Pupil Barrister

Tag: Debate (Page 12 of 27)

Just Like All the Others?

Barack Obama campaigns in Virginia, 17th October 2008. Photo by Dave Elmore

Barack Obama campaigns in Virginia, 17th October 2008. Photo by Dave Elmore


I’ve spent all week batting away careless cliches from good friends and colleagues, declaring that all Americans are stupid, and we can’t trust them not to make a mess of things on Tuesday.
George W. Bush has been a terrible poster-boy for a complex country, and his two election victories (or, as I prefer to style it, one victory, and one “victory”) have persuaded us that most Americans are right-wing evangelical neo-cons. Of course, the country is more diverse than that, and many have indulged in thoughtful debate over the issues.
Plenty of conservatives have been endorsing Obama. Here is a New Yorker, The Cunning Realist, cautiously backing the Senator from Illinois:

It worries me that too many Obama supporters believe one person can snap his fingers and solve this country’s daunting problems. Hope is a great thing. But as the economy has imploded in recent months and the desperation out there has become palpable, the size of the crowds and the hope that surrounds Obama have made me a bit uneasy. I don’t mean hope in the traditional “government will fix things” sense that the Democratic Party represents – we all know what will happen to the size of government if Democrats control Washington, and we can thank George Bush for setting a fine example – but hope in a more poignant, human sense. Where is the line between hope and inevitable disappointment, between faith and unrealistic expectations? Maybe we’ll find out.

This is the other, more founded worry that I’ve heard over the past few days (weeks, months). That Obama will inevitably be a disappointment, that he will turn out to be “just like all the others.”
This really all depends on your definition of the terms, which affects whether the prediction is trivially true, or blinkered pessimism.  Perhaps you define the bending and breaking of promises, and all the compromises a President must make on any given day, as evidence of a betrayal?  In that sense, President Obama will undoubtedly disappoint. However, to govern is to choose, and it would literally impossible for him to fully satisfy the demands of his base, both on economic decisions and the social/cultural aspects too (for one thing, his base is very broad and will disagree amongst themselves on many issues).  A competent and sober Obama presidency will undoubtedly deliver less than the idealistic, liberal supporters would demand.  For the sake of unity, perhaps that is actually a good thing.  Crucially, I would say that if expectations are confounded, that would be the fault of the crowds doing the expecting, and not President Obama.
In other ways, I think it is palpably absurd to say that Obama will be just like other politicians.  He ran very different Primary and General Election campaigns to any seen before.  He has taken a strong stand against “dumb wars” and the Human Rights abuses that have sullied the American Government’s reputation at home and abroad.  In this case, it is by no means obvious or to be expected that a President Obama would eventually, inevitably disappoint.  Quite the reverse – hoping that he will maintain some integrity on this point seems quite a rational and practical expectation, given the evidence of his approach that we currently have available.
The contrast, remember, is with George W. Bush, and John McCain.  Obama is neither of those men, and therefore, on some level, it is impossible for him to disappoint!  Certain worlds that are possible in an Obama presidency are not possible in a McCain presidency, and vice-versa.  For a left-leaning, liberally minded soul, that should be a source of great comfort.
Even though expectations are ridiculously high for Barack Obama, I would suggest that if anyone can actually deliver on the promise of postive change, it is “that one”.  He recruited and unprecedented number of campaigners to his banner during the two year campaign, and has inspired them enough to maintain momentum and financial donations right up until the present day.  If he is clever, he will use this army of enthusiastic volunteers to win the cultural arguments, and to provide the succour and strength to the rest of the country during the austere times that surely lie ahead.
Sure, Barack Obama cannot change the world all by himself.  The point is, he’s not by himself, is he?  I will be judging him by what tasks he sets his activist base after the election.

Text messages from the Obama Campaign keeps the activists active. Photo by David Erickson

Text messages from the Obama Campaign keep the activists active. Photo by David Erickson

Against the Windfall Tax

Like Conor at the Liberal Conspiracy, I can’t really get behind this clamour for a windfall tax on oil companies. I would love to have a dig at Big Oil, but something grates.
Its not that I am like Tim Worstall, who has barrels of faith in the market to sort the problem out fairly. Oil extraction and distribution is a sort of cartel, not a free market. In any case, such a market takes time (maybe measured in decades or centuries) to do its ‘thing’, and in the meantime it is probable that excess profits will accumulate while everyone else is suffering from a recession.
No, my problem is that arguing for a windfall tax is surely another way of saying that you want to change the rules retrospectively.
Economists often argue that to change the rules, and to impose a windfall tax, simply breeds uncertainty in the market, and cause the oil companies to under-invest. Its an irritating argument against taxation, because it has an air of a threat about it: “don’t tax us, or we will mess up your economy”. In the case of a windfall tax, which everyone (even the oil companies) assumes will be a very rare occurrence, it is less believable than (say) the case of top-rate tax-payers. So I can see how the campaigners might discount this economic argument.
But leaving aside the economic risks that a windfall tax entails, surely changing the rules is simply wrong wrong wrong, no further discussion required? Imposing some kind of law (in this case, a tax law) retrospectively is the stuff of wild-eyed dictatorships, surely. Windfall taxes are short-cuts. An easy, lazy solution to a complex situation.
Play by the rules… and if you feel you must change the rules, do so only at the start of the game. If we percieve a problem with the way our country operates, its fine to legislate so that it doesn’t happen in the following tax year. Nationalise the oil companies if we must, or tax them at 99%. Whatever. Only this: we must to legislate for the future, not the past.
There’s a familiar saying, which goes something like “you can judge a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable”. Well, an alternative might be that we should judge ourselves by how we treat our most despised. The oil giants are certainly some of the most resented institutions in the country, but to subject them to anything other than the rule-of-law is not, I would suggest, cricket. Compass should leave the oil companies with this year’s profits, and get busy lobbying for a law that would redistribute future profits. That’s the right way a democracy should approach this problem.

Update 3rd September

The only counter argument that has piqued my interest has been that a large portion of the oil companies profits have arisen because of preferences in the system of allocating carbon credits via the European Emmissions Trading Scheme. However, while this is a definite argument for going after excess profits, I’m not sure it justifies doing so retrospectively, as a windfall tax would.

Fifth Estate or Democratic Tool?

An old printing press at the Guardian's offices in Farringdon, London.
When we think about blogging and the development of human interactions through the web, it is easy to assume some kind of historical determinism.  The Internet is one huge sandbox, with new blogs and campaigning sites being launched all the time.  Most peter out (I’ve been involved in a couple of those myself) but others persist, and grow.  This trial-and-error approach suggests that we are at least inching towards a more sophisticated and empowering blogosphere, which exercises more influence over politics and therefore the direction this country is headed.
The Blog Nation event earlier this week raised some of the key issues that the Liberal Left needs to answer in order to become more effective online:

  • Are we campaigners or pseudo-journalists?
  • Will it suffice to form ad hoc coalitions to fight single-issue campaigns, or should we be forming a more formal and wider coalition to try and affect a broader cultural shift?
  • In order to be effective, do we need to promote the rise of super-blogs or power-bloggers to rival Guido Fawkes?  Do we need a figure-head like Barack Obama around which we can coalesce, or can a leaderless network build momentum on its own?

As I crouched in the front row of the event, rubbing my temples and trying to think of answers, the following thought occurred to me: What if this is all there is? By which I mean, perhaps it is impossible to become much more organized.  I refrained from articulating this thought at the time, but it did seem a deft, if nihilistic way of avoiding giving an answer to some of the questions posed, above.  Perhaps there is no historical determinism to any of this, and we are not destined to develop anything significantly more efficient than what we have now.
Now I don’t know whether I really believe things to be so hopeless, but if its true it may not be such a bad thing.  Rather than grandiose ideas of the blogosphere become some kind of Fifth Estate, perhaps we should aspire to nothing more than another tool for the people to use in checking the power of the elite (both elected representatives and others who hold positions of influence).
Of course we should ask how existing bloggers and activists can work better together, but that is just oiling the machine, rather than inventing a new one.  A more important focus is to try to increase access to the new information and opinion that is appearing online.  Just as increasing literacy strengthens democracy and promote equality, so computer literacy can strengthen it too.  So, my suggestion for the next open source campaignintroduce one relative, friend or colleague to blogging each month.  This need not mean forcing them to set up their own blog.  Instead, just a gentle explanation of the power of RSS, and the suggestion that they bookmark one – just one – of the fine sites listed on the right.
Cross posted at the Liberal Conspiracy

Did You Inhale?

Photo by indrasensi
Photo by indrasensi


“Did you inhale?” A cliché of modern politics. Ever since Bill Clinton’s bizarre admission of not-quite-drug-use, that question has become a staple of sniggering journalists everywhere. Meanwhile, “Yes I have and yes I did” has become the boilerplate response for those politicians eager to demonstrate their flawed, human side.

Continue reading

Embryo Research Bill

At last Gordon Brown has found his way out of the ridiculous political cul-de-sac he had wandered into with regard to this embryo legislation.  A few thoughts on the ethics and politics of the issue.
First, I think we can all agree that the debate has been clouded by hyperbole and hysteria.  The legislation as it stands does not give scientists license to create their own little Island of Dr Moreau.  As I understand it, human genetic material is not being spliced with other species to create Greek-style chimeras.  Instead, it is proposed that human DNA will be inserted into animal cells, which are free of that animal’s genetic material.
I think it is important to make the distinction between two scientific-moral considerations here. The first concerns the identity of a set of genes: whether it is morally permissible for scientists to alter that gene, and whether its identity changes when they do. The second consideration is how the gene (regardless of whether scientists have altered its sequence or not) is allowed to develop, and for how long.
A cell is made up of many things.  In addition to DNA genes there are mitochondira and other structures which allow the cell to produce energy and function properly.  But we know that it is in the DNA that the potential for life is stored.  Genes are the instructions for life, while other matter inside the cells are tools for releasing that potential.  It is only in the DNA that identity rests, and that identity will remain regardless of where it is placed. So it seems to me that the current ethical controversy falls into the second category described above.
I think the animal cell is a sort of ‘surrogate’ that bears a similar relationship to the duplicating genes as a surrogate mother would to a baby that she carries.  Although a surrogate mother is essential for the development of the foetus into a baby, the instructions by which the baby grows are supplied from elsewhere.  The genetic link between the biological mother, father and child remains unchanged.  Likewise with this proposed microbiological technique:  The genetic link remains secure. Scientists are not ‘playing God’ by altering genetic material. Like surrogacy, all we are doing is allowing existing genetic material to grow in a new environment. If it can lead to medical breakthroughs in cancer treatment or Altzheimers, then it should be allowed.
Of course, “it’s just a surrogate” has moral limits too.  My stomach would turn at the thought of allowing such cells to develop into a foetus or a child, just as it would if someone were able to grow a human baby inside a non-human surrogate (say, an organgutang or a Huxley-esque vat of goo). Future ethicists may not be so squeamish.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑