Robert Sharp

So, Obama lost narrowly in New Hampshire, an alleged victim of the Bradley Effect. This is the apparent phenomenon of White voters saying they’ll vote for a black candidate, but then actually voting for the white candidate when they get into the polling booth. People apparently want to appear liberal when they answer the pollster’s questions.

That Obama is the victim of such a phenomenon may actually be true, but it is an explanation that makes me uneasy nonetheless. It is not really a falsifiable assertion, and is therefore open to abuse.

Further, I think the previous arguments of the Obama campaign and its supporters precludes the use of the Bradley Effect excuse. The campaign rhetoric is all about how Senator Obama inspires Americans to look beyond skin colour, and unite. A main reason to vote for him is that he is able to transcend race and vault clean over any Bradley Effect. He cannot then claim that he has been tripped up by that same political phenomenon, without undermining one of the central tenets of his campaign.

I note that the last seven posts on the Liberal Conspiracy have been about the US Primaries (I’ve been posting musings here too). This might seem odd for a group site that is supposedly concerned with the direction of the British Liberal-Left.

But let us have no apologies. Who can blame us for lapping up anything which undermine the cynicism of politics-as-usual? In analysing yesterday’s Democrat debate, Xpostfactoid makes some interesting points about the nature of politics and campaigning:

Politics is almost literally all talk. You’ve got to be good in the cloak room, at the negotiating table, on the debate floor. What gives a politician the ultimate strength to push through change, though, is to convince the mass of voters to support his or her effort for something major like health care reform. “Don’t discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens.” That says it all. That’s a real political philosophy at its deepest. (via Andrew)

It also provokes column inches and blog posts, generating momentum that magnifies such power. As we await the next wave of primaries, it is beginning to feel as if our American cousins are about to create a historical, political ‘moment’ that has spun out of control of the spinners. The last such ‘moment’ we had in British Politics was Mr Brown’s clammy handling of the early election decision. You will excuse me if I keep my attention fixed on New Hampshire, where altogether more inspiring events are unfolding.

Over at the Liberal Conspiracy, everyone has caught Primary Fever. JamieK thinks that Hilary Clinton may use Barack Obama’s middle name and tenuous links to Islam to unsettle his campaign. I doubt that she would stoop that low, but it looks like the Republicans may well seek to use it against him in the General Election Campaign later in the year (should he win the nomination, of course). Some on the right have already test-driven the Muslim slur (via) but it is so crass as to be parody:

As defenders of this great Republic, and of the pinnacle of Western civilization that it represents, we should all come together tonight and agree on a common strategy that will keep the White House from becoming a madrassa.

This sort of attack - that Obama is some kind of Muslim Manchurian Candidate - are easily rebutted, and the majority of the American electorate will scoff at the suggestion, and anyone who dares to make it.

However, the issue of his middle name will persist, for slightly subtler reasons. Whether Obama faces the uber-hawk Rudolph Guiliani, the evangelical Mike Huckerbee, or some other candidate in the November election, his Republican opponent will insinuate that Muslims at home or abroad are lesser people than those of the Christian faith, and imply that any sympathy or understanding Obama may have for these ‘others’ is essentially a lack of judgement. Elsewhere in the world, Obama’s multi-ethnic heritage is seen as positive trait, which should enable him to better understand someone else’s point of view. But in the USA, in an election-year, this risks being spun as a trait which means his priorities lie elsewhere, and that he will not always “put America first”.

Note that is concern should not be reason for Democrats to vote against an Obama candidacy (although if Senator Clinton does “go negative”, then that is precisely the argument she will make). Rather, it just means that the Obama campaign needs to neutralise such attacks at an early stage. Let us hope that Senator Obama, clearly an excellent orator, has already composed the rhetoric to see off this insidious, divisive red-herring.

A rewarding essay on Barak Obama in The Atlantic, ‘Goodbye to All That‘, by Andrew Sullivan. The thesis is that of the current crop of candidates for President, only Obama can heal America’s political chest-wound, a wound created by the Baby-Boomers in the 1960s and 70s.

She and Giuliani are conscripts in their generation’s war. To their respective sides, they are war heroes. … Of the viable national candidates, only Obama and possibly McCain have the potential to bridge this widening partisan gulf … If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.

There is also an interesting passage on the issue of Obama’s race, and his reconcilliation of his different identities, or rather, narratives. Its a dichotomy that comes knocking for all those who are of mixed race, or of immigrant heritage, and something that a greater proportion of people will face in generations to come:

In Dreams From My Father, Obama tells the story of a man with an almost eerily nonracial childhood, who has to learn what racism is, what his own racial identity is, and even what being black in America is. And so Obama’s relationship to the black American experience is as much learned as intuitive. He broke up with a serious early girlfriend in part because she was white. He decided to abandon a post-racial career among the upper-middle classes of the East Coast in order to reengage with the black experience of Chicago’s South Side. It was an act of integration—personal as well as communal—that called him to the work of community organizing.

This restlessness with where he was, this attempt at personal integration, represents both an affirmation of identity politics and a commitment to carving a unique personal identity out of the race, geography, and class he inherited. It yields an identity born of displacement, not rootedness.

Sullivan, erstwhile war-cheerleader turned ferocious war-critic, notes the sageness of Obama being “against dumb wars” too.

Here are two responses to the Apollo moon landings. First, Richard Nixon’s famous address on the optimism that the moon landings inspired:

Because of what you have done, the heavens have become a part of man’s world. As you talk to us from the Sea of Tranquility, it inspires us to redouble our efforts to bring peace and tranquility to Earth. For one priceless moment, in the whole history of man, all the people on this Earth are truly one.

The moon landings are probably the foremost example of what can be achieved when humans endeavour to co-operate. It is a story that has everything: from the insights of Gallileo and Newton; the imagination of Jules Verne; to the Leadership of Kennedy; to the bravery of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins; to the scholarship at MIT that built the computer guidance systems on the Apollo craft; to quick thinking of Jack Garman and Steve Bales, who made a correct, key decision regarding some obscure computer error codes, as Neil Armstrong’s Eagle hovered over the moon’s surface.

However, the poet Gil Scott-Heron was not impressed. He penned this indignant plea to spend the money on something different:

Was all that money I made las’ year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain’t no money here?
(Hmm! Whitey’s on the moon)
Y’know I jus’ ’bout had my fill
(of Whitey on the moon)
I think I’ll sen’ these doctor bills,
Airmail special
(to Whitey on the moon)

While it is surely worth a few billion dollars to bring mankind together as one, it is a lofty and imprecise ideal. Scott-Heron’s words ring in the ears, and anyone who is eager to journey back to the moon in our lifetime, or perhaps even to Mars, will have to justify the expense.

As I have said before, I begin with the idea that if one is going to design and build rockets, it would be more satisfying if we were to put astronauts in them, rather than nuclear warheads. It would also be more exciting, and (I think) more healthy for the collective human psyche. Spending several billions on “an ego trip” (as Bob Marley sang it), is a reprehensible thing when compared to the need for schools, a health system here in the UK, or AIDS medicines and mosquito nets in Africa. But compared to Trident, which is designed for the singular purpose of destruction, it is easier to argue that it would be money well spent.

Cancelling Trident and creating a bona fide British Space Programme would surely be an easy task, since the skills required for one project are easily transferred to the other. There is a place for rocket scientists and computer guidance systems engineers. And surely submariners would make perfect astronauts, accustomed as they are to spending long periods of time sealed in claustrophobic capsules?

Supporters of the nuclear deterrent remind us that for Britain to maintain an influence on the international arena, we need to be members of the nuclear ‘club’. Much of the argument is over what strategic advantage the submarines give us (if any), and whether it is relevant when our arsenal is dwarfed by that of the United States. Clearly if we were to cancel Trident in favour of a space programme, that programme would fare better politically and economically if it had some strategic importance too. Indeed, although the American’s cited the noble causes of ‘discovery’ and ‘wonder’ as the justification for their Apollo Programmes, the scientific and military imperatives were just as strong - As were the propaganda benefits.

One strategic project could be a replacement for the Galileo Project, the European satellite-navigation system that intended to rival the USA’s Global Positioning Satellites. The Galileo Project is in crisis, and it needs to be either replaced or reinvigorated. OK, so it is not quite an Apollo Mission… but the creation of a strategic technology that can be used in peace-time as well as war, seems to be a more imaginative side-step for a country like Britain, and certainly a better use of our rocket fuel. Once we’ve succeeded in that arena, we can set our sights higher, to the stars.

One of the reasons for being at the various Edinburgh festivals is the opportunity to get ahead of the ‘curve’ on films, plays and actors that are destined to become successful in the coming year. I saw Murderball before everyone else, and it was festival audiences who provided a seal of approval for Black Watch before it went on a lengthy tour of Scotland, England, and television.

This year the gem was In the Shadow of the Moon, a documentary about the Apollo Project. It was actually made by a British film-maker, but features interviews with several of the astronauts who journeyed to the moon. It also includes some newly-released and restored NASA footage of the voyages. It is due for release in the US where it is set to be a success, one which encourages a little bit of patriotism in a country that has been hit with a bout of Iraq-induced self-doubt.

Noticeable by his absence from the film is Neil Armstrong, who is a notorious recluse. This is annoying at first, but when one ponders the enormity of what he did, I think it is an unsurprising result. Who could resist grabbing him by the collar and shouting “MAN, YOU WALKED ON THE FUCKING MOON!” He has probably been subjected to that kind of hysteria for many years.

And in retrospect, Armstrong’s non-participation is a blessing, in that it gives the other Apollo astronauts a chance to shine (no pun intended). Michael Collins, in particular, explodes the notion that he was somehow “unlucky” to be left on the Command Module while Armstrong and Aldrin made history. The intelligent musings of Collins and the other astronauts on the nature of their heroism and how they dealt with the enormous pressure to succeed is what makes the film so inspiring - After all, they have experienced the nearest thing to a Total Perspective Vortex that humans can create, and the footage they brought back from the moon is a delight to behold, especially on a large cinema screen.

My favourite quote is from Alan Bean, the fourth man on the moon.

Now, I never complain about the weather. I am just glad that there is weather.

Though the funniest is Charlie Duke’s once-and-for-all put down to conspiracy theorists:

We went to the moon nine times. Why would we fake it nine times?

He has a southern drawl that makes it work. Wise, yet human.

We all know how common it is for politicians to lack self-awareness. If they did not make their ill-thought, contradictory statements on a regular basis, then satirists would be out of a job. It is the sincerety of the politician that makes the satirist funny.

It is also funny because we assume that the politicians in question do care about what the public thinks. We assume that they value their reputation, and that they will not be happy to see it eroded through mockery. This acts as a check on their actions. If they will not avoid the contradictory or the counter-productive because it is right, then at least they will make an attempt to do so in order to preserve their standing.

America is in the midst of a crisis, a breakdown in the realtionship between its Executive and the people. Most recently the focus has been on Vice-President Dick Cheney’s rejection of any kind of scrutiny of his role and activities from Congress. Meanwhile, President ‘King George’ Bush has just commuted the sentence of Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, who was convicted of perjury. Senator Barak Obama’s statement gts to the nub of the issue:

This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law.

Both Bush and Cheney have been accused of acting in a ‘regal‘ manner (via Andrew). In the case of both men, and in contrast to other politicians who face criticism, the ’self-aware’ streak seems to be missing. Its no longer the ironic-tragic-oxymoronic policies of giving up rights and civil liberties in order to protect “freedom” or “our way of life”. By treating the law with contempt, by applying it arbitrarily, they are perpetrating exactly the kind of offence which caused the founding fathers to declare themselves independent from King George III:

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power;
…
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury;
For transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences;

Many people say the reason for this imperviousness to public opinion is that both men are effectively ‘lame ducks’. Neither are seeking a further term of office. This explanation only goes so far, however. Even ‘lame ducks’ have a party, and should understand that their conduct reflects on their political colleagues. They also have a political legacy to think about. Their carelessness seems of a more pathological nature. I am not sure which is more worrying - the notion that they simply don’t care, or the notion that they are simply unaware of the gravity of their actions.

Either way, I fear that many of the shields a citizenry can use to protect themselves from abuses of power, such as debate and satire, are no longer effective. It needs a noisier, angrier response - The righteous indignation of Keith Olbermann over the suave satire of Jon Stewart.

With all this talk about Tony Blair taking on some role as a Middle-East envoy for the US, no-one seems to have remembered that he will still be a Labour MP after he steps down as Prime Minister on Wednesday. He won’t be able to go galavanting off to Palestine if Gordon Brown’s whips’ office needs him for a crucial division on housing reform.

The only way he will be able to take George Bush up on his offer is if he resigns as an MP, forcing a by-election… or if Prime Minister Brown calls an early election. Perhaps Tony knows something we don’t…

A group of Human Rights organisations, led by Amnesty International, have published a list of 39 ‘ghost prisoners’ that have been detained by the US Government as part of its War On Terror.

The US has the duty to detain and bring to justice anyone responsible for crimes but it must do so in a manner that respects human rights and the rule of law.

A few months ago, I saw Clive Stafford-Smith from Reprieve talk very eloquently about this issue. You can read my account here.

Racism in the Big Brother house is of course important. It is admirable that 20,000 people have complained about the alleged bullying, that the Indian Government has expressed concern, and that Labour MP Keith Vaz has raised the issue in the House of Commons. We can only hope that the £300,000 appearance fee Shilpa Shetty has received goes some way to cushioning the hard times she has endured.

Big Brother is an illusion. The contestants could click their fingers, and the nightmare will end. This is not so for the housemates at Guantànamo Bay, who wake each morning to a genuine Orwellian nightmare. They have no plush chairs in the diary room in which to relax. Their only solace is the blissful ignorance of sleep, or a final release through suicide.

“It is not ‘suicide’ anymore,” says Clive Stafford-Smith. “It is called ‘manipulative injurious behaviour’ now. That way, the politicians and military men can claim that there are no suicide attempts at Guantanamo.”

Stafford-Smith is speaking at the offices of Clifford Chance at Canary Wharf, on behalf of the Mary Ward Legal Centre. The title of his talk is Secret Prisons and Ghost Prisoners, about the 14,000 people detained without lawyers or a trial in the name of the ‘War on Terror’. There is apparently a certain chauvinism in the military, and it is assumed that women are not militant. Stafford-Smith only knows of three female detainees, but there may be more. Most of those imprisoned remain unidentified, beyond the reach of the media, legal aid, and the rule of law. Guantànamo is the tip of a sinister iceberg.
(more…)