon Johnson was so concerned that his Great Society would be branded socialist that he was prepared to escalate the war in Vietnam to prove he was tough on communism. So Obama wants to extend health care to over 40 million Americans who have no, or limited, access to medical treatment. Socialist or living up to the notion that all Americans should enjoy "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? So the state has bought into major companies and financial institutions. Would you rather they went under? Or would you like the system that was clearly not working to carry on? Would you prefer Chinese style capitalism - that comes without the added benefit of liberal democracy? These are extraordinary economic times that require state action - to keep your fingers crossed in the hope that the market will sort itself out is ridiculous. It did not work in the early 1930s and it would not work now. But that does not make Obama a socialist.
Rebooting the Presidency
One thing that has become apparent in the first 100 days of the Obama presidency is how little we had come to expect from the presidency. Bush had lowered the bar so low. Many Americans said about Bush - when he was popular - that they felt he was like them, that he was the kind of guy you would want to have a drink with (somewhat ironic given that he was a reformed alcoholic). He was not an intellectual - and many Americans liked that. In a sense he reminded them of Reagan - he had a clear vision of the World that could be edited down to one side of A4. Obama is the opposite. You might go to a basketball game with him, but you wouldn't go bowling. He has rebooted the notion of the presidency as being an office that deserves, and certainly requires, intellect - and that it commands a degree of respect. It is not an easy task, but he has an opportunity to restore greatness to the office, harnessing the responsibilties that go with that to improve the lives of all Americans and to maintain progress in the great adventure we call America.
Wednesday 25 March 2009
New Hampshire and the death penalty
New Hampshire House voted today to abolish the death penalty. After New Mexico last week this might be the beginning of a trend as a number of states consider similar legislation - the majority on the basis of cost rather than any deep seated sense of morality. Still, it is progress.
The Death Penalty in 2008
Check out my latest paper on the death paper at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/past/25/2009
Friday 20 March 2009
New Mexico abolishes the death penalty
Just as abolitionists were worrying that 2009 would be a bad year with the number of executions already passing 20, New Mexico yesterday abolished the death penalty. With Maryland likely to follow, perhaps a corner is beginning to be turned. I have advocated for a couple of years now that the moral argument, however much justified, will never win, and that economics is the key - it costs far more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. As America slips deeper into recession, the abolitionists must seize the moment. In the end Americans vote, like most, with their pocket books. Their approach to the death penalty may be no different.
Thursday 19 March 2009
The Death Penalty in the USA
Often in the wake of a brutal murder in the UK, usually of a child, demands are made for the return of the death penalty. Though the horror of such heinous crimes can never be underestimated, and the demand for the ultimate retribution is fully understandable, the release of Sean Hodgson after 27 years highlights the dangers of capital punishment.
If the death penalty were returned to the UK, the risk of wrongful execution would be a real. This is graphically demonstrated in the USA, where, since the restoration of the death penalty in 1976, 130 wrongfully charged prisoners on death row have been released. An exoneration rate that now averages five a year.
Such is the unease surrounding wrongful conviction that a number of states have introduced moratoriums or, in the case of New Mexico today or New Jersey in 2007, abolished the death penalty altogether. There are now 35 states that have the death penalty on their statute books, but in reality only a handful (nine in 2008) actually use this ultimate punishment. These states are almost all in the South where the belief in justice that centres on an eye for an eye remains strong.
However, advances in DNA evidence, the arbitrary use of the death penalty, the common lack of good representation of death penalty defendants and the racial bias of its use (African Americans are … time s more likely than a white to be sentenced to death if hey commit murder than a white), have lead to jurors and prosecutors being more apprehensive about sentencing prisoners to death.
In the last ten years, the number of death sentences being given has dropped by 60% and there has also been a steady fall in the number of executions from 96 in 1998 to 37 in 2008.
This trend may continue in the future due to two factors. One is public opinion. In the 1980s and 1990s, 75% of Americans consistently favoured the use of the death penalty in opinion polls carried out by Gallup. By October 2008, however, growing public uncertainty saw support for the use of the death penalty fall to 64%, with 30% opposing. More dramatically, when Americans were asked if they favoured life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, 48% preferred this to the death penalty, suggesting that if the public are given a workable alternative, they will consider it.
The second factor is cost. Evidence suggests that as a result of these spiralling costs, some states are executing fewer inmates, particularly where they have tight state budgets. The Los Angeles Times estimates that the death penalty costs California $114 million per year more than the cost of keeping similar inmates in prison for life. In 2007, Georgia delayed the trial of Brian Nichols, who, during his trail for rape, shot the judge and two others in court in front of a large number of witnesses. The state could not afford to pay his defence lawyers. The Democratic Governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, believes that if his state replaced the death penalty with life without parole, the money saved could pay for 500 additional police officers or provide drug treatment for 10,000 addicts. Argues O’Malley, “Unlike the death penalty, these are investments that save lives and prevent violent crimes.’ Maryland, along with Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and New Hampshire are now considering abolition on the grounds of cost. When combined with life without the possibility of parole, the case is becoming more persuasive, particularly as the financial pressures of the economic downturn increase.
Ultimately, America remains unusual in the western world in its use of the death penalty. In December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly voted 104-54 in favour of a non-binding resolution for a global moratorium on executions. The resolution, co-sponsored by the EU and 60 other countries, called on countries to: progressively restrict the use of the death penalty, reduce the number of offences for which it can be imposed, and establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty. The United States opposed the resolution, voting against its European allies, and siding with Iran, China and Syria. Would Britain really want to be a member of that club? The evidence from America, and the release of Mr Hodgson would strongly suggest not.
If the death penalty were returned to the UK, the risk of wrongful execution would be a real. This is graphically demonstrated in the USA, where, since the restoration of the death penalty in 1976, 130 wrongfully charged prisoners on death row have been released. An exoneration rate that now averages five a year.
Such is the unease surrounding wrongful conviction that a number of states have introduced moratoriums or, in the case of New Mexico today or New Jersey in 2007, abolished the death penalty altogether. There are now 35 states that have the death penalty on their statute books, but in reality only a handful (nine in 2008) actually use this ultimate punishment. These states are almost all in the South where the belief in justice that centres on an eye for an eye remains strong.
However, advances in DNA evidence, the arbitrary use of the death penalty, the common lack of good representation of death penalty defendants and the racial bias of its use (African Americans are … time s more likely than a white to be sentenced to death if hey commit murder than a white), have lead to jurors and prosecutors being more apprehensive about sentencing prisoners to death.
In the last ten years, the number of death sentences being given has dropped by 60% and there has also been a steady fall in the number of executions from 96 in 1998 to 37 in 2008.
This trend may continue in the future due to two factors. One is public opinion. In the 1980s and 1990s, 75% of Americans consistently favoured the use of the death penalty in opinion polls carried out by Gallup. By October 2008, however, growing public uncertainty saw support for the use of the death penalty fall to 64%, with 30% opposing. More dramatically, when Americans were asked if they favoured life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, 48% preferred this to the death penalty, suggesting that if the public are given a workable alternative, they will consider it.
The second factor is cost. Evidence suggests that as a result of these spiralling costs, some states are executing fewer inmates, particularly where they have tight state budgets. The Los Angeles Times estimates that the death penalty costs California $114 million per year more than the cost of keeping similar inmates in prison for life. In 2007, Georgia delayed the trial of Brian Nichols, who, during his trail for rape, shot the judge and two others in court in front of a large number of witnesses. The state could not afford to pay his defence lawyers. The Democratic Governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, believes that if his state replaced the death penalty with life without parole, the money saved could pay for 500 additional police officers or provide drug treatment for 10,000 addicts. Argues O’Malley, “Unlike the death penalty, these are investments that save lives and prevent violent crimes.’ Maryland, along with Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and New Hampshire are now considering abolition on the grounds of cost. When combined with life without the possibility of parole, the case is becoming more persuasive, particularly as the financial pressures of the economic downturn increase.
Ultimately, America remains unusual in the western world in its use of the death penalty. In December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly voted 104-54 in favour of a non-binding resolution for a global moratorium on executions. The resolution, co-sponsored by the EU and 60 other countries, called on countries to: progressively restrict the use of the death penalty, reduce the number of offences for which it can be imposed, and establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty. The United States opposed the resolution, voting against its European allies, and siding with Iran, China and Syria. Would Britain really want to be a member of that club? The evidence from America, and the release of Mr Hodgson would strongly suggest not.
Sunday 15 March 2009
Obama ends 'enemy combatants'
Yet another dreadful legacy of the Bush Administration has been ended - President Obama has abandoned the term 'enemy combatant'. Welcome back to the Geneva Convention. This can only be a good thing.
Friday 13 March 2009
The lessons of history - and not just Bush
Learning the lessons of history... After 50 days in office, much has been written on Obama's domestic policy. His foreign policy less so, though here there is an on-going debate about whether he is a realist or not. Or what Tim Lynch has described as Bush II.
A useful piece was written by Jonathan Freedland in Wednesday's Guardian.
When considering Obama's foreign policy, it is obvious that he is seeking to portray himself as a radical break from Bush. But it is also worth considering whether he is learning the lessons of two earlier presidents – Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Johnson was aware that his Great Society programs could be branded as being left wing, possibly socialist, rather like Obama’s domestic policy. Fearing that this would lead to his great vision stalling in Congress, Johnson reasoned that a suitable counter balance would be to demonstrate that he was tough against communism. This became part of his Administration’s internal rationale for escalating US involvement in Vietnam. Similarly, it may be that Obama feels he must be a realist, as many American commentators are noting (see, for example, the current discussion at the Foreign Policy journal website). Being tough abroad will challenge the right wing assertion that he is too liberal at home
A similar case can be made regarding the National Missile Defense. I suspect Obama has always seen this as a non-starter – the technology remains mostly unproven, it is controversial, potentially destabilising, and incredibly expensive. Obama cannot simply abandon NMD – to do so would appear weak to the American public in the face of Russian protests. So a Cuban Missile style compromise is required – Russian pressure on Iran equalling the removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey in 1962.
Like Nixon, there is a sense with Obama that he is aware of the limitations of American power. The Pentagon has always had the view that it should be ready to fight two wars simultaneously – it is already doing this in Iraq and Afghanistan and is overstretched. Where Nixon saw a possible solution to overstretch to be détente and opening up relations with China to play them off against the Soviet Union, so Obama has sought to promote a new diplomacy, reaching out to Syria, Iran, and others, whilst scaling down commitments to potential stumbling blocks, such as the promotion of human rights. Thus, whilst he appears to be willing to use America’s military power when necessary, not least on the Pakistan/Afghan border, he is also prepared to consider the diplomatic option of seeking out Taliban moderates.
His policies may be refreshing after Bush, but I feel there is also an acceptance of limitations combined with the positive opportunities this might provide. This, in itself, is encouraging.
A useful piece was written by Jonathan Freedland in Wednesday's Guardian.
When considering Obama's foreign policy, it is obvious that he is seeking to portray himself as a radical break from Bush. But it is also worth considering whether he is learning the lessons of two earlier presidents – Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Johnson was aware that his Great Society programs could be branded as being left wing, possibly socialist, rather like Obama’s domestic policy. Fearing that this would lead to his great vision stalling in Congress, Johnson reasoned that a suitable counter balance would be to demonstrate that he was tough against communism. This became part of his Administration’s internal rationale for escalating US involvement in Vietnam. Similarly, it may be that Obama feels he must be a realist, as many American commentators are noting (see, for example, the current discussion at the Foreign Policy journal website). Being tough abroad will challenge the right wing assertion that he is too liberal at home
A similar case can be made regarding the National Missile Defense. I suspect Obama has always seen this as a non-starter – the technology remains mostly unproven, it is controversial, potentially destabilising, and incredibly expensive. Obama cannot simply abandon NMD – to do so would appear weak to the American public in the face of Russian protests. So a Cuban Missile style compromise is required – Russian pressure on Iran equalling the removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey in 1962.
Like Nixon, there is a sense with Obama that he is aware of the limitations of American power. The Pentagon has always had the view that it should be ready to fight two wars simultaneously – it is already doing this in Iraq and Afghanistan and is overstretched. Where Nixon saw a possible solution to overstretch to be détente and opening up relations with China to play them off against the Soviet Union, so Obama has sought to promote a new diplomacy, reaching out to Syria, Iran, and others, whilst scaling down commitments to potential stumbling blocks, such as the promotion of human rights. Thus, whilst he appears to be willing to use America’s military power when necessary, not least on the Pakistan/Afghan border, he is also prepared to consider the diplomatic option of seeking out Taliban moderates.
His policies may be refreshing after Bush, but I feel there is also an acceptance of limitations combined with the positive opportunities this might provide. This, in itself, is encouraging.
Tuesday 3 March 2009
An end or a return to the Dover Principle?
I was very impressed to read that President Obama is to lift the ban on photographs taken at the Dover airbase of the bodies of American servicemen returning from overseas. Banned by George W. Bush because he feared the negative publicity that such images might generate, it has quite rightly been seen as an insult to those who have died in the service of their country. Obama's change is to be applauded. However, it remains to be seen if the increasing number of casualties in Afghanistan, which will inevitably result from the increase of American troops in the country, will see the return of the so-called "Dover Principle" - the more bodies that are seen returning, the less support for stationing troops abroad.
The Special Relationship?
Is it me, or did Barack Obama look a little bored by Gordon Brown earlier today? His body language certainly did not bode well for the special relationship.
Tuesday 24 February 2009
A New Type of Realism?
Hillary Clinton's announcement that economics and climate change will take precedent over human rights and Tibet with regard to relations with China suggests that the new Administration is not hesitant to adopt a pragmatic realist approach to its relations with other countries - particulalry the powerful. This follows in the wake of President Obama's invitation to states suspicious of the new Administration to unclench their fist. A new approach, maybe, but smart power suggests a combination of the old and the new. As an essentially domestic president - he will stand or fall on his economic policy - he may well disappoint many who supported him as he compromises principles in foreign policy for the sake of economic stability. That would not make him unusual as a president, but those who shouted 'Yes we can' and celebrated American renwal would probably like more of the Wilsonian rhetoric and less of the Roosveltian actions.
Tuesday 17 February 2009
Though we are not yet a month into the presidency of Barack Obama much has happened.
In his inaugural speech, he implicitly criticised the outgoing president, George W. Bush, at least nine times. Within his first week in office he signalled significant changes in direction. Traditionally an incoming president pays his first visit to the Pentagon. Obama did not - he visited the State Department, simultaneously announcing the appointment of George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke as Special Envoys. This appeared to reflect the shift towards a foreign policy centred more on smart power than hard power.
He reversed the Bush Administration's ban on foreign aid being given to groups that supported abortion. He announced the intended closure of Guantanamo Bay and, crucially, banned the use of torture.
This week Secretary of State Clinton has begun a tour of Asia, reflecting the growing importance of the region to America's interests, and the increasing power of China. Traditionally the Secretary of State pays their first visit to the Middle East or Europe.
Today (17 February) Obama has signed into law the largest stimulus package in America history to help secure up to four million jobs in the next two years, and announced the deployment of 12,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. These two issues will make or break his presidency - the first perhaps more than the second.
Obama may have the support of the American public, and his approval ratings remain high, but he remains disappointed by the lack of bipartisan support in Congress. Not one Republican in the House voted for his stimulus package.
The pressure is on to make a mark in the first 100 days, as all presidents have been driven to do since the heady days of Roosevelt and the New Deal. What is remakable about Obama is that he is seeking to do so in both domestic and foreign policy.
In his inaugural speech, he implicitly criticised the outgoing president, George W. Bush, at least nine times. Within his first week in office he signalled significant changes in direction. Traditionally an incoming president pays his first visit to the Pentagon. Obama did not - he visited the State Department, simultaneously announcing the appointment of George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke as Special Envoys. This appeared to reflect the shift towards a foreign policy centred more on smart power than hard power.
He reversed the Bush Administration's ban on foreign aid being given to groups that supported abortion. He announced the intended closure of Guantanamo Bay and, crucially, banned the use of torture.
This week Secretary of State Clinton has begun a tour of Asia, reflecting the growing importance of the region to America's interests, and the increasing power of China. Traditionally the Secretary of State pays their first visit to the Middle East or Europe.
Today (17 February) Obama has signed into law the largest stimulus package in America history to help secure up to four million jobs in the next two years, and announced the deployment of 12,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. These two issues will make or break his presidency - the first perhaps more than the second.
Obama may have the support of the American public, and his approval ratings remain high, but he remains disappointed by the lack of bipartisan support in Congress. Not one Republican in the House voted for his stimulus package.
The pressure is on to make a mark in the first 100 days, as all presidents have been driven to do since the heady days of Roosevelt and the New Deal. What is remakable about Obama is that he is seeking to do so in both domestic and foreign policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)