Long ago in 1992, the aides of Bill Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, knew all about the inability of the governor of Arkansas to keep it in his trousers. The public was let in on the secret when Clinton’s former mistress, a nightclub singer of the type boys’ mothers once warned were nothing but trouble, announced their relationship.
Clinton lied. The mistress produced tapes of their intimate conversations. The Clinton camp’s fallback position that “everyone lies about sex” did not play well.
Everyone may lie, but few want to be lied to, particularly when the liar is a presidential candidate asking for their trust.
Illustration: Mountain People
Fortunately for Clinton, Arkansas had a convict called Ricky Ray Rector on death row. He had murdered a police officer and turned his gun on himself. Somehow he survived and Clinton flew back home to ensure his execution went ahead without hindrance, even though Rector was so brain damaged he could not have understood the charges against him.
I do not think Christopher Hitchens ever lost the anger he felt at the spectacle of a white “progressive” from a state in the old Confederacy executing a black man to save his career. However, smart political operators appreciated that Clinton’s “positioning” helped him become the US’ 42nd president.
The 1990s seem like history now. Like an inmate on death row, the US way of death has been taking a slow journey toward its own extinction.
“We are in the middle of a sea change,” Robert Dunham, executive director of the US Death Penalty Information Center, told me.
The number of new death sentences imposed fell sharply this year. Executions dropped to their lowest levels in 24 years. All the signs are pointing the same way.
Dunham turned from a lawyer into an activist when he was doing pro bono work. He found a poor Hispanic, who was not so different from Clinton’s Rector.
The man had a severe mental disability and could not understand the case against him. His lawyer could not be bothered to fight because, like Clinton, he was running for office.
Dunham learned then that one of the best arguments against the death penalty was that poor clients got terrible advocates.
He said that he never thought he would see abolition in his lifetime, but juries are refusing to pass death sentences and states are overturning old laws.
You do not win arguments until the other side concedes ground. The biggest hint that change is coming is the second thoughts of Republicans. It turns out that there are strong conservative arguments against the death penalty. Libertarians ask: What greater instance of big government can there be than the state taking a citizen’s life?
As DNA evidence has shown that many of the executed were innocent, Christian conservatives have wondered how they can square opposition to abortion with support for the death penalty.
I have never been sure of how I would answer the question: What would you want to happen to the murderer of someone you loved? The answer that it is for society to find justice rather than the individual to demand vengeance feels bloodless.
I felt no need to protest at the execution of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. The genocide of the Kurds seemed justification enough. And I doubt I would have taken to the barricades to save Fred and Rosemary West.
Long experience of state-mandated killing has allowed US abolitionists to give an answer to victims that does not sound like the platitudes of a passionless bureaucrat reading from a script.
The protracted, expensive process of appeals offers no closure, they say. The killer almost supplants the victim as defense lawyers spend years finding reasons to exonerate him. Better to lock him away and leave him to rot.
It is sometimes hard to believe in the liberal idea of progress, but now so many countries have abolished the death penalty, the only major killers left now are China, where the state uses execution to maintain the power of the communist elite, and Saudi Arabia and Iran, where Koranic punishments perform a similar function for clerical elites.
The US was once with them. Now it appears to be saying that it does not wish to keep such foul company.
One can become equally optimistic by looking at Britain. After former British prime minister Tony Blair and Conservative Party leader Michael Howard saw how successfully Clinton and his Republican rivals had exploited fears of crime, they all but doubled the prison population.
Former British secretary of state for justice Chris Grayling followed their lead. He was the grayest macho man you could ever meet, and the most unmanly too, because he lacked the courage to examine the consequences of his actions. He banned prisoners from receiving books and presided over a chaotic prison system disfigured by violence.
However, even here, his successor Michael Gove is astonishing those who assumed he was a caricature Tory by undoing Grayling’s bad work and promising the first sustained attempt in decades to cut the prison population.
Before we get too cheerful, I should say that progress dies without political leadership. If I were Gove, I would worry about British Prime Minister David Cameron. Imagine one convict released early and committing a terrible offense; the right of the Conservative Party demanding tough measures and their allies in the press in full cry. Would Cameron have the guts to back him?
As for the US, let us see if progress survives next year’s presidential election. Donald Trump is already calling for mandatory death sentences for the killers of police officers. If he or another right-wing Republican nominee goes hard on crime, do not assume the Democratic candidate would fight back.
With the number of executions falling and a minority of Republicans supporting abolition, you would not need to be an exceptionally brave politician to fight, I grant you. However, the Democratic candidate is Clinton’s wife. And no, thank you, it is not sexist to emphasize her marriage, and not only because her political career piggybacked on her husband’s.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has all his slippery willingness to say or do anything that might win an election or get herself out of a difficulty. The small stand she needs to take to encourage a growing movement against capital punishment is to add her influential voice. She cannot do it.
When questioned in October, she left herself with the “political space” to make a smart maneuver. She said she knew the poor and the black suffered most, but for all that, she wanted to keep the death penalty for “egregious cases.”
The 1990s was long ago, I said. Not so long ago, we may soon find.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath