Pupil Barrister

Tag: Politics (Page 37 of 57)

Heathcare Reform Photo

I just saw this photo on a BBC News report on healthcare reform.

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and senior staff, react in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, as the House passes the health care reform bill, March 21, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)


It was pulled from the White House’s official Flickr stream, and I think it may soon become emblematic.  It will be used to illustrate a huge victory, substantial but also symbolic, of the Obama Administration.  The President looks chuffed but not ecstatic.  A job well done, but you sense he will be turning to his staff to ask, “what’s next?
Maybe that’s not what happened in reality.  Maybe the President went mental and stood on a table with a knife, lording over his defeated enemies.  But we don’t see that photo.  Significantly, we only have this one image of the celebrations, so that is what will persist of that moment – its a clever bit of subtle PR.  Politicians have been shaping the narrative with flattering images for centuries, of course.  But its always interesting to watch it happen in real time.

Write a blog, kill your career?

I’ve spotted a couple of references recently to the ‘perfect memory’ of the Internet and how it can come back to haunt you in later life.  It breeds a peculiar form of self-censorship.  First, the now-outed Girl With A One Track Mind says:

I wish my blog wouldn’t continue to bite me on the arse (not in the good way); I’ve held my finger over “Delete Blog?” button so many times.

I can understand why Zoe might want to start afresh, but this sentiment feels wrong and offensive – like book burning.
The other worry is for those who might want to start a political career.  James Joyner at the Outside the Beltway blog discusses Philosopher Kings and the potential for a blogger-turned politician.

It seems to me that the chief barrier to bloggers getting elected to public office isn’t so much their typically introverted personalities or lack of access to money but the mere fact that we’ve accumulated a long paper (pixel?) trail of recording every fool thought that’s passed through our minds over the last several years.   Even bright, thoughtful, decent types like [Ross] Douthat and [Ezra] Klein — and Lord knows, [Mickey] Kaus and [James] Joyner — have written things that would kill a campaign dead, dead, dead if it showed up in an attack ad.

We could certainly add Sri Hundal and the rest of the Liberal Conspiracy team to that list.
However, Joyner’s underlying attitude is defeatist.  I prefer the alternative model, whereby blogging your thoughts allows you to spot holes, inconsistencies and hypocrisy in your own logic.  This is Andrew Sullivan’s stated creed and I think it is this principle which sustains him as one of the most-read blogs, both in the USA and internationally.
In UK, the political ‘attack ad’ is still a concept in its infancy.  That may change during the forthcoming election campaign, but the parties still seem above that sort of thing.  In any case, attack adverts posted on YouTube, can be instantly countered with an ‘reply’ video which links to the context from which the offending paragraph had been pulled.  Anyone who blogs is likely to have the skills to do this within the hour.  I think that anyone who tried to smear someone with quotes from their own blog at, say, a public hustings, could be easily discredited.  A politician who knew what he or she had written (and it is surprisingly easy to remember your arguments, once they have been typed and posted) could easily call-out such a smear or ‘gotcha’ question for what it really is – pathetic and lazy political opportunism.
However, this sort of approach only really works if you engage properly with comments and corrections on the blog.  Selective deafness to criticisms only makes the problem worse.  I know this is the frustration of people like Justin and Tim when trying to hold Iain to account.
Indeed, it is via Iain Dale that another example of The-Internet-Coming-Back-To-Bite-You emerges.  Anna Arrowsmith is a Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, and a director of porn films.  Since the Lib Dems tend to espouse “live and let live” style policies, I think this is relatively uncontroversial, but the BBC did a story on it anyway.  Iain notes that Arrowsmith’s website also says something far more damaging:

Anna is liberal and open-minded but politically she supports The Labour Party, for all its sins.

Scandal!
Only, not really.  The website is clearly several years old (it has plenty of <table> tags for layout, an archaeological relic in web design terms) and a quick peak at the Internet Archive shows the biography was written in 2004.  Likely poor Ms Arrowsmith forgot to update her biography when she switched parties, which doesn’t make it any less awkward.  A more practised blogger would have remembered when and where they endorsed political parties, and made a correction to the internet record at the right time.  Nonetheless, its another example of how the Internet’s perfect memory often foils our best laid plans.
Ultimately though, I think that the wisdom of XKCD should see us through.  Zoe Margolis, James Joyner and Anna Arrowsmith should all print this out and pin it to the wall above their computer screens.  Then, stop worrying, and get on with being themselves as best they can.

Cross-posted at Liberal Conspiracy.

Chilcott/Blair

Unfortunately, a busy week at work meant that Blair’s appearance at the Chilcott Inquiry pretty much passed me by.  After The Event news reports confirmed what we all expected anyway – Mr Blair refused to apologise or admit any wrong-doing.
My take:  Put aside for a moment all the issues of legality, post-war planning, the monstrosity of Saddam’s regim, and oil.  (They are huge issues, admittedly… but put them aside anyway).  We are still left with a central dischord, which is this:  Prime Minister Blair’s actual reason for waging to war, is not the reason we were told we were going to war. This is untenable in a democracy, regardless of the ultimate morality of the conflict, of the death we caused.
We, the people, know this.
Tony Blair knows this.
Moreover, we know he knows this. Moreover moreover, he knows we know this.  And we know he knows we know.  And he knows that we know that he knows.  Ad nauseum. Yet, no apology.  It is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
The issue of Iraq clearly needs a Frost/Nixon moment, where the concerns of the public are at least acknowledged by the ex-leader at the heart of the controversy.  This is unlikely to ever materialise, which is why this is an issue that will continue to fester for a generation, or more.

You're Only As Good As Your Last War

David Aaronovich’s column in The Times today warns that we might be sleepwalking towards a nuclear Iran.  Stuck in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, we don’t have the political stomach to seriously engage with the threat.

We almost lack the spare mental capacity to consider how to deal with the difficult “other”. We have intervened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Sierra Leone. We have agonised over Gaza and Lebanon. We have debated Darfur and Zimbabwe. It is all so difficult, so intractable, that the easiest answer seems to be to withdraw, to let things alone, to hope that they will go away.

It is in this kind of ennui that we see the real, long-term damage of our reckless rush to war (now being exposed in a handy serialised form, thanks to the new Iraq inquiry).  A mistake of such magnitude has had horrible knock-on effects for our foreign policy elsewhere.  Not only was Iran emboldened by the 2003 conflict, but it looks like we have lost the political will (and capital) to appropriately deal with this latest nuclear threat.  Aaronovitch advocates UN sanctions against the regime (specifically the Revolutionary Guard) but this requires the support of China and Russia.  Do we have the political credibility to push them into agreement with such sanctions?  If we do not, then we know where that credibility went: spilled into the sands of Iraq.

PCC to Regulate Blogs?

While we’re on the subject of the PCC: The new chair of the organisation recently said that she thought the commission should regulate blogs.
Over at Liberal Conspiracy, Unity has drafted a collective response to this outlandish suggestion. I’ve “signed” in the comments and urge other bloggers to do the same.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑