The President, motivator-in-chief

Presidential character

The good heart transcends all notions of a political 'left' and 'right', and a sincere, compassionate leader can impart regeneration of a nation through words, as well as constructive deeds appropriate to the age. Such regeneration can be associated with ideals and values that all mainstream political and religious groups can relate to, whether one is a conservative christian or a liberal humanist. By values, I mean humanitarian love, honesty, patience, and tolerance - all of which are rooted in the individual citizen.

I will offer two examples of American Presidents whose words carried a sense of love and power, leaders whose words uplifted and assured, encouraged and didn't condemn, even if a universal conclusion on their policies is never likely to be reached.

Roosevelt remembered

One of the most important aspects of Presidential leadership is to maintain or cultivate the nation's spiritual morale. Historically, this has clearly been a factor in Presidential success, or at least, perceived success. This can be done through showing the sincerity of election promises by putting into action those pledges, but something more is needed than appropriate policy prescriptions. To be a successful leader, the President needs to inspire his people to good. This is more a spiritual, than a political, requirement.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President of the United States from 1933-1945 is respected by the majority of modern day Americans, for the character of his leadership. This is demonstrated by the fact that conservatives, and not only liberals, continue to pay tribute to FDR, whose New Deal programes were unravelled during the conservative revolution of the 1980s. Ronald Reagan himself, the architect of that revolution, preferred to cloak his opposition to big government in terms of President Lyndon Baines Johnson's "great society" platform than be seen to oppose FDR's New Deal. Yet this is not an inconsistency, if we consider the primary responsibility of leadership to be the communication of comfort, hope, and aspiration.
Such a leader must be the leader of the whole country, and be viewed as such, rather than as the leader of a particular political party. The ultimate responsibility for imparting the noble ends of individual self-government, unselfish patriotism, and comfort and security lie within the leader's own capacity for encouraging citizens to imbibe themselves with these aspects.

FDR was a great leader. His assurance to his people that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself", his fireside chats, and his strong committment to the poor, all during a tumultous and uncertain era, are indicative of this President's compassionate spirit. The fact that his 'collectivist' experiments were later discredited matter not when we consider his impact on the spiritual morale of the nation at that time, demonstated by the volume of letters he received in gratitude for his help. Roosevelt will always be thought of fondly for the spirit of compassion that went into his programmes.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

Ronald Reagan, like FDR decades before, came to power at a time of deep economic malaise. America's spiritual resurgence in the 1980s depended, most of all, on a change in perspective, and this was imparted by Reagan's central message - American's had a right to love themselves again. Now, there is much healthy scepticism about that last point, but I believe that Reagan's speeches genuinely made people "feel good" about themselves again. Critics would argue that I speak of his words, and not his actions, yet do not words, when spoken sincerely and with genuine love, impart reassurance and thus contain a power to heal?

Reagan's first inaugural address, in 1981, set the tone for how the American President can not only be the nation's commander-in-chief, but the motivator-in-chief as well. After expressing gratitude to President Carter for the orderly transition period, Reagan went on to celebrate the heroes of America, the 250 million citizens from every walk of life. The purpose of the speech must have been to encourage individual American idealism; to alert citizens to helping themselves and each other through their own human capacities. Reagan asked 'how can we love our country and not love our countrymen;' and imbibed a spirit of unselfish patriotism consistent with JFK's 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country'. The spirit of the speech must have touched viewers and listeners, and been the seed of the more optimistic decade that was to ensue.

Concluding thought

The President's individual qualities will have an impact on the nation as a whole. In addition to sound policy, whatever that might be, the health of national feeling depends on communicative leaders whose words encourage the the civic righteousness and moral goodness of citizens.

School Prayer

The separation of church and state debate

One major historical aim of secularists has been to ensure the protection of the individual against popular beliefs. This principle guided the framing of the first amendment of the US Constitution, and applied specifically to the position of religious belief within the new society. The first amendment contains the foundations for the doctrine of the separation of church and state, a concept that seeks to remove religious belief from the policies and actions of government. The line through which 'church' and 'state' is drawn has never been clear, and twentieth century America witnessed controversies over such hot-topics as evolution versus creationism and prayer in public schools. This post will look at the issue of school prayer, and the legal dynamics that have shaped its place in American education. I will argue that the current position is unfortunate, not because of a personal belief in the progressive nature of prayer, but because the current state of affairs is inconsistent with the notion of freedom for religion, the equally important twin pillar of the first amendment.

Brief legal history of school prayer

In order to hold the reader's attention, I will not draw out at length the entire history of the how, why, where and when of school prayer in the American education system. Suffice it to say, it was generally prevalent until a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1962 which ruled that daily Biblical readings and recitations were unconstitutional. The case had been brought before the court by a mother and son who were passioniate athiests, who felt such mandatory requirements violated the boy's constitutional rights, namely that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' (the first amendment). Needless to say, the Justices construed that such practices as Bible readings and audible prayers did amount to the 'establishment of religion'.

The rest, as they say, is history. The Supreme Court proceeded with the basig logic of this case, and developed the precedent so as to continally erode the place of prayer in public schools. The 1962 decision was followed, amoungst others, in 1980 by the banning of ten commandments displays, in 1985 by a prohibition on daily moments of silence, in 1992 by the banning of clergy-led prayers at graduation ceremonies and in 2000 by the declaration that student-led pre-sports match prayers were 'unconstitutional'. Such is the current state of affairs. Other channels of school prayer have been tipped for judicial action.

Constitutional justifications?

All these developments have taken place in the name of the Constitution. The judgements explain how each of these practices violated the establishment clause as the activities in question amounted to the promotion of religion within schools. Yet this is only one interpretation of the first amendment, and one that would discard America’s long-established religious heritage in the name of strict secularism.

The Constitution is far from clear that such activities as Bible reading, student-led prayer and especially silent prayer must necessarily amount to the ‘establishment of religion’. Constitutionalists argue, quite rightly, that the government must never be able to set the agenda, religiously speaking, and monopolise a particular belief system over any other. But the practices the Supreme Court have banned have not been government attempts to impose religion on its school children. They are generally moderate instances which reflect the country’s culture and religious foundation, which are supported by the great majority of Americans. The Bible is the spiritual sourcebook for Christians of many different denominations, and needless to say, for Jews, at least in respect of the Old Testament. The religious reference book for the overwhelming majority of Americans, it is quite feasible that the Bible could be read in schools without any corollary sectarianism.

The founding fathers understood the absolute importance of religious freedom in a just and tolerant society, but did they intend the Supreme Court to ensure that governments withdraw tooth-and-nail from the ‘promotion of religion’? I don’t believe that they did. The ‘promotion of religion’ does not amount to the ‘establishment of religion’, and this seems to be a principle lost on many of the well-meaning Supreme Court Justices. It has been argued that the intentions of the founding fathers were far from clear, yet George Washington said "What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." This is not of course cause for the teaching of a particular creed at the expense of any other - this would clearly violate the establishment clause, but it reflects the belief that religion, and prayer, were to be part of the the upbringing of children in public schools, and not separated from it.


School prayer and freedom for religion

If we are to accept the notion that the Constitution promotes both freedom from religion and freedom of religion, then the Supreme Court decisions are questionable. It is the manner in which schools address religious practices that determine their constitutionality. If a school child was told, against his or her wishes, to believe in Christianity, then this would of course be unconstitutional, because the aim would have been to impose religion on that child. Likewise, there should be no religious discrimination in the classroom, or an atmosphere in which a child feels uncomfortable for thinking differently. Freedom of thought is the highest of treasures.

But should all manifestations of religion be ousted from the classroom? The problem of mandatory school prayer could be solved by allowing children to remain silent if they so wished at points where others prayed or read aloud. I cannot emphase the importance of Constitutional rights concerning the minority. But voluntary Bible readings, audible prayers, and certainly moments-of-silence, do not in themselves amount to the ‘establishment of religion’, and are within the constitutional boundaries, as well as being democratic.

The Thought of Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is a fascinating character. The foremost critic of American foreign policy, he has been described as the world's 'leading public intellectual' and has been in the public eye since his anti-Vietnam war campaigning in the 1960s. My opinions on Chomsky's ideas have changed over time, but unlike many of his critics, I believe his work has progressive value, despite significant misgivings.

The first time I properly engaged with Chomsky was after purchasing 'Deterring Democracy' from a bookshop in London Victoria. Whilst it was dispassionate in one sense, with its extensive use of sources, it was highly emotive in another, and deeply uncomfortable to read.

Chomsky's work has been important in highlighting the sometimes murkier reality behind America's idealism, and in exposing double standards in respect of the regimes the USA has strategically supported. In my view, his work points to a certain superpower recklessness, and it should serve to remind America of its responsibilities as the most powerful country on earth.

Yet in other respects, I cannot agree with Chomsky's logic.

Everything he pens is viewed through two major themes, power and the pursuit of profit. This simple Marxian reductionism is surely incapable of explaining the inevitably complex nature of events and the range of human motives that accompany the logic of decision-making. Was it really the case, for example, that the Cold War was simply a pretext for America's global capitalist ambitions and had nothing to do with two very different forms of government and attitudes towards individual freedom? He doesn't seem to entertain the possibility. Whilst Chomsky never has been a 'Marxist-Leninist' or orthodox Communist, he doesn't give due analysis to Soviet expansionism, which re-enforces his bias against American foreign policy.

Although his writings are supposedly based on intellectual honesty, he skims over uncomfortable realities so that they do not obstruct the logic of his argument. David Horowitz has written an excellent article which touches upon the American invasion of the small Caribbean island of Grenada in 1983, an action which Chomsky was highly critical of.(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1018 )

Yet Grenada, at the time of the American invasion, was not undergoing a 'mild social revolution', as Chomsky claims, but had actually just gone from being run by a Castro protege to an even more hardline Communist. Neither was this claim American propaganda. In a chat with the International Socialist Review, when Grenanda is discussed, Chomsky makes his predictable arguments, whilst failing to acknowledge the fact that at least four east caribbean heads of government had requested the help of the Reagan administration in deposing the Grenadan Communists. ( http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200408--.htm) The Caribbean leaders had genuine worries about a Pro-Cuban base in the region, but did not have the military resources themselves to remove the Marxist dictatorship.

If we are to consider the broader picture, American imperialism and aggression are not quite what Chomsky makes them out to be. It is right to ask difficult questions, such as why the United States did support certain dubious states at various times during the Cold War, but if our arguments aren't consistent with the fullest scale of facts, our search for truth and justice becomes mired in a personal agenda, which would obscure our better judgements.

Ronald Reagan and race

It has been said that Ronald Reagan was a benign bigot. Whilst his opponents accused him of racism during his political career, bitter articles in the present day have been written over his supposed callousness towards non-whites. With just a little willingness to look deeper into the facts, it becomes clear that Reagan was not a racist or a bigot intent on throwing blacks to the back of the bus. Misunderstanding or political frustration lies behind the claims. Whilst they are accompanied by passionate humanitarian logic, I believe they are also careless in their treatment of facts.

If Reagan was a bigot, it would not have made much sense given his early years. The son of a Catholic father, and a Protestant mother, Reagan’s religious upbringing is significant in discussions on the later Reagan and race. At a young age Dutch made a personal commitment to join the church of his mother, the Disciples of Christ, which taught that racial discrimination was as big a sin as any. It has been described how African Americans were welcomed and treated as equals in the Reagan’s home, and how Jack Reagan, Dutch’s father, refused to stay at a hotel when the owner made an anti-Semitic remark. In the home and at church, the young Ronald learnt love and tolerance for all races at a time when the southern Jim Crow system of racial segregation was at its cruellest, and racist attitudes would be found across the country. This background does not of itself prove or disprove anything, but is helpful for the ensuing discussions of Reagan’s political career, which is our concern.

Part of the carelessness with facts that I mention is the habit of some commentators to not give the whole picture. Tim Wise’s passionate essay on Reagan’s legacy (http://www.blackcommentator.com/94/94_wise_reagan.html) argues that ‘Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act at the time of its passage . . .and never repudiated his former stand’ but this is clearly inconsistent when we consider Reagan’s unambiguous statement in 1965, a year after the passage of the said Civil Rights Act, that ‘I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary’.
Whilst it is inevitable that all academics, journalists and commentators cannot help but be selective in their use of evidence, it is self-explanatory that striving for the highest level of objectivity is important.

In the same article we are told how Reagan, as Governor of California, ‘dismissed the struggle for fair and open housing, by saying that blacks were just “making trouble” and had no intention of moving into mostly white neighborhoods’ but the fact that under Reagan an unprecedented number of blacks were appointed as Californian state employees is unsurprisingly omitted. (An American Life, p.183). Wise may have a valid point, in so far as Reagan did sometimes make careless comments, but such remarks were at worst negligent, and hardly in themselves racist. Actions, as well all know, speak louder than words, and Reagan’s move to appoint more blacks speaks volumes of his real character. Reagan’s critics seem willing to attack Reagan’s race record on whatever front they can, regardless of whether such criticism is valid or truthful. Perhaps a primary example of this hollow criticism is shown when during the 1980 election Reagan made his first port of call the southern state of Mississippi. Reagan chose to speak to voters about states rights.

Several sources have claimed the subject of Reagan’s speech was a disguised appeal to the entrenched racism of southern voters. (States rights being the central issue of the American civil war). Not only disrespectful to southerners, the accusation also does Reagan a disservice, who had been an advocate of states rights throughout his political career and was clearly no opportunist. Joe R. Hicks, former protester and late convert to Republicanism, makes this point lucidly, arguing that ‘This had everything to do with Reagan's views on localizing democracy and nothing to do with courting segregationists’. (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hicks200407090845.asp)
It is thoroughly wrong to imply that by championing states rights Reagan must have agreed with the south’s abysmal history of institutionalised slavery, or that he was in any way pandering to it. By claiming Reagan was pandering to southern racists, his opponents had hoped to obfuscate the issues for political purposes, as critics were to continue to do during the Reagan Presidency. Policy on South Africa was just such an example.

The way Reagan’s critics describe his stance on apartheid South Africa is, once again, incomplete. Phrases such as ‘his support for apartheid South Africa’ are fairly common, which are usually designed to portray Reagan as bigoted. What is not mentioned is the fact that his support was not unqualified, and that he actually denounced the system of apartheid. What he did feel, in opposition to many, was the economic sanctions were not the answer to the countries problems. It was partly his concern for black jobs that informed this view. His 1986 address makes this very clear; that he was absolutely opposed to the system of apartheid, but that he disagreed with sanctions on strategical grounds.

It is possible to argue that Reagan didn’t actually do much to further the cause of civil rights as President, at least in terms of legislation or government programmes. But then Reagan always believed that a just society relied on government playing a limited role. He would have never been tempted to believe that by passing more legislation he could have hoped to solve America’s racial tensions overnight. Whilst President, Reagan may have had a dislike of affirmative action programmes, and blocked sanctions on apartheid South Africa, but to link these positions with bigotry is wrong. To understand how he really detested racism, there is no better place to look than in his autobiography, (An American Life, p. 385) where he describes visiting a black family who had been the victims of racism. He took time to personally visit that family. A small incident, perhaps, but it does much to offset the prevailing notion that Ronald Reagan was indifferent towards non-whites.

Ronald Reagan, thinker

Introduction

Visit any major bookstore in the United Kingdom, and try to locate a book, any book, on Ronald Reagan. You may find one. I once did. But you might have some difficulty. Needless to say, Britons as a general rule are not terribly interested in the life and times of America's fortieth President.

An entrenched attitude I've encountered is that Ronald Reagan was an actor, a failed one at that, who lacked any depth or substance. A man who laughed his way through eight years in the white house, quite literally, without a care in the world. With no intellectual pedigree or ability to think for himself, Reagan was an "amiable dunce" who took his lead from cue cards and rich businessmen.

It is worth mentioning that those are some of the less hostile attitudes! I find the above perception a view that needs revising, and without the baggage of liberal or conservative emotionalism. There is a non-partisan case to be made for the philosophical life of Ronald Reagan, lifeguard, actor, politician and thinker. Tracking Reagan’s political and intellectual development, a new picture emerges of a man with more philosophical clout than he is often given credit for.

1. The childhood years

It is related in Reagan's biography, and in Paul Kengor's volume on Reagan's religious faith, the impact one particular book had on the intellectual and spiritual development of the young Dutch Reagan. Kengor relates how 'That Printer of Udell's', a fictional story written by Harold Bell Wright, a Minister, led to the 12-year-old's independent decision to be baptised in the Christian faith. The narrative concerned the personal journey of Dick Walker, a young man who left home at an early age due to an abusive and alcoholic father. The story follows Dick's spiritual redemption, and raises important questions in
relation to welfare policy and how to tackle poverty. Kengor draws the clear link between the issues raised in the book and Reagan's later political positions on them.

What is significant is the characteristics of the young Ronald this early episode illustrates, such as his willingness to engage in a text described as "theologically advanced" and one that would "overwhelm most eleven-year-olds" (God and Ronald Reagan, p.21). Even as a youngster, Reagan showed the capacity and the willingness to engage with substantial ideas, rather than forming opinions from the prevailing notions of others. This independence of mind was demonstrated throughout his life, and evidenced during his years in Hollywood, when he made the dramatic conversion from liberal Democrat to conservative Republican.

2. From Democrat to Republican

For the first half of his life, Reagan was quite the opposite of the figure who in the eighties so forcefully advocated individual liberty, free markets and smaller government. A Democrat, Reagan was a strong admirer of FDR and a believer in the power of government to solve people's problems; in his own words, a "New Dealer to the core" (An American Life, p. 105).
Reagan was never to lose his affection for FDR, but the 1964 Goldwater campaign made it starkly clear that Reagan had abandoned any faith he might still have had in the New Deal and its big government experiments.

The conversion had resulted from Dutch's first-hand experience of a hungrier and hungrier Uncle Sam. He reflects on his time in Hollywood, "I was in the ninety-four percent tax bracket, which meant the government took home most of what I earned" (An
American Life, p.117). It was his own personal deduction that there was something not quite right with a system that penalised wealth accumulation to such a draconian extent, and that reduced people's incentives to work harder. It was this personal experience, along with his encounters with Communist trade unionists, that were to inform Dutch's new political beliefs.

This is not the place to enter a political digression over whether smaller or bigger government, lower or higher taxes, are more desirable. We all have our opinions on that front. It is merely to point out that Ronald Reagan formed his opinions independently, through personal experience, and that the values he articulated in the eighties were not formed from the script, nor imposed from any external source or private interest group, as often seems to be implied. It was in the 1960s that America first witnessed Reagan as a political figure, and the episodes of that decade show Reagan more as an independent-minded citizen, than a conservative stooge.

3. The 1964 Presidential campaign

It was in 1964 that Reagan rose to national political prominence, when he gave his passionate televised address in support of Republican Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was an "archconservative" who advocated, among other things,
free markets and a stronger US policy in Vietnam. What has always struck me the most about Reagan's 1964 speech is not just that the words Reagan chose to employ were both powerful and eloquent, nor even the fact that Reagan, the actor, wrote the speech himself and performed it without notes. I felt the most significant aspect of the speech was its historical context, delivered at a time when there was a broad, if not universal, consensus that an expansive state, high taxes and growing socialisation were the inevitable way forward.

Again, the merits of Goldwater's conservative programme are not our primary concern here. It is the fact that Ronald Reagan had the personal willpower to challenge the prevailing status quo and support an unfashionable candidate. Needless to say, Goldwater lost the 1964 election at the expense of LBJ "great society" platform of social change. The point is re-enforced. Reagan's advocacy of conservative positions at a time when they were deeply unpopular demonstrates his lack of concern over the opinions of others, and the general independence and personal nature of the man's convictions. These characteristics were to continue into his Presidency, and were particularly evident during the early 1980s, years marked by a deep economic recession.

4. Economic Recovery Programme

The Economic Recovery Programme, as it was called, was a President-led initiative designed to stimulate the ailing American economy through a series of tax cuts in 1981. Supply-side economics, as it was officially known, was dubbed "Reaganomics", a word with pejorative implications that essentially confirmed the "voodoo economics" accusation of Reagan's Vice-President and former Republican rival George Bush. Despite the criticism, Reagan was elected with a supply-side platform, and once elected, managed to convince enough Democratic congressmen to pass the measure into law.

The problem arose when there was no immediate sign that the tax-cuts had had any positive bearing on economic performance. From all sides, people pressed Reagan to make changes that would have implied the tax cuts had been a failure. Reagan recalls how difficult a time this was, when all the evidence seemed to show that no progress was being made at all (An American Life, pp.314-315). But Reagan held firm and the economic indicators were to change, and to change in a dramatic fashion. Despite being practically a lone voice on the matter, the President maintained faith in his policy, and the country saw the results. The discussion of the merits of supply-side economics are largely peripheral to the fact that Reagan achieved what he set out to achieve on the economic front, in terms of job creation and a decline in the rate of inflation. The important point, for this discussion, is the willingness he showed in sticking to what he believed was right, and the rigorous independence of mind with which he did it.


Conclusion

Ronald Reagan deserves more credit than he is generally given for being a thinker. He was not introspective, and did to some extent understand the world in polar terms such as "good" and "evil". But the accusation that he was merely a political front man, a voice for other people's ideas, is untenable when we consider Reagan's history. His 1964 speech, in particular, demonstrated his grasp of contemporary issues, and the power of his own intellect. The fact that he wrote his own speeches whilst running for Governor in California, when Pat Brown, the Gubernatorial incumbent, thought they were written for him, speaks for itself. In the light of this, and all the arguments raised, I suggest that it would not be absurdly radical to describe the career of Ronald Reagan in these terms - lifeguard, actor, politician, thinker.

The Presidency of George W. Bush

Yesterday's US mid-term election results saw the Democratic Party make gains at the expense of the Republicans. President Bush's popularity has substantially declined over the course of his Presidency. His second term has two years to run. It seems like a good moment to assess President Bush's record so far.

Introduction

What have been the Bush administration successes, if any? Is there anything we can learn from any of Bush's policies about anything? I try and ponder these questions in this post.

I have decided to omit Iraq from the discussion. The arguments are too well rehearsed, and frequently, although understandably, take precedence over debabes in respect of his domestic agenda. I will address issues pertaining to the American economy, social policy and religious tolerance.

1. Tax cuts

People saw the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 as a sign that a particularly ideological President had entered the White House. Al Gore, Bush's opponent in the 2000 election, had argued that the cuts would unduly favour the rich, and John Kerry repeated the criticism in 2004 by stating that George Bush and himself (two very wealthy individuals) did not need a tax cut.

Much of the criticism has justification in the sense that the cuts were more beneficial towards the rich than the poor. But there is evidence to suggest they did what they were designed to do, namely, reinvigorate investment and stimulate job creation, not merely allow rich people to grow richer. And, if I remember correctly, the cuts were a provisional measure; they were not permanent rates.

Do you hear of anyone these days, in 2006, bemoaning the Bush administration for not having created a single job, as was the case in 2003-04? Hardly. Consider the argments for a strong economy, contained on the page http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/tax.cuts/index.html, where one individual (ok, he is a Republican) estimates job creation at over 5 million, and growth to be steady. I am not an economist, but the evidence, if we are to accept it as being broadly true, does give a cetain indication that tax cuts lead to economic improvement, which of course means more employment for all.

2. Abstinence education

Conservatives have claimed that the decline in America's out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy rates have been the result of the greater role abstinence programs have played in US sex education. A study by the think tank, Heritage, has linked the two, and the reported benefits of abstinence over 'safe sex' have been championed by other conservative Christian organisations.

President Bush is both a converative, and a Christian, and, as we all know, a strong supporter of abstinence-based sex education programs. His administration has spent millions of dollars promoting this form of sex ed., over the 'safe sex' version. This we do know. What we don't know, at least at the present time, is the ultimate effect of this policy on the activities of young Americans.

It is difficult to determine whether the federal endorsement of abstinence programs has had a significant impact, during President Bush's almost six years in office. The results are, so to speak inconclusive, as reported in this 2005 article in respect of Texas teenagers http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568/. It seems that at best we can say, in the words of Dr. Buzz Pruit, that "the jury is still out".

Perhaps history will judge the President kindly. We shall see.

3. Islam in America

The final area I want to consider is President Bush's treatment of American muslims. We often hear how the war in Iraq was merely a thinly-disguised crusade for Christianity, and how the American President's description of international terrorists as 'Islamo-fascists' was offensive Islamophobia.

Now, whilst there are many criticisms to be made of a) the decision to invade Iraq and b) the political leadership's conduct since the invasion, I have never accepted the 'Christian crusade' argument or believed that George Bush has an intolerant streak.

Bush has repeatedly on a variety of occasions made the important distinction between terrorism and true Islam. Consider his comment that "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace." That was on September 17th, 2001. Or consider his comments of the 19th November 2001, when he referred to the Islamic faith in these terms - "That word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science" and subsequently that "All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements." I cannot recall any official insult, nor a report of any private disparaging remark, in respect of the Islamic faith.

The President was right to defend muslims after September 11th. This Islamic source indicates how Bush distanced his administration from the anti-Islamic remarks of some conservative Christian leaders in the wake of the terrorist attacks. http://www.submission.org/islam/editorial-NOV02.html


Conclusion

George W. Bush was elected in 2000 with an interesting set of domestic policies, such as his
his support for the 'faith-based initiative', the poverty-fighting weapon as desribed in Marvin Olasky's book, Compassionate Conservatism. Sadly, the main issues of Bush's 2000 election campaign were forgotten in the midst of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, which changed the priorities of his Presidency and re-orientated the administration's goals around foreign policy objectives.

In regard to the three 'indices' I have considered, which deliberately omitted the military invasion of Iraq, I summarise my 'findings'.

The tax cuts will be seen as a triumph by conservatives, who generally prioritise economic prosperity over questions of inequality, but not by liberals who have become concerned over the growing gap between the rich and poor since c. 1981. In respect of abstinence, we may all have our own views of what best prevents unwanted teen pregnancies but it seems in order to assess Bush's record we need to wait for reports which will come in the future. Although I have only brushed the surface on the Bush administration's relations with American muslims, the evidence points more in the direction of tolerance than discrimination, and kindness rather than emotional anger, evidence that suggests Bush is more of a unifiying figure than many might give him credit for.

As with all my posts, I have only offered a sketch of the issues.

My only hope is that they point in a more-or-less accurate direction!

Apartheid South Africa and 'constructive engagement'

This is a belated response to the comments recently made by David Cameron, Conservative Party leader, regarding British policy towards apartheid South Africa in the 1980s. DC claimed the Conservatives were wrong to pursue 'constructive engagement', as opposed to 'sanctions'.

Introduction

Promiment amongst the left's long list of criticisms made against Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan is the refusal of both leaders to enforce sactions against apartheid South Africa during the 1980s. Prima facie, this greivance is understandable, as without a closer inspection of the historical and political situation, opposing such sanctions would seem to be, if not an endorsement of the racist regime, then at the very least a callousness towards the disenfranchised black population. This important and highly sensitive subject is worthy of closer inspection.

We need to ask whether the Thatcher/Reagan policy was wise, given the historical, geo-political and economic context, and whether the conventional view that opposing sanctions was morally wrong should be challenged.

This post will argue that:

a) The economic implications of the sanctions in respect of the black population are seemingly ignored.

b) There was in fact dipomatic work undergirding relations with South Africa that put substantial pressure on the apartheid regime to change.

c) The criticisms of Anglo/American policy fail to consider the implications of imposing sanctions for the West's geo-political strategy, in the light of the Cold War, a crucial battle for the long-term supremacy of democratic values and human rights.


A. Economics

It is related in an interview with a South African priest that the policy of 'constructive engagement', as opposed to the enforcement of sanctions, was morally wrong and that President Reagan's justification amounted only to an interest in profit, not the lives of the oppressed, and that Anglo/American policy halted, rather than hastened, univeral suffrage.

It seems that this argument fails to consider the fact that the lives of the oppressed would inevitably have been affected by the crippling of the South African economy. If the West was to 'disinvest', as it were, the day-to-day running of the mines would be put in jeapardy, and with them the jobs of thousands of South African blacks. In this respect, sanctions may have destablished South Africa in such a way that was detrimental to the people it aimed to help.

B. Diplomacy

The attempt to impose sanctions may have met with angry definance from the white political leadership. The UN had, after all, passed resolutions against apartheid with little effect. Given this, it is certainly questionable whether the 1986 sanctions proposals would have been effective. Diplomacy, which was the policy that Reagan and Thatcher pursued, was possibly the more viable option. And there is no doubt that these two Cold warriors were fully opposed to the apartheid system with all its injustices.

C. Cold War strategy

Its easy to forget, living as we do in a post-cold war world, just what the Communist threat looked like in the 1980s. It may not have been quite as great as the more hawkish elements may have claimed at the time, but it would not be wise to ignore the fact that Africa in the 1980s was deeply engaged in an ideological stuggle. Southern Africa was a hotbed of proxy activities. Whilst Ethopia was in the clutches of a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, receiving aid from the Soviet Union, Angola was locked in what was to be a long and devastating conflict between Communist and anti-Communist forces. Relations with countries in the north were hardly cordial, with Libya being the primary example in that respect.

In these turbulent circumstances, it is generally understandable that the US would want an ideological ally in the struggle against Communist ascendency in the region. The South African government were a reliable ally in this important ideological struggle. This is not an insigficiant point. Many have argued that America was inconsistent and hypocritical in opposing Communist dictatorships but supporting other 'friendly' world leaders whose record on human rights was itself pretty dire.

But the argument, in this author's view, boils down to this. Full-blooded Communism in Southern Africa would have been a far more insuperable obstacle to freedom than an bizarre and unjust apartheid system in one country that was already in decline.

Conclusion

Naturally and indisputably, it is right to oppose human rights violations wherever they occur. But then 'constructive engagement' was not opposed to this principle. It merely considered sanctions an ineffective way of helping to achieve Anglo/American objectives in the region, one of which was to bring about the end of apartheid.

Understanding the Nation

I have heard it said that the nation is nothing more than a social construct, an imagined community that has no more validity other than in the misguided minds of men. I sympathise with the Liberal/Marxist worldview. I had a recent conversation with a friend who felt it better to idealise community rather than country, and by logical extension, the world rather than country also. I agreed with him.

Just call me a liberal internationist.

But in earnestness, whilst taking on board the liberal concerns that I myself share, I hope to offer an alternative understanding of 'the nation', one which tries to balance the fervor of right-wing patriotism with the occasional miserableness of left-wing indifference.

The Nation - respect for the laws, man

The nation is a real entity - or at least, sufficiently real to warrant a useful discussion. It is a clear historio-politico-legal structure (hows that for a description?) that has had and continues to have a very real bearing on our own lives as it did on the lives of our predeccesors.

If we are born in Britain, we have an obligation to abide by British law. If we are born in France, we have an obligation to abide by French law.

For example, as 'Britons', our understanding of law and politics determines our 'Britishness'. We understand our membership of the British nation through an appreciation of historical events and legal rights that have developed and occurred within the generally distinct political entity, Britain. We do not understand ourselves through an examination of French systems. The French system is, of course, equally valid and possibly even preferable. But I do not gain a legal/political understanding of what I can and can't do in Britain today and thus what it means to be British by reading the Napoleonic Code.

This, as I understand it, is nationhood.

The British constitution

Thus, Britishness can be defined in a series of rights and political norms (somewhat simply put):

- the right not to be locked up without trial
- the right to due process
- the right to freedom of expression
- religious freedom
- the sovereignty of parliament
- the constitutional monarch

These rights have been the outcome of popular struggles and victories, but we now understand them as inalienable .

Of course, many of you will be thinking that this is all ridiculous. That the rights I have listed are merely manifestations of universal human rights, and are applicable to all. That my inclusion of the phrase 'Britishness' is a somewhat bizarre and unnecessary digression.

In a sense, this is self-evidently correct. But in another sense, it can be helpful to view them through the British lens, as a point of comparison can then be made between Britain and other jurisdictions.

Freedom in modern Britain

I apologise if this post has caused more confusion than clarity. In short, my central argument is that nationhood can be useful if viewed through a historcal, political, legal lens, as we are all born within defined political territories, even if those territories are ultimately arbitary and socially constructed.

There are all sorts of things we take for granted today. The right to freely protest Mr Blair's foreign policy, education policy or any other policy. The right to depose our leaders at election time. The right to be gay. The right not to be gay. Etc. These are not rights guaranteed throughout the world. This is by no means a conservative apologetic of the wonderland that is Britain - but it is a recognition that within the territory widely known as Britain, we as Britons have become accustomed to freedoms that we now regard as sacred and inalienable.

An extreme simplification - life is not the same in the UK as it is Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Life was not the same in the USA as it was in the Soviet Union.

I submit that understanding nationhood as the cumulation of national freedoms is the best way of viewing 'the nation', and frees it from any racial or xenophobic implication it might otherwise have.

The Passion of Political Correctness

Has anyone been following the Liberal Democrats recent attempts to impose newspeak on us all? I've read over the last couple of days, with amusement, of two particular incidents which have not done the Political Correctness lobby any favours in this author's eyes.

The first I learnt of was Lib Dem MP Bob Russell's shock and outrage that a Government spokesman (or should that be spokesperson?) used the bigoted and inflamatory phrase 'black economy' in reference to the nation's economic affairs.

The second abomination was a Tory councillor's remark (in an e-mail), that were Noah to receive the call to build his ark today, he would have to cater for gay animals. Liberal councillor's demanded that experienced Tory councillor David Clutterbuck go on "compulsory equality training" in order to correct such outrageous and bigoted views. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369644-details/Outrage)

Both these incidents illustrate just how daft political correctness can become.

Now, I'm not against political correctness. I am, to some extent, an ardent supporter, and I don't believe people should have a completely free licence to offend others on the basis of race, gender or sexuality. What I don't like, however, is when political correctness becomes a dogmatic agenda, threatening the culture of free speech that allows us to think and converse without fear of repurcussions.

This sort of political correctness sees more value in instituting a linguistic dictatorship, than in truely taking into consideration the thoughts and feelings of those it claims to be defending. I don't believe this sort of PC is at all people centred or concerned with respect; if it was, wouldn't David Clutterback's experience of 19 years on the Council count for anything? I don't think there is anything more
disrespectful that insisting that a 72 year old go on a equality education programme for merely making a joke.

What these disproportionate reactions tell us is that Liberal elitists (of the kind described, this is not an attack on liberalism per se) do not understand that its more important how words are used than the words themselves. Clearly, there are some words which cannot be anything other than slurs, but is the use of 'blackboard', 'black sheep' or indeed, the 'black economy' really to the offence of anyone?

Has anyone even been consulted on the matter?

At first, I could not believe the two stories I have related in this post. I could not believe that so much energy and time could be wasted over something as minor as the 'black economy'.

There are real issues to discuss.