If the polls are right, and I begin to think that they might be, then US President George W. Bush will be re-elected in November. And we on the left and center-left of politics will somehow have to account for it.
Popular explanations will include a rubbish Democrat campaign, corporate campaign money, the machinations of the right-wing media, Republican dirty tricks and -- above all -- the suggestion that Americans are dumb. Today we're doing dumb.
The argument goes something like this. Bush and the Republicans stand for policies that actively and rather obviously damage the ordinary American. If Jo Schmo was in her right mind, she would realize what was going on and vote Senator John Kerry. She won't, so she isn't. Therefore her behavior and beliefs are so out of trim with her "natural" interests and her "real" experience that her consciousness, as Marx would have said, is false.
A couple of weeks ago a book was published in the US that elaborated on exactly this theme. What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank gazes on "a panorama of madness and delusion worthy of Hieronymous Bosch." In this Bedlam of irrational behavior -- the state where the working classes vote Republican -- small farmers vote themselves off the land, proud parents ensure that their kids will never get to college or afford good health care, and stolid factory-workers vote for closures and regional decline.
But why do they do this? There must be a reason. Frank finds it, essentially, in Christian fundamentalism. The Republicans offer to sell homophobia, anti-feminism and covert racism to the dumb folks of Kansas, but what they actually buy is big-business liberalism and globalization. They are gulled by the oldest trick of all, the one that gets the victim to look somewhere else.
But suppose, for a moment, that the Kansas voters aren't so dumb. Suppose, first, that they don't buy the economic prospectus unwittingly along with the social populism, but consciously because they actually agree with it -- because (and this hurts) it does actually tie in with their concrete experience. In other words, their consciousness is not false at all.
Why might a poor person be opposed to tax increases and social benefits? Possibly because they hope to be richer themselves, maybe because they believe that high benefits are a disincentive to work and conceivably they believe both because that is exactly what they see happening around them -- folks getting rich and folks idling.
We, of course, tend not to look at things in this harsh way. But as the best book I have read recently about the US -- The Right Nation: Why America is Different, by John Mickelthwait and Adrian Wooldridge -- points out, American history and optimism are different. If you want, say, Hispanic votes, you don't go on about welfare; Mexican immigrants aren't big on it.
European social democrats have to concede that there is such a thing as a disincentive to work. As Will Hutton has pointed out about Germany, one "vital prerequisite to restoring German economic health" is for the authorities to "stop offering what amounts to a generous pension for life," cutting it down to something that tides people over between jobs.
Then there's the question of the alternative.
If the problem, as formulated by one Democratic commentator, is that the Republicans "destroy the farm subsidies that have kept family farms out of the hands of giant corporate mega-farms, deregulate every industry including the once-dominant aircraft industry, and ship the rest of the jobs overseas or get underpaid migrant labor to fill the positions," then the answers would appear to be to increase farm subsidies, tightly regulate domestic aircraft production, increase protectionism and place restrictions on migrant labor.
This is a formulation that would find favor with Pat Buchanan and the populist ultraconservatives, but it is hardly likely to resonate with modern voters who surmise -- rightly -- that the outside world cannot be locked out. It would also not find much favor with us here in Europe.
No, the problem is the same problem as it always is -- giving people something better and believable to vote for. Starting from where they are.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under