#‎resigncameron‬ and the need for smarter action

‪

Many who oppose the government's policies sought to exploit the Panama Papers leak for a change of government. The‎ #resigncameron hashtag was born, protests staged and people spoke of the need for revolution.  On the one hand, the would be revolutionaries recognise the scale of the problem and the flaws in the institutions that stifle radical solutions. They recognise that it is a struggle. Their rhetoric is romantic and intoxicating, but also misleading. A revolution sounds quick and decisive, but the inconvenient truth is that they require serious planning, considered action and sustained vigilance.

Most people, whether sympathetic or not, see the movement for what it is - opportunism motivated by ideological opposition. It appeals to those overcome by sentiment, but it’s unlikely to persuade an electoral majority. Instead of targeting Cameron and other figureheads they should target transparency. A call for transparency has broader appeal because it doesn't directly target one party and comes across as a well-intentioned moderate demand for better governance.  It builds into the broader narrative - the expenses scandal resonated and hasn’t been forgotten.  Whilst some concessions were made, it’s plain to see that they were insufficient to effect the political culture. More needs to be done.

Greater transparency addresses the actual problem.  Our opaque political system allows avoidable cronyism and corruption to flourish. A call for transparency is more reasonable and at the same time radical. Removing Cameron would assuage a symptom rather than address the vulnerabilities of our institutions.  I sympathise with the ambitions of the movement but they shouldn’t let fantasies get in the way of progress. Incremental improvements should be sought, celebrated and built upon.  Whether wrapped in the language of revolution or not, the brain as well as the heart must be seduced ensure lasting change.

Image by Josh MacPhee via JustSeeds

Libyan intervention: Venal leaders exploit good intentions and prop-up bloody regimes

Image Courtesy of B.R.Q

The humanitarian case for intervening in Libya is well-stated – Libyan rebels faced an inevitable massacre. Yet, the humanitarian justification runs counter to recent, and ongoing, international activities of the intervening coalition. The continued support for authoritarian regimes within the region poses an unsettling (if not unfamiliar) juxtaposition with the moralistic rhetoric.

"[W]henever and wherever violence is used against peaceful demonstrators, we must not hesitate to condemn it." David Cameron - UK Prime Minister

Regrettably, the actions commissioned by leaders of coalition nations belie the noble sentiments David Cameron glibly expressed. It is a cynical deceit. Clear and honourable sentiments designed to beguile the electorate and obscure deplorable deeds. The quote itself is from a speech Cameron gave in Kuwait whilst touring the Middle East marketing UK arms to oppressive regimes.

Much of the coalition’s international activities have proven to be supportive of counter-revolutionary authoritarian regimes; Constantly denying the human rights abuses of client states, funding torture, and supporting the overthrow of democratically elected leaders. With the exception of Libya, the response to the uprisings has been to support favoured leaders. Cameron encouraged weapon sales, Obama kept funds flowing, and Sarkozy increased ‘defence’ funding for Tunisia. If the position becomes untenable, the coalition members (reluctantly) distance themselves, and urge the untenable leader to step down whilst continuing to support the regime. The figurehead changes, but the regime and unpopular policies endure.

The approach to Libya is different. Whilst it is true that relations with Gaddafi greatly improved (in some instances, quite markedly) during the 2000s, and that oil companies were the main beneficiaries, improving oil networks and dominating markets, Gaddafi was not subservient enough for the coalition’s liking. Gaddafi had long since created political conditions fit for revolution, which coalition leaders eagerly exploited in order to re-orientate Libyan polity more favourably to coalition interests. Gaddafi was too unreliable, regulations and agreements too uncertain, and resources too valuable. Gaddafi had to go.

Intervention began by arming Libyan rebels through Saudi proxies, and the subsequent agreement to the use of Saudi troops in Bahrain secured Saudi support for intervention in Libya. Despite claiming great concern for human rights and support for democracy the coalition are supporting counter-revolutionary regimes and downplaying the significance of brutal oppression. (Conveniently, for the coalition, as media attention focuses on conflict, coverage of atrocities elsewhere has been inconspicuous). Client states, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, and Yemen, have bloodily cracked down protests with the continued support of coalition members.

Even if the unpalatable realities of dirty deals could be dismissed as the acceptable consequences of engaging in Realpolitik, the unpredictable long-term consequences will inevitably bare greater significance. The composition of the rebellion demands closer inspection for the reason that should the rebellion succeed (to one extent or another) they shall have considerable impact on the future of Libya and beyond.

The rebels initial advance was characterised by indiscipline, overconfidence and overreaching. Little has changed. Inexperienced, poor communication structures and utilising child soldiers, they are ill-equipped to battle their professional adversaries. Whilst the figureheads appear a palatable enough assembly of human rights lawyers, much of the self-appointed rebel leadership is made-up of men with murky pasts. Pepe Escobar neatly summed up the composition as a ‘mixed bag of former Gaddafi loyalists, dodgy exiles, al-Qaeda-linked jihadis, business opportunists and true youthful revolutionaries.’

Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu, once considered an extremist, detained in Guantánamo Bay, transferred to Libya, is now ‘a notable figure in the Libyan rebels’ fight to oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.’ Abdul Hakim al-Hasadi (or Abdul Hakeen al-Hassadi) ‘fought against the US in Afghanistan, was arrested in Pakistan, imprisoned probably at Bagram, Afghanistan, and then mysteriously released’ now leads the rebel Darnah Brigade. Colonel Khalifa Haftar, ‘former commander of the Libyan army in Chad who was captured and changed sides in 1988, setting up the anti-Gaddafi Libyan National Army reportedly with CIA and Saudi backing.’ ‘For 20 years, Colonel Haftar has lived not far from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp.’

Not only do the rebels lack coherence as a group, the pattern of extremist to detainee then ally is worryingly familiar. (As are the tired deceptions regarding the denial of civilian casualties.)

The no fly zone permitted by U.N. Resolution 1973 to protect civilians offers insufficient scope for the coalition to fulfil their objective – a servile state. Mission creep is inevitable. Gaddafi’s forces have proved themselves ruthless tacticians; in response to the enforcement of the no fly zone, they adopted light armour guerrilla tactics. The result has been that coalition pilots fly around ineffectively whilst rebels and civilians suffer growing casualties.

The future for Libyans looks bleak; continued conflict, more drones, and a decline in living standards [pdf]. It is not enough to point at egregiousness and call for intervention. The long term and the cost of compromises must be considered. Our venal leaders are exploiting well-intentioned principles, propping-up bloody regimes and allying themselves with sinister bedfellows in expectation of healthy profits for national corporations.

EU lifts sanctions on Uzbek government.

The sanctions were initially enacted in response to the Andijan massacre of 2005 (an incident in which troops shot at unarmed protesters - the number killed is disputed, but believed to be in the hundreds).  Since then, sanctions have been slowly eroded.

Germany, clearly incentivised by advancing its own economic interests, has led the fight for lifting sanctions.  EU nations can once again sell weapons to a corrupt regime lead by the brutal dictator Islam Karimov.

The claim that the Uzbek situation has progressed is specious:

There have been no improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan. There remains no freedom of speech, assembly, movement or religion. Thousands of political prisoners slave in the gulags, children are forced into the fields by soldiers to pick the cotton. Thousands still suffer hideous torture every year.

The value of the removal of sanctions is largely symbolic.  Uzbekistan has been obtaining weapons from non-EU sources. Although Russia is reported to be their main suppliers, the U.S. has played a major role in supporting the Karimov regime.  Because of its usefulness as a launch pad for offences in the Middle East, the U.S. has pumped money in to the hands of the Karimov government in order to buy favour with the regime.

Obama has been more than willing to ‘cut deals’ with Karimov. Obama recently agreed to triple the fee for its U.S. airbase in Uzbekistan. The most recent official U.S. rhetoric on Uzbekistan-U.S. Relations spoke of ‘partnership,’ ‘historic agreement,’ ‘a very positive development,’ and ‘our friends in the Uzbek government.’  There was even an attempt to sell Uzbekistan to U.S. corporations, ‘we will explore ways that we can expose more American companies to the opportunities here.’

Unsurprisingly, when it comes to questions regarding human rights, there was considerable obfuscation:

With respect to the human rights question, the United States and Uzbekistan intend to initiate a bilateral annual consultation in which we will discuss the full range of priorities on our bilateral agenda. I conveyed an invitation from the United States government to the government of Uzbekistan to send a high-level delegation at the time of their choosing to the United States to begin those consultations. As I said in my statement, I am confident that we will be able to make progress on the full range of priorities on our bilateral agenda.

As for why so many nations are willing to get into bed with one of the world's most egregious regimes, I will leave you with Craig Murray’s a concise appraisal

The politicians do it because the media and public do not seem to care, so they think they can get away with it. So far, they are right.

Micheletti and Zelaya reach 'breakthrough'

The details are vague, there is still much to be agreed upon, and the agreement is rife with dubious pre-conditions, yet many who opposed the Micheletti coup are hyperbolic in their response to the latest development. (For background information, see below)

Mark Weisbrot declared that this was "a victory for democracy in the Western Hemisphere." He continued;

This shows that international pressure really matters. Despite the fact that the U.S. blocked stronger action by the Organization of American States, it ultimately had to go along with the rest of the hemisphere […] This shows that Latin America is not going back to the days when U.S.-trained and funded military forces could overturn the will of the electorate.

With so many uncertainties and discouraging preconditions, such blind optimism is, at best misguided, at worst counter-productive.

First of all, whilst the agreement ‘calls for’ a truth and reconciliation commission, this is far from a guarantee of justice. The ‘agreement’ makes no effort condemn the coup or those involved in its implantation. Quite the opposite is true. The details of the agreement that are known legitimise the coup orchestrators. A power-sharing government has been agreed to - this means that those responsible for the coup shall be rewarded with the power and prestige of occupying positions of authority within the Honduran polity. This is a clear indication that, unless there are some significant developments, the truth and reconciliation commission will allow the crimes and human rights abuses of the de facto government to go unpunished. Secondly, the ‘agreement’ itself has to receive support from congress and the supreme court. Such a condition is ludicrous. They are the very bodies that were complicit in the conspiracy against Zelaya in the first place! Seeking their approval further legitimises the coup.

In contrast to the pre-coup circumstances, Micheletti & co. have gained influence through the barrel of a gun, and done so with impunity. Zelaya has lost four months of his presidency and found himself politically weakened. The Honduran people have seen dozens killed, had their human rights severely weakened, been attacked for peaceful protest, and seen their own voices ignored. The people wanted a president to bring social justice. They are left with a man so constrained that it is unlikely that he will be anything other than a popular figurehead for a puppet regime.

Although the situation could be worse, the fight is far from over.

Background
On Sunday, June 28, approximately 200 members of the Honduran military surrounded the presidential palace and forced the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, into custody and then flew him to Costa Rica.

The official justification for the military coup was that Zelaya was to hold a referendum to extend presidential terms beyond a single four-year term, which, it was argued, would be unconstitutional. This continues to be reported as the justification for the coup.

What has tended to be far less widely reported is that constitutional amendments are not uncommon, between the year of its approval, 1982, and 2005, the only years that it was not amended were 1983 and 1992. The constitution itself was approved during a period of heavy U.S. interference.

The genuine motivation for the coup is that Zelaya allied Honduras with the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America (ALBA) - an alternative to Free Trade Area of the Americas. The U.S. feared that Honduras could turn into a 'pacifist state', at the cost of a U.S. military base, as happened in Ecuador.

The subsequent period has been characterised by protests, military suppression, former cabinet misters going into hiding, and the poor fearing sanctions and greater economic hardship.

On July 6th the Honduran military blocked Zelaya’s planned return to Honduras and fired tear gas and live ammunition on protesters, who had initially intended to welcome the Zelaya’s return.

Despite ‘tough talk’ from Barack Obama, some rightly questioned whether the Obama administration is as opposed to the coup against Zelaya as it should be.

Despite apparent ‘condemnation’ through careful description of the coup as “not legal”, Obama still has not acknowledged the coup d'état as a coup d'état for fear of forcing his own hand. (Acknowledging the coup as such would require stopping all forms of non-humanitarian aid by law). Obama tacitly supported the coup d'état and the coup government financially and militarily.

Proposition 13 & the effects of regressive policy in California

The financial crisis has hit California particularly hard. Poverty continues to spiral as unemployment reaches a post-war high of 12.2%. The political response has been to implement drastic cuts.

In July, the state legislature haggled for weeks over how to close a $26 billion budget gap. Instead of increasing taxes of corporations or the wealthy, the budget deal that emerged to be signed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger ordered deep spending cuts, laying off tens of thousands of state workers.

Reduced funding for education, coupled with big tuition increases, sparked a student and faculty strike at California’s public universities. Programs for ex-prison inmates and parolees have been slashed. And the social safety net of healthcare and services for the poor, children and elderly - the least powerful and least vocal members of society - has been systematically shredded. [...]

A legal challenge has temporarily halted some of the cuts to elderly care. But Governor Schwartzenegger is trying to overturn the court ruling and re-institute the cuts. [...]

So, why has California been hit so disproportionately hard, and what are the causes of this drastic response? Whilst Schwartzenegger's regressive political attitude can take some of the blame, Proposition 13 plays the lead role.

Proposition 13 was an initiative that was enacted by the voters of California. The key components of the proposition were to cap property tax (even if the value rises) and put into law that a two-thirds majority is required to raise taxes and pass a budget. The bill gained popular support and the Californian constitution was duly amended.

Ever since its was written into law, Proposition 13 has played a duel role in exacerbating California's instability and inequality as well as preventing progressive reform.

It is so iniquitous because the maximum rise in property tax is considerably lower than the actual increases in property prices. Neighbours living in identical homes are liable to pay substantially different property tax depending upon when they purchased the property. This means that the tax liability is heavily tied to the date of purchase rather than the value of the property or financial circumstances of the owner. (A relatively well-known example of this is billionaire Warren Buffet, who pays less than 0.06% tax on a $4,000,000 Laguna Beach home purchased in the 1970s. Meanwhile, a working family in a modest, newly purchased home is liable to pay several times this amount).

By capping property tax, Proposition 13 effectively places the state’s budget in a straitjacket. As Krugman argues, "limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions," which is why California has been so heavily affected by the financial crisis. And, by putting into law that a two-thirds majority is required to raise taxes and pass a budget, Proposition 13 prevents progressive reform and encourages drastic regressive policy responses in times of economic hardship. With Proposition 13 in place, the response to people needing a safety-net in times of need will always be to take it away from them.

Obama & the Nobel Peace Prize

Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize takes the biscuit. What on earth for? For saying the right things but not actually doing them(!) Allow me to outline his achievements in office; ditching state-funded abstinence only sex-ed in favour of evidence-based programmes, & securing federal funding for stem cell research. Other than that, there has been sweet talk and inaction. As I wrote earlier:

His actions belie his rhetoric. For all the plentiful ‘tough talk’ there have been few strong actions. He fudges issues and fails to deliver his promises. For those that think that his policy half-measures are better than nothing, please bear in mind that an insufficient stimulus package and half-baked heathcare reform could well prove counter productive. Critics of the plans will be able to say, “we tried them once and they didn’t work. Now you want more money? Why throw good money after bad?” [...]

His presidency has been characterised by morally deplorable foreign policy, compromises that please nobody and competent public relations management in the face of a largely servile media. (When Obama is criticised by the media, it tends to be on insignificant or spurious grounds).

In regards to the change in rhetoric, little else has changed. During his presidential inauguration speech Barack Obama said, “America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.” This is nonsense. America is a friend to its client states and an enemy to those that get in the way.

Obama has proclaimed his commitment “to governments that reflect the will of the people” and of ‘democracy promotion’. Indeed, Obama called for increased investment in ‘democracy promotion’ in Latin America. As it turns out, those investments were to do the opposite of what he claimed they were to do. Democracy promotion funding has been used to support a military coup d'état in Honduras, which overthrew a democratically elected president with a progressive agenda.

The money for democracy promotion funds the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) andUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID). These agencies heavily funded the various organisations that formed Democratic Civil Union of Honduras.

Its [Democratic Civil Union of Honduras] only objective was to oust President Zelaya from power in order to impede the future possibility of a constitutional convention to reform the constitution, which would allow the people a voice and a role in their political process.

Despite apparent ‘condemnation’ through careful description of the coup as “not legal”, Obama has tacitly supported the coup d'état and the coup government financially and militarily. When Obama talks about ‘difficult’ issues his speech is laden with considerable obfuscation. All too often it is what he deliberately omits that is objectionable. Obama has not acknowledged the coup d'état as a coup d'état for fear of forcing his own hand.

Obama has portrayed himself as being tough on Israel. He told Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, “settlements have to be stopped”. Yet Obama has done nothing about the continued expansion of settlements. America continues to fund the Israeli government. The U.S. has plenty of leverage over the Israel and there is historical precedence in using it. For example, during his presidency, George H. W. Bush (by no means the most progressive president) suspended loan guarantees to Israel because of settlement expansion. Obama chooses to do nothing.

When discussing America's 'new' approach to counterterrorism Obama said, “America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership”. Yet extraordinary rendition continues unabated. The “historic consensus” on significantly cutting carbon is a cynical exercise in greenwashing. It is full of loopholes and too long term to really effect Obama’s presidency. The planned departure of US troops from Iraq is a weak line of action that comes up short. It is an unquestionable fudge.

Obama has eased restrictions on Cuba and said that he seeks “an equal partnership”. These changes are, as Fidel Castro rightly considered them, "positive although minimal". The U.S. trade embargo against Cuba is still in place. The U.S. continues to punish Cuba by keeping in place this hangover from the Cold War whilst continuing to support dictators and aggressive regimes that it views favourably. A global superpower continuing to undermine small island is not grounds for an equal partnership.

Let's not forget the reckless killing of civilians in Afghanistan, the failure to reform the financial sector and the constant watering down of his stance on healthcare reform.

The actions of the Obama administration expose Obama for the largely unprincipled and wilfully deceptive man he is.

I’m fed up with talk of "his efforts to bring peace to the world," "attempts by Obama to go further than we expected" about how he's "stuck his neck out" over nuclear disarmament and more. Shame on you Sunny for peddling such deception.

U.S. healthcare & Obama's concessions

The current U.S. system is expensive and inefficient.

[T]he incredible cost of US health care is breath-taking, whether you're a reformer or anti-reformist. The US spent some $2.2 trillion (£1.34 trillion) on healthcare in 2007. It is a mind-boggling number which amounts to over 16% of US GDP. That is nearly twice the average spent by other rich nations with advanced health systems - yet you have to wonder if this is value for money when, by most measures, the US is a less healthy nation than other rich countries, on everything from infant mortality to longevity.

The U.S. healthcare system needs reforming. Cue Barrack Obama, one time advocate of single payer healthcare system.

As Paul Krugman writes, the single payer healthcare system would be the best option for reform.

True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system.

The evidence makes interesting reading.*

Despite his previous endorsement of single payer healthcare, Obama repositioned himself in opposition to single-payer healthcare during the presidential candidacy campaign. His new proposition was for a public option to compete with private insurers.

Since the presidential election, Obama has constantly made concessions. In March 2009, Obama talked about the importance of being pragmatic

Each of us must accept that none of us will get everything that we want, and that no proposal for reform will be perfect. If that's the measure, we will never get anything done.

This was an exceptional piece of positioning; he presented himself as being open-minded and pragmatic whilst simultaneously ruling out a single payer solution. Since then, Obama has gone even further to placate those in opposition to significant healthcare reform, Obama recently said:

[T]he public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else.

Obama's change of discourse suggests that the competing public option proposal is now off the table. In a generous light, the initial change of stance could be viewed as born of the ugly reality of electoral politics rather than unprincipled toadying. If Obama makes this latest concession, which he seems willing to make, there can be no such generosity. In three moves Obama's stance on healthcare has changed from seemingly principled, to apparent pragmatism, to sell-out.

In the light of Obama making concession after concession, will the considerably watered down healthcare reform package pass?

At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.

Oh dear ... The lessons of Clinton healthcare plan of 1993 teaches us that this is a formidable opposition.

During the Clinton administration, support for completely rebuilding the health care system peaked in the spring of 1993 [55%] and declined subsequently. By June 1994, just 37% said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt.

This does not mean that the opposition to healthcare reform is insurmountable. Healthcare reform has popular support. As Chomsky notes in Failed States, the majority of Americans recognise that their healthcare system needs reforming.

"An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that ‘over 2/3 of all Americans thought the government should guarantee everyone the best and most advanced health care that technology can supply'; a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 80 percent regard universal health care as ‘more important than holding down taxes'; polls reported in Business Week found that ‘67 percent of Americans think it is a good idea to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens, as Canada and Britain do, with just 27 percent dissenting'."

Regardless of the fact the U.S. polity is contradicting the will of the majority, the question is whether a reform so far removed from perfect is worth 'getting done' at all?

On the one hand, the reform itself is to be welcomed for improving America's healthcare system by potentially providing universal healthcare. The proposed healthcare reforms will make U.S healthcare more like the Swiss healthcare system, which primarily provides universal coverage through regulation and subsidy.

On the other hand, whilst the Swiss system provides good care, it is expensive. The only reason that the Swiss-style system is an improvement is that the status-quo is so inefficient and iniquitous. Obama has thrown away the opportunity to implement a progressive government-run healthcare system that would benefit more Americans significantly more so than this fudge. (Even his seemingly discarded proposal of 'competitive public option' system would be preferable).

With his endless concessions, Obama may have bought the votes of the odd 'blue dog', but by and large, the latest proposal continues to face the same opposition that a proposal for a single payer healthcare system would have faced. America needs Obama to be the strong and principled leader he portrays himself to be. America needs a president that ignores manufactured opposition, listens to the right-minded, and defends the interests of the people he serves. What America has is flaccid corporatist**.

*UK citizens might be interested to note that the NHS is comparatively cheap and efficient. In contrast to the current U.S system, it provides better care on almost every measure and costs around 40% as much per person. Although, when considering healthcare provision, it is important to bear in mind more than the degree of privatisation and amount of expenditure. Policy priorities significantly influence results. For instance, Cuba's universal healthcare includes preventive health care provision. Japan's citizens have healthy lifestyles. In both of these considerations the U.S. lags behind, which makes U.S. healthcare very inefficient in terms of expenditure versus life expectancy. A point well made by Chris Dillow at Stumbling and Mumbling. The American system is also hugely wasteful in term of 'over-treating' the elderly. (Of course, the argument could always be made that such factors are economically determined, but I digress).

** The link is to an excellent (but very long) article by Paul Street about Obama. As it is on Znet, you may have to register to view it.

Update

I might try to re-write this and offer it as a new post in the future, because, in attempting to pre-emptively defend my argument, it has become diffuse. The latest article by Paul Krugman reiterates some of the arguments contained above in a clearer manner.

[T]here’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will “pull the plug on grandma,” and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him.

It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled. [...]

[T]he supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham. That’s not just my opinion; it’s what the market says: stocks of health insurance companies soared on news that the Gang of Six senators trying to negotiate a bipartisan approach to health reform were dropping the public plan. Clearly, investors believe that co-ops would offer little real competition to private insurers.

Also, and importantly, the public option offered a way to reconcile differing views among Democrats. Until the idea of the public option came along, a significant faction within the party rejected anything short of true single-payer, Medicare-for-all reform, viewing anything less as perpetuating the flaws of our current system. The public option, which would force insurance companies to prove their usefulness or fade away, settled some of those qualms. [...]

So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.

Basically, Obama should take a leaf out of Barney Frank’s book.

Twitter & the digital divide

Twitter has been receiving numerous plaudits due to Twitter’s role in the media coverage of the Iranian election protests.

Twitter is a jolt of democratisation to journalism.

To date, the most salient, powerful example of Twitter's influence has been Iranian protesters using the service (among many other methods) to assemble marches against what they feel has been an unjust election.

There is no question of Twitter's power

Many users have become accustomed to clicking on Twitter when news breaks. There, they can find a sea of reaction, commentary and links to actual articles.

There is an obvious weakness in the rapidity and lack of accountability that a more 'democratic' journalism brings

News that circulates on Twitter, re-tweeted from person to person, can spread quickly - often too quickly for it to be verified. False rumours spread daily on Twitter.

However, it is another aspect of Twitter that is troubling me, the power of Twitter and who it serves. Twitter is less democratic than it appears. Rash declarations proclaiming the unambiguously beneficial value of services like Twitter to the larger discourse are over-simplistic. Reality is more complex.

Let us reconsider the Iran protests and Twitter.

It is hard to say how much twittering is actually going on inside Iran. The tweets circulated by expatriates in the United States tend to be in English -- the Twitter interface does not support the use of Farsi. And though many people may be sending tweets out of Iran, their use inside Iran may be low, some say.

This helps explain the almost uniform opposition to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Twitter when he receives strong support in poorer rural Iran. Whilst I welcome greater exposure of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime's human rights abuses, people ought to be aware of the bias of Twitter. In the light of the tidal wave of opposition to Ahmadinejad, Twitter was functioning as medium of propaganda for the U.S. State Department without the requirement of their engagement. A fact underscored by the U.S. State Department urging Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance that would have temporarily stopped service to Iran during the protests.

Twitter excludes the disadvantaged. Twitter effectively provides a megaphone to those with access to the required media that can afford to invest the time whilst the vast majority of the world cannot afford to have their voices heard.

Reaction to recent events in Latin America provides a further example. In the face of growing investment in American imperialism in the region, it is the geographically remote from the region that tend to pass comment. In the wake of the Honduras coup, for example, the privileged self-interested few who support the coup were disproportionately loud. The majority of Hondurans, those that were to benefit from the ousted Zelaya's progressive reforms, the poor, seldom tweet.

It seems as though the privileged few continue to have the upper hand.

Barack Obama 182 days in office

In the course of electioneering, Barack Obama massively exaggerated his intentions. He played on hope, built expectations, and was destined to disappoint. As a president he presents himself as mindful that his predecessors have left him a considerable agenda. He is faced with formidable opposition to almost everything that he sets out to do, he needs to act tough and make enemies for the sake of the principles he claims to uphold. He needs to carry his public goodwill to shore up his reforms, push through a second stimulus package if needed, ensure that healthcare reform is anything like the plans he speaks of, leave Iraq and stand-up to Israel.

His actions belie his rhetoric. For all the plentiful ‘tough talk’ there have been few strong actions. He fudges issues and fails to deliver his promises. For those that think that his policy half-measures are better than nothing, please bear in mind that an insufficient stimulus package and half-baked heathcare reform could well prove counter productive. Critics of the plans will be able to say, “we tried them once and they didn’t work. Now you want more money? Why throw good money after bad?”

The highlights of his presidency have been the reversal of Bush’s restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, his easing of restrictions on Cuba, and the change of rhetoric on many issues. With the exception of providing government funding for stem cell research, his achievements are easily exaggerated. His presidency has been characterised by morally deplorable foreign policy, compromises that please nobody and competent public relations management in the face of a largely servile media. (When Obama is criticised by the media, it tends to be on insignificant or spurious grounds).

In regards to the change in rhetoric, little else has changed. During his presidential inauguration speech Barack Obama said, “America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.” This is nonsense. America is a friend to its client states and an enemy to those that get in the way.

Obama has proclaimed his commitment “to governments that reflect the will of the people” and of ‘democracy promotion’. Indeed, Obama called for increased investment in ‘democracy promotion’ in Latin America. As it turns out, those investments were to do the opposite of what he claimed they were to do. Democracy promotion funding has been used to support a military coup d'état in Honduras, which overthrew a democratically elected president with a progressive agenda.

The money for democracy promotion funds the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These agencies heavily funded the various organisations that formed Democratic Civil Union of Honduras.

Its [Democratic Civil Union of Honduras] only objective was to oust President Zelaya from power in order to impede the future possibility of a constitutional convention to reform the constitution, which would allow the people a voice and a role in their political process.

Despite apparent ‘condemnation’ through careful description of the coup as “not legal”, Obama has tacitly supported the coup d'état and the coup government financially and militarily. When Obama talks about ‘difficult’ issues his speech is laden with considerable obfuscation. All too often it is what he deliberately omits the objectionable truths. Obama has not acknowledged the coup d'état as a coup d'état for fear of forcing his own hand.

Obama has portrayed himself as being tough on Israel. He told Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, “settlements have to be stopped”. Yet Obama has done nothing about the continued expansion of settlements. America continues to fund the Israeli government. The U.S. has plenty of leverage over the Israel and there is historical precedence in using it. For example, during his presidency George H. W. Bush (by no means the most progressive president) suspended loan guarantees to Israel because of settlement expansion. Obama chooses to do nothing.

When discussing America's 'new' approach to counterterrorism Obama said, “America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership”. Yet extraordinary rendition continues unabated. The “historic consensus” on significantly cutting carbon is a cynical exercise in greenwashing. It is full of loopholes and too long term to really effect Obama’s presidency. The planned departure of US troops from Iraq is a weak line of action that comes up short. It is an unquestionable fudge.

Obama has eased restrictions on Cuba and said that he seeks “an equal partnership”. These changes are, as Fidel Castro rightly considered them, "positive although minimal". The U.S. trade embargo against Cuba is still in place. The U.S. continues to punish Cuba by keeping in place this hangover from the Cold War whilst continuing to support dictators and aggressive regimes that it views favourably. A global superpower continuing to undermine small island is not grounds for an equal partnership.

The actions of the Obama administration expose Obama for the largely unprincipled and wilfully deceptive man he is. In the light of the military coup d'état in Honduras Hugo Chavez addressed Obama via Venezuelan state television. He said, "don't deceive the world with a discourse that contradicts your actions". Fat chance

Update

I should have included the reckless killing of civilians in Afghanistan and the failure to reform the financial sector too.

When an act of courteousness leads to being branded ‘the lecher of the free world’.

The Daily Mail printed a picture in which “Barack Obama was caught out yesterday in a leer worthy of his Italian counterpart Mr Berlusconi” (see bottom story on this page). Only he was not. Barack Obama was in fact being courteous as the first 63 second of the below video demonstrates.

For another example of The Daily Mail’s penchant for making things up see Eric The Fish: King of the Sea’s look at The Mail’s apology for making up that somebody that they do not like is a supporter of Al Qaeda and radical cleric Abu Qatada.

Noam Chomsky Political Discourse Dictionary

Preface

Almost every term in political discourse has a literal meaning and a propaganda version. […] The propaganda version - which is typically the one that prevails - that's the version presented by those who have the power to control discourse, propaganda, framework of discussion, and so on. And, in that case, that means primarily the United States.

Presented below select definitions of the ‘propaganda version’ of terms offered by Chomsky. It is a work in progress. Further suggestions (preferably sourced) and comments are encouraged.

Anti-Globalization - a propaganda term devised by the advocates of a particular investor-rights version of international integration. No sane person is opposed to globalization, surely not the left or the workers movements, which were founded on the commitment to international solidarity - that is, a form of globalization that is concerned with the rights and needs of people, not private capital.

Debt Repayment, International - commercial banks made bad loans to their favorite dictators, and those loans are now being paid by the poor, who of course had absolutely nothing to do with the process.

Democracy, Developing Nations – requires that the media and political system be in the hands of local oligarchies or similar elements committed to the form of “development” favoured by U.S. investors, that the public be marginalized (by violence, if necessary), and that the military, with its long-established links to the U.S. system of violence, be granted free rein.

Democracy Promotion - The neoliberal rollback of democracy.

[Note]. Where neoliberal rules have been observed since the '70s, economic performance has generally deteriorated and social democratic programs have substantially weakened.

Demographic Problem – a term devised to disguise the obviously racist presuppositions

Deterrence - means the opposite of what it says. Our offensive stance should primarily be based on nuclear weapons because they are so destructive and terrifying. Furthermore, just the possession of massive nuclear forces casts a shadow over any international conflict, as people are frightened of us because we have this overwhelming force.

Economic Interest, National - a misleading term because countries don't have economic interests, groups inside of them do and those interests may differ.

Failed State - a state that has the formal political institutions, but they are not functioning. Functioning in a democratic society is supposed to mean that public policy somehow reflects public interests and concerns.

Financial Crisis - "the crisis" has a clear enough meaning: the financial crisis that hit the rich countries with great impact, and is therefore of supreme importance.

Globalization - specific form of international economic integration that has been instituted within the "neoliberal" framework of past several decades.

Humanitarian Crisis - a problem somewhere that threatens the interests of rich and powerful people [as opposed to] the massacres in Colombia, for example, or the slaughters and expulsions of people in south-eastern Turkey, which are being carried out with crucial support from Clinton. Those aren't humanitarian crises.

International Community, The - a technical term referring to Washington and whoever happens to agree with it.


Labour Flexibility - a fancy way of saying that when you go to sleep at night, you don't know if you have a job tomorrow morning - and that's supposed to be a very good thing. […] Labour-market flexibility has gotten a bad name as a euphemism for keeping wages down and workers out, which in fact is exactly what it is, which is why it's gotten that bad name.

Legal - in US-Israeli parlance means "illegal, but authorized by the government of Israel.”

Libertarian - means the opposite of what it always meant in history. Here [the U.S.] it means ultra-conservative - Ayn Rand or Cato Institute or something like that.

Literal meaning

Socialist and anti-state, an anti-state branch of socialism, which meant a highly organized society, completely organized and nothing to do with chaos, but based on democracy all the way through. That means democratic control of communities, of workplaces, of federal structures, built on systems of voluntary association, spreading internationally.

Etymology of literal meaning
Throughout modern European history meant socialist anarchist. It meant the anti-state element of the Workers Movement and the Socialist Movement. It sort of broke into two branches, roughly, one statist, one anti-statist. The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky, and so on. The anti-statist branch, which included Marxists, Left Marxists - Rosa Luxemburg and others - kind of merged, more or less, into an amalgam with a big strain of anarchism into what was called "libertarian socialism."



Manufacturing Consent –

Etymology
“The term "manufacturing consent" is not mine, I took it from Walter Lippmann, the leading public intellectual and leading media figure of the twentieth century, who thought it was a great idea. He said we should manufacture consent, that's the way democracies should work. There should be a small group of powerful people, and the rest of the population should be spectators, and you should force them to consent by controlling, regimenting their minds. That's the leading idea of democratic theorists, and the public relations industry and so on”

Moderate - 'they do what we say' - willing to conform to US demands, irrespective of the nature of the regime.

NAFTA Miracle - a "miracle" for U.S. investors and the Mexican rich, while the population sank into misery.

National Security Interests - only an incidental relation to the security of the nation, though they have a very close relation to the interests of dominant sectors within the imperial state, and to the general state interest of ensuring obedience.

Nicaragua, The U.S. War Against - if we want to be kind to the United States - we could say it was international terrorism. A stronger, probably more accurate, term would be outright aggression.

Peace Process - conventionally used to refer to whatever the U.S. government happens to be doing, often undermining diplomatic efforts.

Radical - not under U.S. control.

Rogue State - is used to refer to any state that is disobedient, that the US has in the sights of its rifles. […] An instrument of propaganda, to beat selective enemies over the head.

Stability

1. a code word referring to a “favourable orientation of the political elite” – favourable not to their populations, but to foreign investors and global managers.
2. subordination to Washington’s will 

Terrorism - literal meaning - the calculated use of violence against civilians to intimidate, induce fear, often to kill, for some political, religious, or other end. It turns out to be almost the same as the definition of official U.S. policy. Except, when it is U.S. policy, it is called ‘counter-insurgency’ or ‘low-intensity conflict’ or some other name. Furthermore, if you apply the literal definition, you conclude that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state because it engages in these practices all the time.

propaganda version - directed against the United States or its allies and carried out by enemies


Terrorism, International - introduced during the 1980s when it was pretty clear that the Soviet pretext was collapsing and another one had to be found and "international terrorism" was invented as a pretext to replace it.


Tough love - love for the rich and privileged, tough for everyone else.


Trade - propaganda version [used in addition to literal meaning]. An operation inside of a command economy which has to cross borders. E.g. US trade with Mexico after NAFTA - about half of it is not trade in any serious sense. It's just interaction as internal to a command economy. If General Motors makes the parts in Indiana and sends them to Mexico to be assembled because they have cheaper labor and fewer environmental constraints, and then sends them back to Los Angeles to sell the cars, that is called trade in both directions, but it is not trade in any reasonable sense. 


U.S., The -

1. a leading terrorist state.
2. "United States" is conventionally used to refer to structures of power within the United States; the "national interest" is the interest of these groups, which correlates only weakly with interests of the general population.

(Accidental) Honesty vs. Less bad economic management

Conservative Health spokesperson, Andrew Lansley, let slip that the Conservatives plan to ring-fence health and aid spending at the expense of a 10% cut for other departments. Labour jumped at the opportunity to cast the Conservatives as spending cutters.

Brown accused the Conservatives of being out of line with received opinion, “The only party that's proposing a cut in public spending is the Conservative party” said Gordon Brown at PMQs. What’s more, Labour proposed increased spending. (In itself, referring to public spending rather than investment is peculiar for frontbenchers.)

As it turns out Gordon Brown was being very misleading, you might even say that he was lying.

Due to the constraints placed on the treasury by the financial crisis, whoever is in government will have little choice about what to do. Both the Conservatives and Labour will do the same thing - protect healthcare expenditure and cut other departments more or less to the same amount, 10%.

The truth has come out and Brown has egg on his face. Cue George Osborne for a dose of piousness,

“The real dividing line is not ‘cut versus investment’, but honesty versus dishonest […] We should have the confidence to tell the public the truth that Britain faces a debt crisis; that real spending will have to be cut, whoever is elected; and that the bills of rising unemployment and the huge interest costs of a soaring national debt means that many government departments will face cuts in their budgets. These are statements of fact and to deny them invites ridicule.”

To the Times’ credit, they acknowledge, albeit fleetingly, that Osborne “gives no specific Conservative spending plans”.

So, is it a case of honest vs. dishonest?

Firstly, ‘honest’ should be prefixed by accidentally, reluctantly or surreptitiously, depending on which is actually the case. I would opt for accidentally given the way in which the Conservatives initially handled Lansley’s admission.

Secondly, there is more to Labour than dishonesty. As bad as Labour have been on the economy, the Conservative would have been far worse. When Brown acted swiftly to support banking when it was most needed Cameron, Osborne and Co. had little response.

Labour’s press management is appalling. Rather than the media focusing on the bold decisions made by Brown in contrast to the Conservatives' reluctance to do anything, the media are focusing on Brown’s petty lies. Labour have themselves to blame.

UPDATE

The day after this post was published Polly Toynbee offered the following advice to Labour:

Talk about the national debt honestly and turn it against the Tories. If Britain really is coming out of recession, keep telling voters the truth: virtually every penny of debt comes from rescuing the country from depression and the knock-on effect of recession. Saving banks that were hours from shutting ATMs and starving the population, then flooding the economy with money to stop a depression, was action strongly supported by the Financial Times and the Economist. The Tories – alone – opposed it and would have plunged us back to the 1930s. Most of the debt is due to recession – when tax revenues dry up and unemployment costs soar. These costs would be phenomenally higher in a long Tory-induced depression. […]

Voters know the Tories will cut with relish anything they dare, but David Cameron will win on competence if he is the only one who seems to face up to the debt. Labour has the best record on the recession and the best record on public services – but no chance if no one believes a word it says.

Be still my beating heart – electoral reform is on the agenda.

The news that Gordon Brown is to give electoral reform “consideration” was leaked in advance of the official announcement. According to Newsnight's Paul Mason, it is a condition placed on Brown for his uncontested leadership. The Alternative Vote system is the one the government favours. Surely, this is to be welcomed by all … surely not that is.

The problem? Nobody can agree on the best electoral system.

Meanwhile it looks like the House of Lords is to become elected. Moving aside the objection that an elected second chamber is not as desirable as most people think (now there is a future blog post to look forward too), is it really wise to reform the second chamber when the future electoral system of the first chamber is unknown?

No voting system is perfect. If the second chamber is to become elected, why not use a different voting system to the one used in the first chamber in order to balance out the faults. For example, a first past the post system in one chamber to deliver a strong government and proportional representation in the other in order to better reflect voter intention.

What will be the outcome? We wait with bated breath.

Wales & the Euro Election

I wanted to write a post on how UKIP were going to be a much bigger threat in Wales than people anticipated. I could not afford the time. So here is a post on how people overlooked UKIP’s potential for electoral gain in Wales

Wales is allocated four MEPs. In 2004, the region returned two Labour MEPs, one Conservative MEP and one Plaid Cymru MEP. As UK Polling report pointed out that “For the Liberal Democrats or UKIP to gain an MEP here they would need to get at least 50% of the first placed party’s vote.” So how did UKIP manage it? The results in the 2004 Euro elections were as follows:

Sitting MEPs and 2004 Results

1. Glenys Kinnock (Labour) 297,810 (32.1%) (Will stand down at next election)

2. Jonathan Evans (Conservative) 177,771 (19.1%) (Will stand down at next election)

3. Jill Evans (Plaid Cymru) 159,888 (17.2%)

4. Eluned Morgan (Labour) (148,905) (Will stand down at next election)

UKIP 96,677 (10.4%)

Liberal Democrat 96,116 (10.3%)

Green 32,761 (3.6%)

BNP 27,135 (3.0%)

Forward Wales 17,280 (1.9%)

Christian Democrat 6,821 (0.7%)

Respect 5,427 (0.6%)

Welsh assembly election 2007

Political betting forecast the following results for the Welsh 2009 Euro Election based on Welsh Assembly Regional List 2007.

‘Harry Hayfield on the Euro Elections in Wales’ Political Betting

Votes Cast

Labour 250,000

Conservative 225,000

Plaid 200,000

Liberal Democrats 125,000

British National Party 75,000

United Kingdom Independence Party 50,000

Green Party 35,000

Regional Allocation: Lab 2 (n/c) Con 1 (n/c) Plaid 1 (n/c)

The actual results were

	Votes		MEPs
Party	Total	%	Total	+/-
Conservative	145,193	21.2 (+1.8)	1	0
Labour	138,852	20.3 (-12.2)	1	-1
Plaid Cymru	126,702	18.5 (+1.1)	1	0
UK Independence Party	87,585	12.8 (+2.3)	1	+1
Liberal Democrats	73,082	10.7 (+0.2)	0	0
Green Party	38,160	5.6 (+2.0)	0	0
British National Party	37,114	5.4 (+2.5)	0	0
Christian Party	13,037	1.9 (+1.9)	0	0
Socialist Labour Party	12,402	1.8 (+1.8)	0	0
No2EU	8,600	1.3 (+1.3)	0	0
Jury Team	3,793	0.6 (+0.6)	0	0

So how did he, and others, manage to get his prediction so wrong?

There were several factors.

Unlike most of England, and the last Euro elections in Wales, Wales did not have council elections at the same time as the Euro elections. This meant that turnout was always going to be lower than last time round – a factor not taken into consideration in the above prediction.

Lower turnout favours smaller parties such as UKIP. This effect is exaggerated by the voting system itself providing the smaller party usually miss out on the basis of the popularity of the major parties, as was the case in for UKIP in 2004.

The prediction was based on the 2007 Welsh Assembly results.

Party	Votes	Votes%	+/-%	Euro Elect
Labour	288,954	29.6	-6.9	y
Conservatives	209,153	21.4	2.3	y
Plaid Cymru	204,757	21	1.3	y
Liberal Democrats	114,500	11.7	-1	y
BNP	42,197	4.3	4	y
UKIP	38,490	4	0.5	y
Green	33,803	3.5	-0.1	y
Socialist Labour Party	12,209	1.2	0	y
Others	9,350	1
Welsh Christian Party	8,963	0.9	0.9	n
Communist Party of Britain	3,708	0.4	0.2	n
Christian Peoples Alliance	2,694	0.3	0.3	y
Socialist Alternative	1,865	0.2	0.2	n
Respect	1,792	0.2	0.2	n
English Democrats Party*	1,655	0.2	0.2	n
Veritas	502	0	0	n
Socialist Equality Party	292	0	0	n

Many people do not vote for the same party in different elections. It is quite understandable that the Europhobic Welsh are more likely to vote UKIP in European elections than they are for the national assembly. The same is probably true of Green Party voters.

The Welsh Assembly elections coincided with the council elections, which was reflected in higher turnout. Failing to take this into consideration inevitably lead to Political Betting prediction predicting generous returns for the major parties and the BNP whilst underestimating the support for UKIP and the Greens.

Wales had the most wasted votes of any UK Euro elections region – over 31%. This means that a significant drop in the most popular party, in this case Labour, would seriously advantage the previously non-elected parties providing that they were competitive.

Disillusionment with Labour is high. Popular Labour incumbents were stepping down. The Labour vote in Wales is in freefall. The UKIP electoral success in Wales is not as unlikely as it first appeared.

The fact that UKIP are more popular in Wales than people had anticipated should not have come as a surprise. The graph below, which can be found in Wales section of the parliamentary report on the 2004 Euro Elections, shows the voting changes from the 1999 to the 2004 Euro election. What is not shown on the graph is the turnout.

In Wales, the turnout was significantly higher in 2004 than 1999, due to coinciding with council elections. This would have favoured the big parties and disadvantaged the smaller ones, so the gains made by UKIP, BNP, Greens, are smaller than they would have been had the turnout been lower.

The Euro elections provided a dilemma for disillusioned traditional Labour voting Welsh nationals. Although some parties picked up the disillusioned Labour vote, abstention was the greatest victor. Ultimately, turnout was low – 30%, Labour lost their second Welsh Labour MEP, and UKIP won, despite receiving fewer votes than the previous election where they won none.

UPDATE

Courtesy of syniadau – the percentage change in votes from 2004. Please note this is based on vote not share of vote. The number voting is 25% down (based purely on the numbers voting – not on the percentage of the electorate voting, which would be 11% down). Therefore, a loss 25% is to be expected.

BNP 36.78% Green 16.48% UKIP -9.40% Con -18.33% PC -20.76% LibDem -23.96% Lab -53.38%

Two things can be read from these results

1. The support trend
2. The effect of low turnout

Unsurprisingly, the chart demonstrates that the bigger parties suffered the most abstentions. The BNP’s colossal growth in support in spite of low turnout is a disturbing trend. Hopefully, the effect will be diluted in the general and assembly elections, when turnout ought to be higher. The Green party’s growth, on the other hand is a welcome sight.

As for what this means the 'big four' parties in Wales, ORDOVICIUS demonstrates the trends throughout the different elections.

In a general election, Labour and the Liberal Democrats ought to perform better than they did in th recent Euro election.

For a breakdown of votes into Welsh Westminster constituencies see WalesOnline.