Siren voices

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Siren voices

It was Hugh Gaitskell in his 1962 speech, offering a devastating indictment of the idea of Britain joining the EEC, who sardonically referred to the "top people". It was they who would have it that they were the only people who could really understand the issues … "the classic argument of every tyranny in history".

He was alluding to an advertisement then current, which proclaimed that "the top people read The Times", a not altogether hidden reference to the fact that this newspaper was one of the cheerleaders for the project.

Looking at today’s leader in the same newspaper, it is evident that nothing has changed. Under the Orwellian title of "The open society," it pedals exactly the same woolly thinking which spawned its enthusiasm those forty years ago, indicating that the "top people" have not stirred their brain cells since.

The paper argues that the "big question" of the modern age is not Left versus Right but open versus closed, immediately leaping into a theme that must seriously be worrying the "top people". "The financial crisis must not be used as a cover for economic nationalism," it sternly declares.

Thus it observes that:

In the maelstrom of the financial crisis it seems, at times, as if all fixed positions have been abandoned. The temporary expedients required to deal with a credit crunch, the like of which the world has not seen for 75 years, have altered the course of arguments about the relationship of government to markets, the appropriate level and type of regulation. But not everything solid has melted into air. There is a genuine danger that the financial crisis is used as a cover under which a revived economic nationalism is smuggled back.

We then see a paean of praise for the creed of the tranzies, where the paper holds that the "great policy triumph of the past thirty years has been the gradual triumph of free trade and open economies over tariff walls, protectionism and variations on economic autarky." The result, it tells us:

… has been the most extraordinary growth in prosperity in all of human history. And neither has this prosperity been confined to the rich economies. More people ceased to be poor in the latter half of the 20th century than in any 50-year period previously. The emergence of China and India promises that the next half-century will be, on that score, even better.

And then the hidden message, straight out of the EU hagiography:

In the same period there has been peace in Europe, a continent that had known constant conflict before. The same terrain on which two bloody world wars were fought is now covered by a single market in which free nations trade with no regard for national borders. Across the world, the West's greatest export has been not its goods but its best idea - democratic representation. There are still very many tyrannies in the world, but far fewer than there were, and only the most egregious do not feel the need to clothe themselves in the rhetoric of liberal democracy.

Amazingly, it then blandly informs us that, "Prosperity has a tendency to beget democracy." The linkage is subtle, but undoubtedly deliberate, reflecting the mindset of the "top people". It entirely ignores the single fact that, over the decades since we have seen this "extraordinary growth in prosperity", we have also seen a dangerous and continuing erosion of democracy throughout the Western nations. Certainly in the UK, there is no longer any meaningful democracy.

But the tranzie creed pours out. Says this august voice of the "top people":

Much recent political debate in the advanced industrial economies has centred on the way that international events disrupt long-established social ties. The objection to the free movement of labour is that it tends to dissolve settled communities that have been built around a particular skill or industry.

The argument is not frivolous - but it is misguided. Small communities can be oppressive as well as sustaining. Social ferment in the United States has been stimulated by huge advances in racial integration and the opening of institutions - the armed forces, the professions and now the presidency - to a far wider pool of talent.

And so we get to the conclusion, the message the "top people" want to convey:

The important political point is that these debates straddle the old political division of Left versus Right. The new division in international politics is between those who wish their nation to be open to the world and those who wish to close the door and turn away. A time of crisis is a difficult moment to stress again that the open economy and the open society are the best options - so all the more reason for doing so.

This seductive creed, however, misses the one central point. A society, by definition, is closed. It is a group of people who broadly share the same values, the same loyalties, the same aspirations and the same sense of belonging. There is no such thing as an "open society". Those who advocate it are seeking the destruction of the very thing they claim – or appear – to support.

But it is these siren voices which dominate what passes for thinking amongst the "top people". Their twisted values and their detachment from the very fundamental values of human organisation are why they support, and will always support the European Union.

COMMENT THREAD

If hypocrisy was a religion …

… Tony Blair would be pope. Whatever "America" might think as he led the "US National Prayer Breakfast" in the ballroom of the Washington Hilton Hotel yesterday (pictured with Joe Biden), there is no place for Mr Blair's type of religion where white equals black and black equals whatever colour you choose it to be.

His "extraordinary speech" was about "the global importance of religion", where he told his audience – which included Barack Obama - that faith should be restored "to its rightful place, as the guide to our world and its future." He also said he believed the 21st century would be "poorer in spirit" and "meaner in ambition" if it was not "under the guardianship of faith in God."

How easily does Blair, as The Guardian remarks, waft "serenely above it all".

Yet those with memories can pick any number of episodes where the man and his faith part company. Two such are particularly memorable. The first was on 10 May 2007 when the man was in his constituency in Sedgefield, announcing his decision to stand down from the leadership of the Labour Party. In a long, gushing speech, he made a brief reference to the invasion of Iraq and the "blowback since, from global terrorism". He thus cautioned that "the terrorists, who threaten us here and round the world, will never give up if we give up." It is, said Blair, "a test of will and of belief. And we can't fail it."

Then, on 27 June, he was standing in the Commons for the last time, announcing his resignation as prime minister. He started off, as had become the custom, by offering his "deep condolences" to the families and friends of the soldiers who had died since he had last spoken. He then made some general remarks about the armed forces. "I have never come across people of such sustained dedication, courage and commitment," he said, adding:

I am truly sorry about the dangers that they face today in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that some may think that they face these dangers in vain. I do not, and I never will. I believe that they are fighting for the security of this country and the wider world against people who would destroy our way of life. But whatever view people take of my decisions, I think that there is only one view to take of them: they are the bravest and the best.

Asked whether it was time to give a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq, Blair refused to agree. Of the terrorists, he said, "We will not beat them by giving in to them. We will only beat them by standing up to them." Equally, he refused to accept that the troops were not properly equipped. "Our troops are, in fact, extremely well equipped," he declared.

By then, Blair had already decided upon the complete withdrawal of British troops from Basra, abandoning the Iraqis to the murderous grip of the militias which, over the four years of the occupation he had done little to contain. Just over two months later, the deed was done. On the back of a tawdry deal with the Mahdi Army, to enable them to creep away without being attacked, British troops evacuated Basra Palace on 2 September.

Their retreat was redolent of a similar humiliation in Aden when, in November 1967, British forces had marched out of their base six abreast with flags flying, never to return. Then, to mark their departure, the band of the Royal Marines had struck up, Things Ain't What They Used to Be.

This time there were no bands, just Union Jacks and Regimental banners flying from a convoy of armoured vehicles as it wound its way through Basra to the last redoubt. The Mahdi Army honoured its agreement. Not a shot was fired at its defeated enemy.

The British, in direct negation of Blair's "test of will and of belief", had done exactly what he had vowed we would not do: they gave up. They failed the "test of will and belief", a process set in train by Mr Blair himself.

As for his easy boast that, "Our troops are … extremely well equipped," in the base to which the troops had retreated, more than 450 rockets had been fired in three months. For protection, one officer said that in tented accommodation all people can do is put on their body armour and helmets and "pray" they were not hit. "The situation is far worse than is being portrayed back home," said one RAF officer. "People are just relying on luck to stay alive."

This was courtesy of the man who now says that faith should be restored "to its rightful place, as the guide to our world and its future." When this man talks "faith", like the troops that Mr Blair had equipped so well, you seriously need to pray.

COMMENT THREAD

Friday, February 06, 2009

German reactions to Swedish decision

Everybody seems to be treating the Swedish government's decision about future nuclear power stations as a done deal, while there is something to be said for the comment Sam Goldwyn is supposed to have made: "My indecision is final".

Der Spiegel looks at German reactions and finds various people arguing that it is time for that country to rethink its incoherent stance on the subject.

Sweden's decision means that Germany is the only country in Europe still intent on phasing out nuclear energy. The government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder passed the phase-out law in 2000 and the last reactor is set to go off line in 13 years. But despite a decade of programs meant to promote wind, solar and biomass energy, alternative sources made up just 14 percent of the country's supply as of last summer. Much of the rest of Germany's power comes from coal-fired power plants, hardly an appetizing alternative amid accelerating global warming.

Of course, as the boss keeps writing with copious references, global warming is not exactly accelerating but there is an unfortunate political aspect to the problem. Does Germany really want to be at Russia's beck and call in the future?