George W. Bush, a personal memoir

On the inauguration day of Barack Obama, my thoughts turned to the outgoing President, George W. Bush.

My mind cast back to over eight years earlier to our first meeting, that indelible image of that affable Texan, projecting hope and optimism on his Presidential campaign trail, promising to unify a country deeply divided by Washington partisanship and the broader culture struggles in the country at large.

Back in 2000, I was not a particularly political person. I had recently started sixth form, and was still very much in the growth stages of what one might call any sort of political maturity. I was deeply unaware of the ideological differences between George Bush and his Democratic rival, Al Gore, nor was I aware of anything either of them stood for.

But from what I had seen, George was my candidate. I don't recall what he was promising America, nor remember anything of note that he said. I do remember feeling drawn to his easy manner and his natural ability to connect with his audience. I also remember his reassuring cadences, now lost to a world. Add to this the factor that his father, George H.W. Bush, had been the President I remembered growing up with. Whilst born in the year of Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, my earliest recollections of America were of Bush Snr.

My early recollections of the George W. Bush's Presidency were of him speaking eloquently on the execution of the Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh. I will always remember the first Bush protestors - those who had come out to express frustration with his early declaration of Kyeto withdrawal - and how it struck me almost immediately that we were going to have a very different sort of Presidency to the popular Clinton administration that had just departed.

Fast forward to November 2004 and Bush's bid for re-election. Whether or not it was true, the world felt unrecognisable to the one four years earlier. The 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington had changed the paradigm of the White House's priorities, and with a Republican congress Bush energetically turned his attention to national security and the defence against America's enemies. Military invasion had led to the disposal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, whilst American forces were engaged deeply in a proctracted conflict in Iraq following the invasion of that country 2003.

I was a Politics student at the University of Sheffield when Bush faced his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry on that election night. I remember the anger, the frustration - the overwhelming feeling amongst almost everyone in the Student Union to 'get that man out of the White House', the complete committment to the the Kerry/Edwards ticket, not for any particular affinity for those two candidates, but for the fact they were not Bush / Cheney. The feelings were not personal - they were directed at a sense that power was being misused and abused, and that something had to be done to return a sense of reasonability and restraint back to politics.

Which takes me back to my sense of disappointment then, and now, that George W. Bush didn't seem to be able to utilise those strengths he had shown as Governor of Texas and to follow through on the hopefulness of those messages on the campaign trail - of unity, strength and peace, greater personal morality in the White House and a humble, co-operative domestic and foreign political spirit.

His term drawing to a close, and on leaving the oval office, the outgoing President showed considerable gracefulness in assisting in the transition to the next administration. I am still left wondering whether the circumstances might have differed to have allowed the early humanity and humility of George W. Bush to eclipse the hubris that came to engulf his two terms in Washington.

Abortion, the Left, and the Sanctity of Life

In this post I argue that to be effective in the future the Pro-Life movement must embrace a broader sense of human rights.

Reactively Pro-Choice

I was surprised to learn of the Socialist Workers Party's recent activities outside of Westminster City Hall, where a pro-choice protest had been organised opposing the abotion debate going on in the House of Commons. Whilst appreciating that there are many out there who passionately defend 'pro-choice' views, I was nevertheless surprised at the SWP's rather hyperbolic claims that reductions in time limits for abortions amounted to a restriction on women's rights and a 'return to the backstreets'.

I found it curious how they tried to make out anti-abortion supporters were all white, male and senior - a self-evident untruth, whilst also claiming 83% of the population were in favour of the existing abortion laws. These assertions begged the question as to why there was any need for a protest if it was only the tiniest minority of MPs who were in favour of reductions, as there would presumably be no danger of Parliament ratifying such reductions.

I am opposed to abortion on principle. But the truth is, even for those on the liberal-end of the political spectrum, it is far from a black and white issue. The Liberal Democrat MP, Simon Hughes, voted for a reduction in the limit, as did some of his Liberal colleagues. Labour MPs Des Browne and Ruth Kelly voted for even further reductions. For all political parties, abortion has been and always will be a debate of the most profound moral implications and for the SWP to have such a rigid position does not reflect the complexity of the issues involved in the debate. Respect MP George Galloway, arguable the darling of the far left, is himself apposed to abortion!

However, perhaps this moral rigidity of some Pro-Choice supporters is partly to do with the failure of Pro-Lifers to make the case, and to develop a more positive, totalistic approach to opposing abortion.

Progressively Pro-Life

For a start, there needs to be an acceptable of the need for a debate. There needs to be a very real discussion on the future of abortion in this country, and one that involves those from the opposite ends of the political spectrum. No one, conservative, liberal or socialist, could possibly consider the current numbers of abortions taking place as being acceptable, nor does anyone want a return to a situation where women feel fearful and in danger.

What is really needed is a genuine sense of collective social responsibility, embraced by Left and Right, that all peoples and all life is important and intinsically useful. This sense should be one in which society has compassion on those in vulnerable situations, and doesn't judge them. This sense should embrace the understanding that whilst the rights of the unborn need protection, the wellbeing of pregnant women should be pursued with equal rigour. This should make sense to anyone who has a passion for human life and human rights.

There lacks radical debate from all sides on how some of the primary concerns relating to abortion can be tackled. Anyone of a Pro-Life persuation, or indeed anyone concerned about the levels of abortion or the current time limit should become engaged in a debate about how to overcome those problems which first led to the Abortion Act in the first place. This discussion would cover a number of areas. There could be support organisations specifically designed to offer encouragement and support to those considering an abortion, adoption services and charitable help.

Concluding thoughts

The SWP were right about one thing - abortion is indeed a Rights issue. But just not one in the narrowly defined limits and political correctness of 'women's rights'; it is a Rights issue in so far as all individuals, male, female and the unborn, have a right to equal dignity and protection under society's care and the law.

Where now? A letter to Gordon Brown

A new Prime Minister has been installed in No.10. What challenges lie ahead for Mr Brown and what should the direction of his government be?

I think any present day government, Labour or Conservative, has a duty to preserve and encourage traditional civil values, but also to take a strong leadership role in the issues of the day, such as the environment or affordable housing.

For the last 10 years, New Labour has got the mood right, in so far as it seeks to match strong economic performance, based on free-market capitalism, with a progressive committment to public service investment and reform. I think this is both sensible, and what the majority of people want.

This investment, in our education systems in particular, is to be welcomed, and recognised as an area government can be a force for good in, facilitating and encouraging the British economy for years to come.

Perhaps the areas Mr Brown needs to address, however, are the political hot-potatoes, those difficult modern issues that often seem to divide the liberal and the conservative; we need much more public detabe on Britain's membership of the European Union, immigration policy, and our welfare system.

Europe is important as it determines issues of sovereignity and accountability. We need much more genuine and open discussion on the virtues and vices of the EU, and a considered re-appraisal of British involvement. I can entirely understand the desirability and fundmental need of something like the EU, and it no doubt has been a force for greater unity and conflict prevention. Yet we need to ask whether we need to pursue a policy of 'ever increasing integration' (or words to that effect), whether such a matter is actually desirable, politically and economically speaking, given that some member states are compelled to subsidise protectionist practices (CAP) that run against the spirit of the free-market, and are of no use to the non-protectionsist economies. I would love to hear these issues raised more by our politicians and press.

Never before have we seen so many nationalities on these shores, people from all corners of the globe. Part of the reason for our relatively unique situation is the general historical tolerance Britain has shown these people. I think Britons has benefited, not just economically, but also in becoming more tolerant and kinder towards other cultures and ways of life. New Labour's general ambivalence over immigration has not helped us to clafiy issues and develop strong policies. Our national committment to institutions such as the rule of law, fair play, and value-cohesion dictate that we must have a stronger, more robust system of immigration law, where illegal entries are returned (after fair trials), limits and quotas are set on economic migrants, and citizenship applications require more than nominal qualifications. These all help to ensure social cohestion and balance - to allow those born here to have the first right to work here, and to ensure that the values of the British polity are retained, and that those wishing to stay genuinely respect traditional liberal values.

It has been revealed after 10 years of the New Labour government that Gordon Brown's system of welfare and benefits actually works to the detriment of stable relationships. In a no doubt compassionate move to support single parents, the welfare system has actually developed so to penalise couples for sticking together, entitling two parents to less, in what has to be one of the most obviously regressive policies of the last 10 years. Anyone can see that this, again, must be another area up for discussion. At least the Conservatives are starting to highlight some of these national policical flaws, and I have every faith in the modern Labour Party to be open-minded enough to engage in these difficult questions.

I am not an expert on any of the above, but it seems to me that they are areas left out of public discussions in recent years, possibly because the Tories, not unwisely, are keen to move over onto the Green agenda and attempt to revise their generally uncaring image. If the country is to be stable, prosperous, and self-reliant, we must have serious discussions on the difficult questions. We must not ignore them, or feel that political correctness has written them off the agenda, for we may find unintended consequences in decades to come.

Libertarianism and political unity

'Libertarianism', the modern-day equivalent of classical liberalism, is the doctrine that advocates individual liberty, free markets, and the minimal state apparatus. Harnessed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan in the UK and the USA respectively during the 1980s, prevalent ideas concerning the state's role in social and economic affairs underwent a paradigm shift.

That shift was indeed a needed one. The Thatcher/Reagan revolution was not a universally happy one, but did break the lethargic spell of socialism and helped to restore the long-term self-respect and confidence of those two nations. Writing as a Briton, had it not been for Mrs Thatcher's radical programme of privitisation, deregulation and tax cuts, I doubt Messers Blair and Brown would have enjoyed such a rosy economic picture.

Yet I have concerns with libertarian philosophy as a whole - with the central philosophical assumption - the idea that by maximising individual liberty in the economic and social spheres you arrive at man's best possible outcome.

I have two specific objections, both based on the missing notion of unity within libertarian thought:

1. The assumption that wealth disparities don't matter, so long as everyone is getting richer.

2. The tacit assumption that social policy doesn't matter.

1.

I have never heard an adequate libertarian response to the problem of human inequality. We are told that material inequality is unimportant, providing everyone is getting better off. And yet how would a libertarian respond to the problem of 'ghettoisation' and the vast social divides that now afflict Britain and America?

Does this honestly not matter?

I am not going to comment on whether the bottom 20% have made gains or losses over the past 25 years, as my objection lies with the view that the degree of material inequality doesn't matter.

You don't have to be a socialist to appreciate that excessive human inequality produces unhealthy social outcomes.

If national unity is something to be desired then disparities in wealth are clearly detrimental to this sensible political objective. A sense of unity is important for many reasons. It helped the West remain strong during the Cold War. It will help us again in the struggle against religious extremism. But most importantly, a sense of national unity helps to foster national prospertity and a happy people.

Capitalism, in its extreme variant, gives rise to stark inequalities, which undermine the unity I speak of.

The very things libertarians rightly desire - a free, happy self-reliant people - are undermined if all energy is given to the economic imperitive and none to questions of political unity.

This isn't an argument for socialism, or indeed the 'corporatism' of fascist states.

But it is to say that perhaps institutions such as the welfare state, the national minimum wage, and trade union laws help to balance economic dynamism (fuelled by light regulation and a low tax regime) with the basic level of material equality that is needed for a coherent national spirit.

Libertarians have no regard for the lessons of Benjamin Disraeli, the nineteenth century British Prime Minister, who understood the need for 'one nation' policies.

Coming up.... Libertarians and social cohesion.

Jerry Falwell

Thoughts on the life of the Reverend Jerry Falwell.



Jerry Falwell, powerhouse of America's christian conservative movement, passed on last week, aged 73. I wanted to write a post on my own feelings about the man and his life's work.



For many, Falwell was a fundamentalist preacher of the old-school, divisive and intolerant, scapegoating minority groups for the ills of the nation. Certainly this perception was not helped by his infamous comments regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks where he implied that the pagans, abortionists, gays and lesbions had 'allowed' the attacks to happen, through their sinful ways.



Yet I think there was much more to Dr Falwell than this fiery public persona. I believe there is much evidence to suggest that, as with Ian Paisley, beneath Falwell's austere exterior lay a genuine man of faith and spirituality - a servant of mankind.



Whilst his public sentiments appeared rather spiteful, Jerry Falwell's ministry was not one of hate. He built church agencies for unwed mothers and alcoholics. I saw today a clip of an African-American graduate of Liberty University, (the conservative higher educational establishment Falwell founded) who refered to Falwell, in the most gracious and sincere way, as his 'mentor'. Tributes of love and appreciation pouring in from students who knew him, or had been touched by his life.

What struck me about them was their sincerity; they were not self-righteous words designed to promote partisanship or to put down non-believers. They reflected the fact that Falwell must have had a human side rarely considered by his critics.



One only has to peruse a Falwell sermon or book to realise that the man's faith was much deeper than merely the great fear of otherness. Although not a believer in his theology, I do believe that he was able to impart to some degree the true spirit of Christ, a peaceful, loving presence, a universal, rather than dividing, force.



Jerry Falwell may be remembered by many more as a political figure than a religious one, due to the great influence he wielded, along with Pat Robertson, in galvinising christian support for certain social causes from the 1970s onwards. The debate over his politics lies in another post. Yet whether one agrees with everything he said in the political realm, there is room for appreciating he did good for mankind.

I think this is the reason he has recieved tributes and kind remarks from President Bush, Senator John McCain and perhaps most interestingly, Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian with slightly different political persuasions.

I would be interested to hear people's thoughts and perspectives on the life of Jerry Falwell.

Reflections on the England manager's job

With the England football team's recent embarrassing performances, questions have inevitably been asked over the FA's decision to appoint Steve McClaren as national manager.

The appointment, as far as I can see, did not meet with universal acceptance, and the media argued, probably correctly, that he was the FA's second choice to Phil Scolari.

I remember thinking at the time, and at the present moment, that I admired Steve Mac, but thought it was a little premature to give him what many would consider the most important job in the land.

He had, after all, only had five years of experience as a manager in the premiership - he had, of course, strong credentials as a coach and assistant, previous to this period, with Derby County and Manchester United, but I remember questioning the depth of his managerial experience. I also later questioned his record as Middlesbrough manager, which could be the only basis the FA could have used to validate his appointment to the top job.

Middlesbrough undoubtedly improved over the five years from the team that he inherited from Bryan Robson. They managed to finish one season in the top seven, and in another to win their first piece of silverware, the Carling Cup. The season before Mac's departure, they were UEFA cup finalists, something unthinkable in the last days of the Robson regime.

And yet, as pointed out by a journalist whose name I forget, Mac's teams could be wildly erratic, winning in triumphant fashion one week only to be hammered the next. And for most of the time, Middlesbrough were mid-tablers, not UEFA contenders.

Whilst I still think MacClaren did do a good overall job at Middlesbrough, his appointment as England manager is questionable when we consider the long-term records, and managerial experience, of two other Premiership managers, Sam Allardyce and Alan Curbishley.

If a preference for a manager was based on a) their managerial record (success determined by league position + expectations of club based on size and resources) + b) duration of managerial experience, as it surely should be, at least substantially, then I believe Big Sam or Curbs would have been offered the job.

In terms of Big Sam's record, his achievement of taking Bolton Wanderers from being a classic yo-yo club to an established Premiership force is nothing short of remarkable, especially given the overall impact the Club have had in recent seasons, easily managing to finish in the top 10 on a regular basis. This alone would be equal to MacClaren's achievement at Middlesbrough, even discounting Big Sam's success rate at Blackpool and Notts County.

Curbs, likewise, performed a similar feat at Charlton Athletic, equally remarkable when we consider the state of the club in the early 90s; groundless and going out of business.

My point is not to argue that Steve Mac does not possess sound managerial ability - I have already stated that I believe he is a good coach.

It is rather to say that his appointment as England manager, at the present time, is questionable, given his inexperience in comparison to the other two managers in question, and his record, which, whilst promising, does not really match the others in terms of its overall achievement.

The FA could perhaps give sensible reasons for the appointment - Mac's involvement in the England set-up at the time; his other experiences in working with England's top players whilst No.2 at Man Utd; the success of the said Man Utd. team under the Ferguson/MacClaren administration...

However, I still don't think those reasons overshadow the points already made.

My friend, Danny

Late in my undergraduate career at the University of Sheffield, I made a new friend, Danny. The circumstances of our meeting were somewhat unusual, as was the development of our friendship over the course of those summer months of 2005. Now uncontactable by any method, I often think of Danny, and wonder what he is up to.

As mentioned, we met in the unlikelist of circumstances.

I was returning to my Sheffield home after a pleasant evening with a lady-friend. At the same time, another young man was also returning to his residence. This inebriated young man, in contrast to my sober, teetotal self, gestured to me from the other side of the road.

My first reaction was one of curiousity about this individual. Concluding that he was strange but harmless, I crossed the road.

Despite being around midnight, and on his own, the young man wanted to know about whether anywhere remained open at that time of night for further entertainment. With my more-or-less adequate knowledge of the city, I was happy to inform him that West Street might be his best bet, if he was content to take a taxi. Then I remembered Rileys, the pool/snooker venue around the corner, and made known to him this information.

Not yet feeling ready to go home and have a hot cup of cocoa, I warmly accepted his suggestion of a few frames of pool. Thus began a unique friendship.

It all seemed rather a strange situation, when I recalled the events of the previous night to my amused house mates. A few of them were to come across the physical presence of Danny, but only momentarily, and there was never an occasion when he accompanied us to rileys, the pub, the union or anywhere else. This was, of course, partly because of the time in which we met, that it was close to the end of my undergraduate years, rather than the beginning. I, likewise, knew none of Danny's friends. Our communications thus become solely with one another, especially when we both remained in our university city over the summer whilst my house-mates returned home.

It wasn't really until uni had officially finished that Danny and I began our friendship. We met up for drinks on a more regular basis, and frequented Millenium - (a budget fast-food haunt, notorious for negligent hygiene standards but famous for the cheapness of its burgers) - in the early hours of the morning.

He was a highly intelligent character, and street-wise with it. But another abiding memory of Danny was his seeming inability to organise himself, financially, occupationally, and most importantly, educationally. His need for money took precedence over university, to the inevitable detriment of his studies.

I have mentioned to a friend that the time in which I knew Danny reminded me of the scenario in the classic film, Fight Club, mainly in the way Edward Norton meets Brad Pitt and their subsequent relationship. The chief characterists I felt were:

- Most of our associations were at night time.
- All of our associations were only in one another's company

To explain this second point, Fight Club's dialogue revolves around Norton and Pitt - they do, of course, have contact with outside individuals, seen in the actual fight club of the film's name, and in the derivative 'Project Mayhem' - but the centrality of Norton and Pitt is never called into doubt by these external characters. Similarly, wherever Danny and I went, there would obviously be people, but people without a direct or social connection to Danny or myself. I've probably drawn the analogy out too much!

One major problem of this comparison was that two of my friends could bear witness to having seen Danny, which confirmed his existence as a real person. Needless to say, Danny was not merely my alter-ego. Nevertheless, there was a sense of strangeness about the whole situation, given the circumstances of how we met, but also how Danny's background always remained unverifiable.

I knew what part of the country Danny was from; I knew what he had been studying at university - I knew these things - in so far as I had no reason to disbelieve what he told me. But I did not know him from a work-orientated capacity, a student-based one (we went to the same university, but had no educational connection), or as a friend of a friend - this meant that there was no verification of the person. It was therefore rather surreal. At least thats how its felt to me.

I lost contact with Danny after moving to a region far from away Yorkshire. I have since tried, in a number of different ways, to locate this mysterious person, but in vain. His mobile number has long since become unrecognisable; an attempt at a personal visit was unsuccessful when I learned that he had moved from the property that he had lived in.

I am, however, optimistic that I will find Danny. The manner in which I will do so just remains unknown.