A day or so ago I attended a talk given by David Hart of Liberty Fund about the great French liberal (in the real sense of the word) economic thinker, Frédéric Bastiat, who remains less well known in the land of his birth than in the United States or even in Britain. In France there is a widespread assumption that more or less liberal and free-market ideas come from the despised Anglo-Saxes and no understanding that throughout the nineteenth century French thinking on the subject was probably wider and more profound than its British equivalent.
The talk was a lot of fun, delivered with great verve by a man whose knowledge of the subject is exhaustive but who remains excited about all its aspects. He also reminded us that Liberty Fund publishes on line and for free a large number of classical texts of liberal thought. I am hereby linking to that and shall put it on my website list.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Another war looming
Just as the United States re-elected the man who must rank among the most incompetent Presidents in its entire history, the Middle East is set to explode into war yet again. Post hoc is not necessarily propter hoc, I know, but one cannot help wondering in this case.
Of course, the Gazans have been using their independent status and the umpteen million pounds that they receive in aid and is not stolen by the Hamas leadership to send hundreds of rockets into Israel for many months and, even, years. The presidential election has not made any difference to them. But has it to Israel? Did they decide that with Obama back in the White House, they have little to lose and much to gain by striking back rather neatly and killing the leader of the Hamas terrorist wing in Gaza, Ahmed Jabari, as well as eight other known terrorists? Hard to tell.
Naturally enough, there have been "reprisals" and Hamas has killed three Israeli civilians as well as fired rockets into the vicinity of Tel Aviv. At least, we think it was Hamas as "both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have claimed responsibility for the attack". The BBC reported it, too. And the reprisal for that may well be Israeli troops on the ground in Gaza. Let us hope this time they will think a little more carefully about public relations than they have done in the past. At least they have taken with gusto to the twitter war that is raging between the two sides.
They have not started badly. For the first time in I don't know how long we are getting news stories that start with the fact of those Hamas rockets that have been raining on Israel. The Foreign Secretary's statement blamed Hamas for the situation that is rapidly spinning out of control though it called on Israel to preserve stability. Fair enough.
There seems no point in this blog trying to outdo the news agencies on the subject, so let me link to one or two interesting stories, instead. Firstly, a posting by Stephen Hoffman (yes, yes, I know the lad) that tries to explain to the readers of the Young Britons' Foundation site that Israel, like other countries, has the right to defend herself. Personally, I find it odd that anyone should need to argue that. Every country has the right to defend itself and Israel has been remarkably patient with those rocket-firing Gazans. Would any other country put up with it or, more to the point, expect to put up with it? (In parenthesis, let me add that I also supported Bosnia's right to defend herself back in the nineties.)
Phyllis Chesler has an interesting round-up of reactions from various tranzis and NGOs. They are what you would expect but it is still fun to read them:
The Prime Minister of Egypt is off to Gaza to support Hamas though not so long ago the Egyptian security forces had their own problems in the area. This is a particularly good time for the Egyptian government to show support for warmongering terrorists as the EU has just approved an aid package for the country's "battered economy" (though that description implies that it ever functioned satisfactorily) worth 5 billion euros ($6.4 billion or £4.02 billion). Presumably, there is just too much money floating around in the EU and we can all spare it to shore up the rickety and hostile structure called the Egyptian government.
Finally, something to make us all chuckle. Pallywood is back and the BBC happily fell for it. Do watch this interview and news story if you have not seen it yet, paying particular attention to the writhing in pain wounded man who is being carried away around 2:10 or just after and his miraculous recover around 2:42.
Of course, the Gazans have been using their independent status and the umpteen million pounds that they receive in aid and is not stolen by the Hamas leadership to send hundreds of rockets into Israel for many months and, even, years. The presidential election has not made any difference to them. But has it to Israel? Did they decide that with Obama back in the White House, they have little to lose and much to gain by striking back rather neatly and killing the leader of the Hamas terrorist wing in Gaza, Ahmed Jabari, as well as eight other known terrorists? Hard to tell.
Naturally enough, there have been "reprisals" and Hamas has killed three Israeli civilians as well as fired rockets into the vicinity of Tel Aviv. At least, we think it was Hamas as "both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have claimed responsibility for the attack". The BBC reported it, too. And the reprisal for that may well be Israeli troops on the ground in Gaza. Let us hope this time they will think a little more carefully about public relations than they have done in the past. At least they have taken with gusto to the twitter war that is raging between the two sides.
They have not started badly. For the first time in I don't know how long we are getting news stories that start with the fact of those Hamas rockets that have been raining on Israel. The Foreign Secretary's statement blamed Hamas for the situation that is rapidly spinning out of control though it called on Israel to preserve stability. Fair enough.
There seems no point in this blog trying to outdo the news agencies on the subject, so let me link to one or two interesting stories, instead. Firstly, a posting by Stephen Hoffman (yes, yes, I know the lad) that tries to explain to the readers of the Young Britons' Foundation site that Israel, like other countries, has the right to defend herself. Personally, I find it odd that anyone should need to argue that. Every country has the right to defend itself and Israel has been remarkably patient with those rocket-firing Gazans. Would any other country put up with it or, more to the point, expect to put up with it? (In parenthesis, let me add that I also supported Bosnia's right to defend herself back in the nineties.)
Phyllis Chesler has an interesting round-up of reactions from various tranzis and NGOs. They are what you would expect but it is still fun to read them:
So far, the governments of the United States, Britain,Germany, and Canada have asserted that Israel has a right to defend itself. The liberal democracies in the West are speaking out.
But, Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations stated that“Israeli reactions need to be measured so as not to provoke a new cycle of bloodshed.” International groups are urging "restraint."
Amnesty is calling on "all sides must step back from the brink to protect civilians;" Physicians for Human RIghts say: "Israel's decision makers (should) refrain from an attack on Gaza which may cause many victims in Gaza and Israel;" Oxfam International calls for "immediate restraint as Gaza-Israel violence escalates."
These groups did not call for restraint when Hamas launched their 700 rockets into heavily populated Israeli cities such as Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ber Sheva.
Do Ban Ki-Moon and Amnesty and the allegedly medical groups know that Israeli civilians have been murdered and wounded in these current rockets attacks—including a pregnant Chabad representative who was visiting Israel for a memorial service for the Chabad rabbi and rebbitzen z”l who were murdered in an Islamist terrorist attack in India? Do they care?The answer to that last question is "of course not" but neither do they care about the Palestinians or they would speak up a little more loudly about the oppression imposed on them by Hamas.
The Prime Minister of Egypt is off to Gaza to support Hamas though not so long ago the Egyptian security forces had their own problems in the area. This is a particularly good time for the Egyptian government to show support for warmongering terrorists as the EU has just approved an aid package for the country's "battered economy" (though that description implies that it ever functioned satisfactorily) worth 5 billion euros ($6.4 billion or £4.02 billion). Presumably, there is just too much money floating around in the EU and we can all spare it to shore up the rickety and hostile structure called the Egyptian government.
Finally, something to make us all chuckle. Pallywood is back and the BBC happily fell for it. Do watch this interview and news story if you have not seen it yet, paying particular attention to the writhing in pain wounded man who is being carried away around 2:10 or just after and his miraculous recover around 2:42.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Time to start worrying about the London - Brighton run
Rather than try to work out all the details, known and unknown, of the growing Petraeus scandal, this blog will turn to matters nearer home. (No, not the BBC's travails though I have no sympathy whatsoever with broadcasters who appear to have no understanding of the concept of law.)
Lord Willoughby de Broke put down the following Written Question in the House of Lords;
Lord Willoughby de Broke put down the following Written Question in the House of Lords;
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the proposals by the European Commission to harmonise European Union roadworthiness regulations; and what effect these proposals will have on the ownership of classic and vintage cars in the United Kingdom.Earl Attlee, replying on behalf of HMG, as ever produced a mealy-mouthed explanation (as if Ministers could ever do otherwise).
An initial assessment has been made on the proposal which suggests potential significant costs to the UK. At the recent Transport Council the Government intervened and expressed serious concerns about the proposal, which will remove the requirement to have an annual roadworthiness test for vehicles over 30 years old and of historic interest, while limiting allowable modifications. The Government will continue to challenge those provisions that imply unmerited costs.What, may one ask, are unmerited costs and, more importantly, is the London - Brighton Veteran Car Run safe from the regulators who, undoubtedly, have our best interests at heart?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
An interesting analysis
John O'Sullivan in the Spectator discusses Obama's narrow and rather bitter victory and muses about the future. Nothing specific but not as depressed and hopeless as some analyses.
Managed to miss this
This is good news, as well. The Synoblog has been back for some time and nobody told me. Boo-hoo! Anyway, I am delighted that the best reporter from Brussels can be read again with ease.
Even I'm depressed
Usually I am angry or amused in a bitter sort of fashion or coldly sarcastic. But there is no way of getting past it: I am truly depressed and keep thinking about the terrible days of the seventies the repeat of which I had hoped never to see again.
Having written that paragraph about twelve hours ago I have had some time to think about things. I am a little less depressed but that may be a.) because I am sick of hysteria on both sides of the fence or b.) because, as an American Anglospherist friend said, I am 3,000 miles away from it. Mind you, he added, however bad things were on his side of the Pond, he was not ready to swap them for the joys of the Coalition and the EU. Wise man.
All I can say in my own defence is that I remained doubtful about Romney's victory but was becoming mildly optimistic. No, he was not ideal but a good deal better than what is and stays in the White House. The final figures, together with the turn-out are still to come but the Electoral College vote is 303 to 206. Not a landslide but a comfortable victory for the man who has been in charge of some of the most disastrous policies of the last few years and his second in command, who habitually forgets where he is or who he is speaking to. The popular vote is close, something like 51 per cent to 49 per cent but, again, final figures will come. Obama got 9 million fewer votes than last time, which is a figure to bear in mind. Then again, it would appear that Romney got fewer votes than McCain did. We shall see.
What astonishes me is not that people voted for Obama - people vote different ways for different reasons - but the hysterical joy being displayed by so many supporters and the equally hysterical cries of "Obama will fix it". You, ladies and gentlemen, have just re-elected the Administration that has presided over a completely dysfunctional and ever more debt-ridden economy with an ever lower rate of employment, a dysfunctional foreign policy that has resulted in the murder of an American ambassador, an ever more disunited country and you are hysterical with joy. Is that because so many Hollywood celebrities are happy?
On the other hand, I do not think America is or is about to become Communist or even Socialist. Big state cronyism is a bad thing, economically, socially and ethically but it is not Soviet Communism. Get a grip, people. Nor is it possible for a big, strong and basically rich country to be destroyed and annihilated by one bad Administration though it is very bad. No country gets annihilated just like that. Heck, even Belgium cannot destroy itself.
My prediction for what it is worth is that President Obama will do very little in the second term, partly because few president do anything much in the second term and partly because he just doesn't do much, which is a problem in itself, particularly in foreign affairs where things will go from bad to worse. To be fair to Obama, he promised nothing in his campaign and did not refer to Obamacare, still not in place and being challenged in various states or theporculus stimulus, which has proved to be a disaster. The economy is going to get worse, the entitlement mentality will grow until there will be no money to pay for it and the debt will continue to spiral.
Just for starters, here are a few items of news:
Boeing has announced large restructuring and lay-offs on the day after the election, having one assumes been asked to hold the news back. Suddenly, we are being reminded that the Treasury "expects the federal government to hit its legal debt limit before the end of this year--which means before the new Congress is seated--and that "extraordinary measures" will be needed before then to keep the government fully funded into the early part of 2013". Should be interesting. Then there is the usual flurry of falling stock and shares at the thought of a Democrat President and a Republican House but we shall know more from the pattern as it emerges in the next few days. Dow's immediate reaction was to plummet so, perhaps, it was a more serious worry. It didn't get any better though I am not sure we can blame the woes of European stock markets on the US election alone.
Meanwhile, serious conservatives, many of whom supported Romney with gritted teeth and because of the possibilities Paul Ryan presented are beginning to pick themselves up. Ryan, incidentally, is back in the House of Representatives.
First off, I received this e-mail from Jim Geraghty of the National Review (no, it is not a private e-mail but his daily update):
Ed Morissey spends a little time figuring it all out and coming to no conclusion. On the whole different parties in different parts of the political structure is no bad thing and I have no problems with legislative gridlock but President Obama who has shown dislike, ignorance and contempt for the US Constitution is rather given to Executive Orders and he may well proceed to have a few in the next couple of years, which is all he has at his disposal, realistically speaking. Those, as I was reminded by another knowledgeable American friend, can be easily revoked by a Republican President.
Stratfor's George Friedman thinks gridlock will be disastrous for foreign policy. Not as disastrous as ill-thought out intervention in Libya into which Obama was suckered by former President Sarkozy and the Boy-King.
Then there are all the various analyses of what went wrong, why it happened, and so on, and so on. I did not read all of them (there is a limit to my geekery, though readers of this blog must wonder some times) and I shall link to a few, only.
Ron Radosh is always worth reading, especially as he says much of what I thought of as well. He puts it better and goes into many other points. A good deal of interesting stuff in his analysis of the voting pattern but I don't think it was the sight of President Obama in a bomber jacket (copying Bush much?) that made people vote for him though that probably put an end to Governor Christie's presidential ambitions. The GOP does not forgive any more than any political party does.
Then there is the Latino or Hispanic vote that is becoming an issue. It seems that GWB got 41 per cent of the Hispanic vote, McCain 31 per cent and Romney 27 per cent. The movement is in the wrong direction and, given the demographic factor, that needs to be addressed. Radosh cites the Judis and Teixeira theory of the "emerging Democratic majority" that is really based on an alliance of the various minorities. This theory gets bandied about but is addressed comprehensively by Megan McArdle who makes the obvious point with some interesting details that nothing ever stays the same in politics and those alliances have a way of dissolving. The Republicans could think of addressing some of the individual groups' problems and encourage ambition in them.
Incidentally, while I don't think Romney was a particularly good candidate (though somewhat better than feared) I don't think he was "uniquely bad" and he was the best of a very weak field. His weakest point, I suspect, was that he was Governor of Massachussetts and a New Englander. They are not popular in the rest of the country as GWB, for one, understood very clearly and worked hard to reinvent himself as a Texan, which was despised by Europeans but remained fairly popular in his own country.
The point about the immense tax hike that is coming is probably accurate and will be a nasty shock to all who will wail in the time-honoured fashion of the electorate that this was not what they had voted for.
Another, less well argued piece on the Hispanic vote is by Heather MacDonald in the National Review and she links to her own longer article in the City Journal. I am not sure what she advocates the Republicans should do as it all seems a bit hopeless both politically for them and socially for the Hispanics. Her argument that Hispanic idea of family values is different from the Republican one is sound enough but the whole article really argues that those family values have long ago broken down and when Hispanics say they think the government should be involved, they really mean that the government should take over where their own structures have collapsed.
Finally, we have an article on why the GOP has failed with American Indians, that is immigrants from the Indian Sub-Continent, despite politicians like Nikki Hailey and Bobby Jindal. Even more hopeless - unless the GOP ceases to be the GOP, according to this article, it will never attract the Indian vote. But, one might respond, if it ceases to be the GOP, it will not attract any other vote.
And there was plenty of other vote. The Republicans were not annihilated and did not lose as badly as some would have us believe. (That's quite apart from the problems President Obama has inherited from his predecessor, President Obama.)
Michelle Malkin gives twenty reasons why the election went better than some say and they have to do with Governors and other electoral matters in the states. In the US other things matter apart from the federal government.
In a slightly different vein, Dan Mitchell gives seven silver linings and three reasons to be unhappy.
And that's really it for the time being, except for a couple of articles. Brendan O'Neill comes up trumps in explaining that Obama's victory is that of an elite because there are now two elites around and Obama tapped into the second one that is the government, the media and academe. Of course, this is rarely mentioned by the media who prefer to present themselves as the opposition but it is true, nonentheless.
Let me end this blog with a link to a typically fighting posting by my friend Lexington Green on Chicago Boyz, entitled It Is NEVER Over. Nor is it.
Having written that paragraph about twelve hours ago I have had some time to think about things. I am a little less depressed but that may be a.) because I am sick of hysteria on both sides of the fence or b.) because, as an American Anglospherist friend said, I am 3,000 miles away from it. Mind you, he added, however bad things were on his side of the Pond, he was not ready to swap them for the joys of the Coalition and the EU. Wise man.
All I can say in my own defence is that I remained doubtful about Romney's victory but was becoming mildly optimistic. No, he was not ideal but a good deal better than what is and stays in the White House. The final figures, together with the turn-out are still to come but the Electoral College vote is 303 to 206. Not a landslide but a comfortable victory for the man who has been in charge of some of the most disastrous policies of the last few years and his second in command, who habitually forgets where he is or who he is speaking to. The popular vote is close, something like 51 per cent to 49 per cent but, again, final figures will come. Obama got 9 million fewer votes than last time, which is a figure to bear in mind. Then again, it would appear that Romney got fewer votes than McCain did. We shall see.
What astonishes me is not that people voted for Obama - people vote different ways for different reasons - but the hysterical joy being displayed by so many supporters and the equally hysterical cries of "Obama will fix it". You, ladies and gentlemen, have just re-elected the Administration that has presided over a completely dysfunctional and ever more debt-ridden economy with an ever lower rate of employment, a dysfunctional foreign policy that has resulted in the murder of an American ambassador, an ever more disunited country and you are hysterical with joy. Is that because so many Hollywood celebrities are happy?
On the other hand, I do not think America is or is about to become Communist or even Socialist. Big state cronyism is a bad thing, economically, socially and ethically but it is not Soviet Communism. Get a grip, people. Nor is it possible for a big, strong and basically rich country to be destroyed and annihilated by one bad Administration though it is very bad. No country gets annihilated just like that. Heck, even Belgium cannot destroy itself.
My prediction for what it is worth is that President Obama will do very little in the second term, partly because few president do anything much in the second term and partly because he just doesn't do much, which is a problem in itself, particularly in foreign affairs where things will go from bad to worse. To be fair to Obama, he promised nothing in his campaign and did not refer to Obamacare, still not in place and being challenged in various states or the
Just for starters, here are a few items of news:
Boeing has announced large restructuring and lay-offs on the day after the election, having one assumes been asked to hold the news back. Suddenly, we are being reminded that the Treasury "expects the federal government to hit its legal debt limit before the end of this year--which means before the new Congress is seated--and that "extraordinary measures" will be needed before then to keep the government fully funded into the early part of 2013". Should be interesting. Then there is the usual flurry of falling stock and shares at the thought of a Democrat President and a Republican House but we shall know more from the pattern as it emerges in the next few days. Dow's immediate reaction was to plummet so, perhaps, it was a more serious worry. It didn't get any better though I am not sure we can blame the woes of European stock markets on the US election alone.
Meanwhile, serious conservatives, many of whom supported Romney with gritted teeth and because of the possibilities Paul Ryan presented are beginning to pick themselves up. Ryan, incidentally, is back in the House of Representatives.
First off, I received this e-mail from Jim Geraghty of the National Review (no, it is not a private e-mail but his daily update):
Looking back, we could justify 2008 to ourselves: the economic meltdown, fatigue of eight years of George W. Bush. The McCain campaign had a slew of problems, and the opposition promised America a chance to make history with the first African-American president. They had hope and change; we had an elderly vet who was never an economics-focused guy at a time when the economy was collapsing.
In 2010, we saw epic Republican gains in that smaller turnout traditional to a midterm election, and we persuaded ourselves -- I certainly persuaded myself -- that 2008 was a historical anomaly, a confluence of factors that created a perfect storm for Obama and the Democrats. Things would be set right.
In 2008, Obama had been elected on the promise of things to come. In 2012, he would be judged on his record.
The American people looked at that record and said, "Eh, looks pretty good, four more years of that."
After Fast and Furious. And Benghazi. And the stimulus. And Solyndra. And Obamacare.All very true and inexplicable. Even less explicable is the fact that the opinion polls, which proved to be surprisingly accurate as to the vote, said over and over again that the majority of people disliked Obama's policies, did not think that the country was going the right way and did not think they were better off than they had been four years previously. Then they went ahead and voted for the status quo: Democrats in the White House, a Republican House of Representatives and a Democrat Senate though that was due largely to a couple of idiots who talked utter rubbish about women, rape and abortion and should have been booted out immediately.
Ed Morissey spends a little time figuring it all out and coming to no conclusion. On the whole different parties in different parts of the political structure is no bad thing and I have no problems with legislative gridlock but President Obama who has shown dislike, ignorance and contempt for the US Constitution is rather given to Executive Orders and he may well proceed to have a few in the next couple of years, which is all he has at his disposal, realistically speaking. Those, as I was reminded by another knowledgeable American friend, can be easily revoked by a Republican President.
Stratfor's George Friedman thinks gridlock will be disastrous for foreign policy. Not as disastrous as ill-thought out intervention in Libya into which Obama was suckered by former President Sarkozy and the Boy-King.
Then there are all the various analyses of what went wrong, why it happened, and so on, and so on. I did not read all of them (there is a limit to my geekery, though readers of this blog must wonder some times) and I shall link to a few, only.
Ron Radosh is always worth reading, especially as he says much of what I thought of as well. He puts it better and goes into many other points. A good deal of interesting stuff in his analysis of the voting pattern but I don't think it was the sight of President Obama in a bomber jacket (copying Bush much?) that made people vote for him though that probably put an end to Governor Christie's presidential ambitions. The GOP does not forgive any more than any political party does.
Then there is the Latino or Hispanic vote that is becoming an issue. It seems that GWB got 41 per cent of the Hispanic vote, McCain 31 per cent and Romney 27 per cent. The movement is in the wrong direction and, given the demographic factor, that needs to be addressed. Radosh cites the Judis and Teixeira theory of the "emerging Democratic majority" that is really based on an alliance of the various minorities. This theory gets bandied about but is addressed comprehensively by Megan McArdle who makes the obvious point with some interesting details that nothing ever stays the same in politics and those alliances have a way of dissolving. The Republicans could think of addressing some of the individual groups' problems and encourage ambition in them.
Incidentally, while I don't think Romney was a particularly good candidate (though somewhat better than feared) I don't think he was "uniquely bad" and he was the best of a very weak field. His weakest point, I suspect, was that he was Governor of Massachussetts and a New Englander. They are not popular in the rest of the country as GWB, for one, understood very clearly and worked hard to reinvent himself as a Texan, which was despised by Europeans but remained fairly popular in his own country.
The point about the immense tax hike that is coming is probably accurate and will be a nasty shock to all who will wail in the time-honoured fashion of the electorate that this was not what they had voted for.
Another, less well argued piece on the Hispanic vote is by Heather MacDonald in the National Review and she links to her own longer article in the City Journal. I am not sure what she advocates the Republicans should do as it all seems a bit hopeless both politically for them and socially for the Hispanics. Her argument that Hispanic idea of family values is different from the Republican one is sound enough but the whole article really argues that those family values have long ago broken down and when Hispanics say they think the government should be involved, they really mean that the government should take over where their own structures have collapsed.
Finally, we have an article on why the GOP has failed with American Indians, that is immigrants from the Indian Sub-Continent, despite politicians like Nikki Hailey and Bobby Jindal. Even more hopeless - unless the GOP ceases to be the GOP, according to this article, it will never attract the Indian vote. But, one might respond, if it ceases to be the GOP, it will not attract any other vote.
And there was plenty of other vote. The Republicans were not annihilated and did not lose as badly as some would have us believe. (That's quite apart from the problems President Obama has inherited from his predecessor, President Obama.)
Michelle Malkin gives twenty reasons why the election went better than some say and they have to do with Governors and other electoral matters in the states. In the US other things matter apart from the federal government.
In a slightly different vein, Dan Mitchell gives seven silver linings and three reasons to be unhappy.
And that's really it for the time being, except for a couple of articles. Brendan O'Neill comes up trumps in explaining that Obama's victory is that of an elite because there are now two elites around and Obama tapped into the second one that is the government, the media and academe. Of course, this is rarely mentioned by the media who prefer to present themselves as the opposition but it is true, nonentheless.
Let me end this blog with a link to a typically fighting posting by my friend Lexington Green on Chicago Boyz, entitled It Is NEVER Over. Nor is it.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Last few comments
I promise not to write about the American elections throughout Tuesday. No point, really, Over here we shall have no results before Wednesday, in any case, and if predictions are correct, we might carry on chewing our fingernails till well into Thursday or, God forbid, even after.
However, let me leave you with a few thoughts about the way news have been handled on this side of the Pond, which includes Britain and Europe. Der Spiegel is tying itself into knots, which is very pleasant to watch. No matter who wins, America will lose, they cry, as it has been destroyed by "total capitalism". One could say that even in its bleak hours, America is doing better than Europe that does not have "total capitalism" but I suspect Der Spiegel knows that.
American power had declined, they add in another article though why it should have done so under the great and wonderful President Obama is hard to tell. But, never fear, their coverage is even-handed. Why they even have an article about what Romney's foreign policy might be. Of course, it is really an interview with President Clinton's less than successful Secretary of State, Madeleine Allbright, but one can't have everything. Specifically, one can't have an interview with Condi Rice about Obama's existing foreign policy.
Interestingly enough, my friend Michel Gurfinkiel writes about exactly that, though with reference to the French media.
Finally, we come to our own BBC. Well, OK, not all our media is quite as bad as the BBC but this one really takes the biscuit. In all solemnity they published an article by the old-style Marxist Martin Jacques, erstwhile editor of Marxism Today and at present "a visiting senior research fellow at the London School of Economics, IDEAS, a centre for the study of international affairs, diplomacy and grand strategy. He is also a visiting professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing, and a fellow of the Transatlantic Academy, Washington DC". Oddly enough, the BBC does not see fit to mention this, especially not the position in Beijing.
His "point of view" is that China is more democratic than America but it is framed as a question, which is described even by John Rentoul (not someone on the right of the political spectrum) as being the best QTWTAIN he has come across for a long time.
It would appear that Mr Jacques has been giving a whole series of talks published on the BBC websites in which he has proved to his own and his masters' satisfaction that the Chinese government enjoys greater legitimacy than any Western elected one and there is greater satisfaction with its performance as described by people who are not allowed to criticize the party. (The last phrase is my own.)
I would expect nothing else from and old-time Marxist propagandist. Sadly, I probably expect nothing else from the BBC either.
However, let me leave you with a few thoughts about the way news have been handled on this side of the Pond, which includes Britain and Europe. Der Spiegel is tying itself into knots, which is very pleasant to watch. No matter who wins, America will lose, they cry, as it has been destroyed by "total capitalism". One could say that even in its bleak hours, America is doing better than Europe that does not have "total capitalism" but I suspect Der Spiegel knows that.
American power had declined, they add in another article though why it should have done so under the great and wonderful President Obama is hard to tell. But, never fear, their coverage is even-handed. Why they even have an article about what Romney's foreign policy might be. Of course, it is really an interview with President Clinton's less than successful Secretary of State, Madeleine Allbright, but one can't have everything. Specifically, one can't have an interview with Condi Rice about Obama's existing foreign policy.
Interestingly enough, my friend Michel Gurfinkiel writes about exactly that, though with reference to the French media.
“Yesterday, we followed Barack Obama’s campaign,” a young woman [on RTL, one of France's main radio channels] said. “Today we turn to Mitt Romney’s campaign.” All right. Except that “following Romney’s campaign” amounted, incredibly, to an interview with a certain Dr. Gordon, who explained that most Americans were grateful to President Obama for having introduced Obamacare. Especially those women who otherwise would have been deprived of any access to birth control. Some journalist at RTL then explained that Romney would abolish Obamacare. And the report was over.They don't even notice, he adds and neither does the public. (I may say the same thing about the British media and the British public who are astonished that anyone could be so mad, insane and evil as to support a challenger to Obama.) Gurfinkiel gives an interesting and accurate analysis for this ridiculous adoration of a highly incompetent incumbent:
Sympathy for Obama is rooted in the deepest layers of the French collective psyche, right and left. He is supposed to stand for a tame, less dominant, less assertive America; and France, like many other former great powers — from Russia to China, from the Hispanic realms to the Islamic Umma — is driven by resentment against Anglo-Saxon dominance at large, and American great power in particular. That was, after all, Charles de Gaulle’s core political legacy (much more than the need to tame Germany) and the not-so-secret rationale for his Faustian alliance with both communism (Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese) and Islam. In the 1960s, when de Gaulle actually presided over France, a sizable part of the French opinion understood that a powerful America had in fact helped France to be reborn, to remain free in the face of communism, and even to become a great power again (just like Germany or Japan). That current never materialized into a sustaining political force, however, and it gradually ebbed away.He then explains what exactly motivates this French psyche, how journalists abide by it and why it has become so all-encompassing. Read the whole piece.
Finally, we come to our own BBC. Well, OK, not all our media is quite as bad as the BBC but this one really takes the biscuit. In all solemnity they published an article by the old-style Marxist Martin Jacques, erstwhile editor of Marxism Today and at present "a visiting senior research fellow at the London School of Economics, IDEAS, a centre for the study of international affairs, diplomacy and grand strategy. He is also a visiting professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing, and a fellow of the Transatlantic Academy, Washington DC". Oddly enough, the BBC does not see fit to mention this, especially not the position in Beijing.
His "point of view" is that China is more democratic than America but it is framed as a question, which is described even by John Rentoul (not someone on the right of the political spectrum) as being the best QTWTAIN he has come across for a long time.
It would appear that Mr Jacques has been giving a whole series of talks published on the BBC websites in which he has proved to his own and his masters' satisfaction that the Chinese government enjoys greater legitimacy than any Western elected one and there is greater satisfaction with its performance as described by people who are not allowed to criticize the party. (The last phrase is my own.)
I would expect nothing else from and old-time Marxist propagandist. Sadly, I probably expect nothing else from the BBC either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)