Public Lecture TODAY - Tuesday 18th October at 7pm, the Blandijn in Auditorium C, Ugent
TRUMP v CLINTON - All welcome

As historians, political and cultural commentators we spend a considerable amount of time healthily disputing the claims of others in terms of cause, effect and the subsequent outcome of events that underpin our World. But this continual intellectual competition seems very muted over the re-entry of the above. However, where discord still sits is in why this 'New Age of Extremes' has occurred within a modern international system that apparently was constructed, reconfigured and now managed in a way that looks to tease and squeeze out the extremes of society. In other words, why is our collection of national, supranational and international organisations that look to provide a more reasoned if not fairer distribution of care, development and wealth throughout the World failing us? 

To best consider this question we turn to domestic America since at present there sits evidence as to our international malaise as the three main ingredients that offer us extremism - inequality, ignorance and inhumanity - have not only bubbled to the surface but are now in danger of materially changing the face of American society. 

The polarisation of the 'economic haves' verses the 'have nots' continues a pace in the US. Income differences have become so pronounced that the nation's top 10 percent now average nearly nine times as much income as the bottom 90 percent. Americans in the top 1 percent are stunningly higher. They average over 38 times more income than the bottom 90 percent. But even this disparity pales into insignificance when you compare US's top 0.1 percent with everyone else. This economic elite are taking in over 184 times the income of the bottom 90 percent. Critically, these frightening figures translate from a quantitative reading to a large qualitative effect. Since this economic disconnect is not just played out in Wall Street but on Main Street via the societal issues of  housing, health, education and employment. Up until the 1970's the notion and acceptance of a mixed economy as it implies offered a rough balance within private and public economic activity and therefore, acted as a 'regulator or corrector' so that the differentials between the poorest and the richest did not lose sight of each other; the growing American middle classes acted as the economic and aspirational bridge between these two extreme groups. But the 1980's changed all that as neo-liberal economics was 'adopted' to reflex the growing opportunities created by globalisation. Reagan and Thatcher were determined to leave their socio-economic footprint in the sand - it has yet to be washed away.

As US society began to be stretched throughout the 1990's because of the adoption of this free wheeling economic understanding spaces began to appear in the political spectrum as politicians failed to keep up with the changing societal condition. The failure of government to provide the American working classes with any real advancement in their earnings during a period spanning 30 years, was masked to many outsiders by the headline grabbing events of the End of the Cold War, the First Iraqi War, and of course 9/11. But to keen observers of US domestic well-being Bill Clinton's balancing of the federal budget in the mid nineties was just wallpapering over the real effect that a no holds barred 'free market' was having on the real economy. As Wall Street got grossly richer Main Street started to quiver but no one was really looking and listening. Then 2008 struck.

The economic meltdown that resulted from this largely unregulated economic system pushed the federal government into supporting the very same banks and financial institutions that had caused this disaster in the first place. Public money was now being used to bail out private profligacy. In other words, tax dollars from the working classes were being used to underpin and shore up high earners. The subsequent damage to Main Street has been extensive as many lost their jobs only to be re-employed on a small percentage of their original wage. At present official unemployment figures in the US sit at around 5% but this number disguises much. Many in the US do not register unemployed because there are few benefits or welfare support. The number of self employed in the US now sits at 3 in every 10 jobs while many exist in a low wage economy that fails to pay their bills. 47 million people now live in poverty with 44% of all homeless actually having jobs.  No wonder many look to support extreme left and right wing understanding since the centre ground has effectively left them for dead. No wonder violence in the towns and cities is in the ascendency. No wonder the use and abuse of race is once again being utilised and manipulated as a indicator of societal breakdown. 

Both Trump and Clinton are representations, illustrations and products of this disintegrating domestic condition. Why else would the US listen to let alone vote for two of the most unpopular and damaged political figures in American contemporary history! Trump attempts to represent the victims of this unfair and unjust economic system. Many are frightened that they have no future so they cling onto a man whose grasp of reality seems wishful. While Clinton represents the middle classes who are also frightened of falling into the very same disadvantaged and largely disenfranchised group that Trump looks to support. Both candidates are good at feeding into this notion of 'victim-hood' - the people (the outsiders) who are to blame for this growing crisis. But of course the truth sits closer to home, as the very same economic system that made Trump a billionaire and allows Clinton to sit very comfortably in amongst her property portfolio is the real igniter of this New Age of Extremes.        

KK

Public Lecture TODAY Tuesday 18th October at 7pm, the Blandijn in Auditorium C, Ugent
TRUMP v CLINTON - All welcome



                     
 

             

As this is my final blog for this academic year I thought I would take on - somewhat foolishly - the above. As this is potentially a complex topic lets set some relatively straightforward ground rules. What is History? Well for me history is not a collection of facts, figures and faces for that is just statistics but on the surface at least history is a vast random collection of stories. These stories come in many shapes and sizes and are told, retold and updated (informally and formally) orally, visually, and in written form. They are a series of thoughts, recollections, interpretations and representations of actions and reactions that have and can inform, reform and radicalise individuals, communities, societies and nation-states. Moreover, like Hegel, Marx and to a degree Kant I see history as a evidential process, hence it inevitably has a ill defined start and a more obvious but contentious end that is not related to any conjured up spiritual images of Adam and Eve and Armageddon or by scientific determinism defined by the 'Big Bang'. This premise springs from the beginning of a rudimentary form of civic society(a grouping/community with basic rules and institutions) and ends when this entity has reached its highest level of development(or limitations) through a series of conflicts, contradictions and consolidations.

Accepting the above, lets look particularly at the 'American Story'. Firstly, unusually this piece of history has a clear beginning - 1776 - this is not to say that this space and place possessed no stories of note before this date but when colonialists began in earnest their 'ground clearing exercise' they deliberately reset the clock in terms of historical recognition. In other words, the Founders were looking not only to replace the old imperial status quo with a name and game change but remove all indigenous traces that might hamper or constrain their socio/political experiment. Therefore, their key societal benchmarks that they then used to trap and trace their progress emanated from the seminal documents of the Declaration of Independence(1776) and the US Constitution(1789).

Now what makes identification of this particular series of stories difficult to evaluate is largely twofold. Firstly, the connections and relationships between ideas, events and actions often sit below the surface of a confusing array of conflicts and contradictions. For example, the Founders claimed that from the very start that they would be 'independent' of thought and action from the Old World but at the very first hurdle in attempting to pull or jump away from their imperial masters - the British - they bounded themselves legally with the Old World monarchies of France and Spain. This pragmatic decision is one of the countless contradictions that sits within the American historical narrative. Secondly, the creation of the American Dream - a clever piece of political and cultural propaganda used to promote a nation desperate for people to emigrate and then champion this embryonic nation but this 'national advertisement' has subsequently been 'believed' by many to offer a true representation of the US. However, I suggest in the overall historical schema that these seemingly counter intuitive, paradoxical and mystical decisions were/are just 'smoke and mirrors' since underneath these dichotomies sat and sit declared ideological and sociality relationships that not only remained and remain intact but slowly strengthened over time. In other words, the US have been extremely efficient and still are of thinking one way and acting in another. This behaviour is not unique to the US however, what is, is its ability not to allow these contradictions to get in the way of the nation's aims and objectives. I guess the opposite of this position within the developed world would be France who some critics would observe have 'wasted' huge amounts of intellectual energy and costly resources on creating, recreating and preserving their creaking social model. Supporters might respond with true, but surely that's the point since France's identity is to be found in the continual and constant re-examination of societal needs whereas the US approach was and is far more pragmatic, focused and therefore, confined.

Back to the American story, if you look subsequently at the conflicts concerning expansion, ownership, citizenship, identity and governance during the period post 1787 until 1861 you can view the US and its social experiment as a messy, disjointed, insecure and confused attempt at societal consolidation but the solution to this superficial disorder came in the form of the resultant Civil War - America's true Revolution - where political pragmatism(power) and ideas(identity) clashed and violently erupted. The outcome of this vicious conversation left on the surface a scared society that was still conflicted by numerous racial, economic and social tensions - and those wounds still exist - but beneath this 'smoke and mirrors' emerged a stronger more unified community bound by a greater focus on economic freedoms and political confinements(consolidations). In other words, this nation had finally sculptured via coercion not liberty a set of priorities that finally locked in the basis for the 'liberal democracy' that they claim today - wider voting participation and economic progress based largely on a conservative constitutional interpretation.

Post Civil War, with the process defined, societal 'progress' becomes the nation's and seemingly the World's destiny. Although, the  decades leading up to the 20th century were full of economic ups and downs that fuelled class and racial strife the underlying values of this nation - economic freedom aligned with social conservatism - would not be denied becoming industrially the most powerful nation in the World alongside 'declaring' themselves an imperial nation due to the 'American Eagle' spreading its political, military and economic wings across the globe(Spanish American War 1898). This concerted approach to overseas expansion promised plenty to a land committed not only to selling its wares but also its ideas on how society was best constructed. The resultant dynamics entitled and drove an 'American Century' that at first glance could look confusing if you just concentrated on the surface of society. However, allowing for the social, financial and cultural dysfunctions and disturbances generated by the First World War, the Great Depression, the Second World War and the Cold War the United States continued to progress little by little offering still wider participation within the political and economic make up of the nation. This was an extraordinarily effective and powerful journey that some overexcited commentators have called exceptional. Yet I would suggest this historical process of 'progress' that has lasted just 240 odd years has now come to an end. Moreover, unlike previous philosophical thinking and more contemporary hubristic comments - Fukuyama (1992)  - this ending belongs to the US alone and not necessarily to other nations since unlike the majority of unbridled supporters of American liberalism I do not see that the universal nature of  American values has found secure anchorage in all corners of the World. This is because American societal norms do not fit automatically or coercively in all societies. In other words, this amazing and bemusing series of American stories does not always easily translate into other communities histories regardless of globalisation. Maybe because of globalisation!

What is the evidence to support this view? Externally, the evidence is extensive - the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe many parts of Asia and Central America have looked at the American experiment and have either ignored it, tried it and reverted and/or at best taken elements of this experiment that fits more 'naturally' with their own stories. Hence, the American form of liberal democracy has not triumphed. I would therefore suggest that Washington's attempts inconsistently and somewhat half-heartedly supported by Western Europe, to sell the American History as 'the World History' has finally run its course. Is that failure? Depends on your understanding of success and of course, your consideration of America's destiny. As I can no longer see any convincing underlying reason why many communities would want to recognise America's own form of freedom that is de-constructing before our very own eyes. Many have become increasingly disenchanted and ultimately discouraged because the conflicting chaos (smoke and mirrors) that is American contemporary society that has been kept so successfully separate from the nation's key underlying values has finally seeped into and diluted their binding legitimacy. In other words, the key to American success (progress) has been built on their ability to offer (promise) to sufficient numbers of citizens the opportunity to join the 'good life' whatever their status.

That ability and facility - that social mobility and flexibility - has dissipated as American society looks increasingly divided by the very same challenges that it faced in 1776 - inclusion and exclusion. American history has recorded and reported a form of governance that has successfully managed to deflect and distract people's attention away from their social inconsistencies by producing the glittering offerings of the material World, but the growing insidious nature of inequality has now reached down into those 'exceptional' values leaving an increasing number who have been dispossessed of genuine health care, meaningful education, decent housing and hope. This hapless condition increasingly reveals a society that has finally reached its ultimate limitations. What concerted action do we see from Congress to address this problem? What real action do we see from the White House? Why are more and more people supporting Trump and Cruz at one extreme and Sanders at the other? Why don't the American youth trust to their future? Why are the middle classes demanding unrealistic and reactionary protecting?  The rich have been getting unequally richer since the end of the 1980's whilst more Americans drop into that 'one month away from financial disaster group' with the working classes seeing no real increase in living standards for 25 years. So when did 'US History' actually end? For me, paradoxically on the very day that many Americans celebrated the demise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. For this was no victory for liberal democracy but it was the beginning of the end of that constructed socio - political experiment that was first declared in 1776.

Enjoy the summer,

 KK                          

          







                       


                            

The terrifying bloody wash-back from the continuing folly of weak and often aimless US and European foreign policy finally arrived at the feet of ordinary Belgians today. Do not dare to suggest to the relatives of the innocents slain by the abomination that is IS that the arbitrary, aggressive and ill considered approach of Washington underpinned by the largely supine passivity of the EU towards Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya had nothing to do with their kins heartless slaughter.  As I have said before, we did not create IS but we did give them a place to breathe, a space to grow and the opportunity to 'cry havoc'. The White House and European Governance should be ashamed of itself.  

The subsequent questions asked today by the students I talked to are indicative of young people that are genuinely worried and angry, showing little trust in the security services and the political elite. What can we do? How can we protect ourselves? Where will they strike next? Didn't we know this was going to happen? No one is pretending that these seemingly straightforward and reasonable questions are easy to address, but they should not go unanswered just because they require us to face some uncomfortable truths and decisions. Nor should it deflect us from considering honestly, Why this is happening? since at least if we start with this enquiry it gives us a chance to stem this continuing horror show.

What won't help at all is continuing to pour even more money and resources into the security apparatus. They will ask for it, even demand it but we must resist since this will not ultimately provide us with one additional scintilla of protection but it will add to the growing envelopment of the security state and give unwelcome solace to our foes. Also, what will not help is a repeat of the recent self congratulatory nonsense uttered by this nation's leadership on the capture of the terrorist leader Salah Abdeslam. It was hubristic then, it just sounds plain stupid now. Finally, what won't help is further utterances of support from Obama, Cameron and Hollande without the actions to back up their increasingly hollow sounding words.   

So, firstly, what will help is the European Union starting to act like a Union by sharing intelligence openly and willingly with support from the 'big gathers of data' - the NSA and GCHQ. This does not require more money it requires a change of attitude.  Secondly, that the EU grows up and starts to accept responsibility for controlling our borders regardless of the political 'soft shoe shuffle' that continues in Berlin, Ankara and Athens. These decisions do not need more money they need a change of attitude as they should have little to do with the domestic personal politics of Merkel or Erdogan, or the artificial legacy of Obama and everything to do with the well-being of the community we live in, otherwise, will the last person in the EU please turn the light out. 

Thirdly, crucially we must not duck away from the need for a considered, well funded and resourced UN led mission to remove IS from the Middle East. This does need more money and a change of attitude because the time for rhetoric is past - the innocent blood on the streets of Brussels is clear evidence that enough is enough.

Written with deep respect for the people of and in Brussels who died today...

KK        

In today's life our senses are being continually bombarded by messaging - commercial, political and personal; keeping us up to date with the latest 'essential' developments in our rolling news world.  Moreover, due to these technological communication advancements the box on your desk, the screen upon your lap and the phone in your hand can not only allow others to keep you 'onside' but offers you unfettered access to 'knowing everything about anything'. This is a far cry from the 'bad old days' when information was just a possession and a weapon for the wealthy, the godly and the well connected. We are all so well connected now! We are finally free from ignorance!  Are we?

I ask this question since with all this freedom of information available to us why are we still no better at identifying the charlatans in our society? Why are we still so prone to disguise, distraction and deceit? Why is our life still being successfully polluted by propaganda and hubris? In other words, paraphrasing Arnold Toynbee, 'Why is the human race's prospects of survival considerably better when we were defenceless against tigers than they are today when we have become defenceless against ourselves'? My example of this dilemma comes in the shape of Uncle Sam's ongoing, increasingly puerile political debate over the present 'State of the Union'.  

Wedged between the acclamation of Clinton's proclamation that, 'we are still a great nation' and Trump's more individualistic hubris, 'I will make the nation great again' are some interesting truths. Since the late 1970's there has been no real improvement in income for lower middle and working class Americans - over 35 years - yet the most astonishingly wealthy in the World still inhabit the US. As we are now aware the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent. Moreover, the average American worker now 'needs to work more than a month to earn what a CEO earns in one hour'.

In welfare even taking account of the gradual but restricted effect of Obama's much proclaimed health legislation 48 million Americans still have NO health care provision. But don't worry only 17% of American children are medically obese and only over a THIRD of all young Americans clinically overweight. In education the US is also growing as one of only three nations - the other two are Turkey and Israel - that spends more on schooling in rich well developed neighbourhoods than in the poor urban areas. While housing has become the most obvious sign of this growing poverty and inequality in this super, super rich nation as a quarter of the nation spend more than half their income on keeping a roof over their head as rents continue to soar while house prices in many areas of the nation are falling (the low paid cannot obtain mortgages). Consequently, over 23% of home owners owe more than their property is worth but only 13.4% of the population are now designated 'home owners'.

Some other interesting 'truths', the nation continues to be in debt to the tune of $19 trn and growing, paying to date around 2.4trn in interest. This is the same nation that spends annually, approximately, $598 bn defending this 'land of the free'. I mention all this because although this information is readily and freely available to all many still believe that Obama saved the US from the extremes of the 2008 financial crash. Well, as we can read at least the wealthy were 'saved'. Many still believe that Clinton will provide an even 'better place' where we can offer 'more love and kindness', and I'm sure that will be true for the reducing number of Americans that have a secure well paid job that allows them the 'luxury' of having a roof over their heads, food in their belly and decent clothes on their back all at the same time.(Homelessness officially sits at around 600k if you ignore the growing number of young Americans sleeping on the sofa of a friends, while evictions continue to rise sharply, in Georgia last year over 200k notices were issued). Finally, increasingly, many believe that 'Donald Duck' Trump can just as in Disney World magic the US back to a 'land of plenty' for all. In response I have some very disturbing news, the US was never the land of plenty for all in the first place and as a consequence I think Peter Pan's 'Neverland' seems a little nearer the mark.

But looking at the US today it does seem better to believe in the political fairy stories that Obama reshapes, that Clinton recalls and Trump resells than trying to make sense of the 'truth'. For in reality, the US and the developed world are all drowning in a sea of information but just like drinking water knowledge is becoming, increasingly, a very scarce commodity. Otherwise, more would be realising that our present economic and political system is no longer fit for purpose, and we cannot continue to pretend, deny or hid from that particular truth and expect to survive.

Next week: more from the 'Dream Factory' that is Washington

By the way as a gentle reminder:

MASTER IN AMERICAN STUDIES presents:
 
 
THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!
 
 
Following a series public lectures over the last four years concerning the United States on TUESDAY 12th APRIL we look to consider the above as Prof Ken Kennard offers his own interpretation of the candidates left standing and what this suggests about the US and what it could mean for Europe. As this is a particularly contentious and combative process this year expect the lecture to reflect this condition. As this is last public lecture to be offered by this program we hope that you can all attend.
 
This public lecture commences at 7.00pm in Auditorium A in the Blandijn, University of Gent.

ALL ARE WELCOME

KK




                   

It was no coincidence that the Republican Party - the Grand Old Party(GOP) - emerged as the embryonic nation moved its focus away from domestic expansion to industrial and commercial development(1854). Since then this broad political institution has promoted the ideas of a strong military, free market enterprise, and social conservatism (against abortion, same sex marriage, tighter gun laws). In other words, this movement sees individual liberty through the lens of commerce but understands collective responsibility - society- via a belief in traditional values that have emanated from their interpretation of Christian doctrine. This heady socio-political mixture of God and Gold has attracted a complex mixture of people from big and small business, high finance, senior military as well as millions of blue collar workers that have all 'recognised' what the United States stands for: A clear common belief/commitment that a strong united New World benefits the Rest of the World.
 
This understanding has helped etch the personalities and policies of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan onto the minds and into the history books of this proud nation. This particular sense of patriotic republicanism many argue is/was the key ingredient in the nation-state's rapid advancements, achievements and subsequent pre-eminence. Moreover, entwined into this 'story of success' was and is a often unspoken understanding tacitly held that the nation's focus on material advancement whilst preserving and protecting society from the 'evils of others' was achieved thanks to an overriding White Anglo-Saxon Protestant presence and influence. This racial and religious dimension had largely sat quietly within this party for many years as segregation dictated societal norms, however, concerns began to grow within the party over the changing nature of what it was to be American as liberal reforms throughout the 1960's seemed to gain traction. The subsequent backlash to this liberal impulse seemed to stall social progress during the 80's as an icon of American Conservatism Reagan sat in the Oval Office. However, ironically the President's myopic strategy of ignoring Black America brought about his failure to recognise that the changing impressions of US society was now being led by another ethnic group - Hispanics. (Currently Black America is roughly 13% while Hispanics are around 17% of a population of 321 million).                       

The sudden appearance and growing development of the Tea Party - an offshoot of the Republican Party - throughout the 1990's with its more extreme right wing views over issues such as immigration and identity illustrated to those watching that not all was well within mainstream Republicanism, however, the arrival of the Neo Cons and G W Bush's presidency as we swung into the new century once again turned the spotlight away from one of citizenship towards more pressing matters of national security. But the pendulum of priorities soon swung back again as a visual reminder of societal change duly arrived at the White House - Obama. Since then the Republican party hierarchy who used to be dominated by an eastern establishment of corporate, pro business pragmatists have been increasingly squeezed by the growing influence of anti establishment candidates. The subsequent poor performance of Tea Party favourites Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman was more than offset by the failure of conservative moderates such as McCain and Romney to gain the Presidency. Hence, this 'collective' ineffectiveness has just further exacerbated the growing frustrations and divisions within the GOP.
 
As we waltzed into the present campaign open warfare broke-out as Eric Cantor the House Republican leader and House Speaker John Boehner were both forced from office by Tea Party pressure and accusations of being too moderate. All that this new conservative schism now needed was a leader they could rally behind and then along came two - Trump and Cruz. Consequently, the moderate conservative candidates Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie were all mowed down by the verbal outrage and anger that has been crudely but effectively articulated by Trump and Cruz as an extended representation of this continuing swing to the right by 'traditional Americans' that feel increasingly threatened and scared by societal change. Can the Republican Party in essence contain this civil war ? Surely not, no more than Cruz or Trump can be given the keys to the White House. The days of conservative moderation now seem a distant memory and with it a party nomination that is electable. Hence, the once proud GOP that gave the nation-state Lincoln, T Roosevelt, and Eisenhower has now been effectively buried by the bile that Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck finds entertaining and Trump and Cruz finds informative.                 
 
Next week - The one party state that is now America !
 

KK


                     

As numerous students and observers of the US will know at end of World War Two an American Diplomat based in Moscow - George Kennan - sent a personal appraisal to the State Department of Russian conditions, intentions and recommended 'containment' as Washington's response. This influential but controversial communication was subsequently labelled the Long Telegram. I only mention this because as I continue my running appraisal of the Presidential elections - with the added dash of delusions of grandeur - I thought I would scribe a long telegram back to the US concerning my personal response to the nightly serial entitled - The Greatest Show on Earth (The US primaries). So...
 
Dear Washington, I wish to share with you some of my growing concerns as I view your nation's current soap opera - in the blue corner it seems much has gone as the Democrat Party had 'planned it', Hilary Clinton thanks to party support, an extremely large budget and consistently high support from Black America has managed to take a commanding delegate lead over Bernie Sanders. The fact that the introduction of super delegates into the Democrat convention process (see previous blog) almost guaranteed that the Party's favoured candidate would take the prize anyway has been largely, quietly and conveniently forgotten by most but what Sanders presence has brought is the allusion of legitimacy - a 'genuine' fight between two political views - this touch of authenticity was always going to be important for Clinton since she has been seen by many for far too long as a 'shoe in' for the Democrats. However, in large part it has seemed from afar that the political rivalry between these two candidates has been feisty at times but mainly measured and respectful - an approach most Europeans would recognise and welcome - but I get the sense that if Clinton was not feeling secure in her nomination then the approach to Sanders would have been a little more 'robust'.
 
In the red corner the reverse seems true, the Republican contest between Trump, Cruz and Rubio - putting aside all of the other candidate casualties -  has been venal. The language, style and approach by the GOP nominees has been nothing short of disgraceful, turning many of the TV debates into a circus routine full of bear-baters and clowns. The personal and abusive attacks offered by these three political acrobats has undoubtedly filled the seats and entertained the viewers but at what cost? How does this sort of 'political yobbishness' benefit the voters, the Republicans, the US or that little thing called democracy?  
 
With Trump controversially continuing to head the delegate count it is clear that the Republican Party have lost the plot. Sorry, have they ever understood the plot? Even Mitch McConnell(Leader of the Senate) and Paul Ryan (Leader of the House) both seasoned, respected, and experienced senior politicians  have failed to hide their deep loathing for 'their' current front runner. The party's response to the maverick that is the Donald has just further illustrated to many in Europe how split the Republicans are as a political grouping and how fractured American society has become. Of course, we can all welcome notions of free speech and the right to test the veracity of a candidates position but it seems from across the sea that this testing process has lost all sense of proportion, sinking down to the lowest common denominator. How easy will it be for anyone outside let alone inside the US to take seriously the Republican nomination after this debased contest ?
 
Now, if you - Washington - thinks that this writer is taking a rather too lofty position please remember that the considerations that you are presently engaged in will eventually produce a new Commander in Chief of the biggest military power in the World (you spend more on defence then the next eleven nations put together). And if anyone on 'the Hill' wonders what this has got to do with us strange Europeans then I would gently remind you that we are paying an increasingly huge price for the last time you 'voted in' -  care of the US Supreme Court - a President who knew how to start a reckless war without understanding how to stop it  - G. W. Bush and Iraq.
 
Therefore, writing as a critical friend of the US, which many Europeans are, can you please put a halt to this political charade that is at present amusing a few, annoying some and increasingly worrying many and get back to the fact that the US Presidency is a serious job for a serious politician and not an opportunity or a platform for the political equivalent of Coco the Clown to perform verbal, baseless acrobatics.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Bemused of Belgium. KK
 


           


 

 
     
 

 

 
  
 

 

 

 
        
 
         

So as Donald Trump continues to ignore history so Jeb Bush looks to rewrite it as he has just engaged the help of his brother George W to win over the good folk of South Carolina in the next primary. Speaking at a political rally last night the man that gave us the Iraqi War and the ensuing hellish wash back that has disfigured if not destroyed millions of people's lives asserted that the Presidency was 'a serious job for a serious man' - well I'm glad that's cleared that up ! It is reassuring to hear that the 43rd President has lost none of his pithy thoughtful eloquence...
 
Why oh why has Jeb called on his brother to help his ailing and failing campaign? Some would say desperation, others would say that George W in some parts of the US including South Carolina, is still respected by many Republican voters - this point is true. Moreover, Trump's version of history that includes the endlessly repeated story over 'the weapons of mass destruction' has become a running sore that needs to be patched over if 'Jeb is not going to ebb' away from the White House.
 
Now the story of George W and his 'War on Terror' is an update on my previous blog concerning 'knowing nothing'; This is about a more serious condition called 'knowing something' and that is certainly where you would place good old George W. All crusades need 'legitimacy' especially in the nuanced understanding of democracy that the US has developed over their relatively short history. With God on his side George W desperately needed to explain to the American people as well as the rest of the World that dismantling Iraq in response to the 9/11 attacks was sound even though Saddam and the rest of his brutal regime had nothing to do with this action. Therefore, with Archangel Blair by his side the already discredited information from escaped disaffected Iraqis 'proving' that Saddam possessed the aforementioned weapons was literally heaven sent.
 
Subsequently, whilst 70% of the UK marched and voted against the conflict, 70% of the US cheered the President on as he launched a war that as yet has no ending. A conflict that has had consequences beyond most people's worst nightmares. The fragmentation of Iraq, which will not be put back  together again. The death of hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Syrians etc etc. The displacement of millions that have had their lives reduced to tented poverty, starvation and/or finally drowning to death off the coast of Greece or Italy in sheer desperation to escape the inhumanity of man. Also remember that 90% of the IS's 'high command' is made up of officers from Saddam's 'defeated military'. Moreover, many of the members of the other myriad of rebel groups fighting in Syria and now in Libya emanated from the dismantling of the Ba'ath Party and death of Saddam Hussein. Also, remember Paris. And just like many preceding 'clashes of civilisation' this Bush given crusade has now sucked into its vortex France, UK , Turkey, Iran and Russia. With the ever increasing prospect of an outright war between Moscow and Ankara. Taking account that Turkey is a member of NATO this scenario is extremely chilling.
 
So, Jeb Bush the warning should be very clear - be careful what you wish for - since your brother used his Presidential power in an arbitrary unthinking way, egged on by the messianic madness that is Blair, because they knew something. So, Jeb Bush how much do you know! My sense is that although the reappearance of George W will give Jeb a lift in South Carolina and help blunt the blustering of Donald Trump, overall this reawakening of the past will not make pleasant reading for many 'middle of the road' republicans. Mind you what has sense got to do with any of this? It is amazing to see what time does to people's recollections, for did you know -  Nixon 'really' didn't know what was going on, Clinton was only being friendly and George W knew he knew something...
 
Roll on November... and sanity.
 
KK
 


       
 

 
 
 

 
                     
 
            
             

Without wishing to sound too perverse I have wanted to write about 'nothing' for years - some of my readers/students think I have already developed the knack rather well -  yet this current process of US primaries has finally given me the opportunity to develop this theme.
 
In 1855 a political movement in the US named itself the Know Nothing Party. In essence it developed out of a reaction sometimes violent to the arrival of large numbers of Irish and German Catholics immigrants during the 1840's and they subsequently operated under the banner of the Republican Party. It has been described as a semi-secret organisation - how you can be semi-secret defeats me - but shush! they were made up largely of white Protestants who were concerned primarily with the religious 'purity' of American citizenship. Now if you feel this theme has contemporary resonance then consider The Tea Party. Of course because of present day sensibilities, sensitivities and legislation the Tea Party and its standard bearers cannot be as outwardly racist as its political predecessor but you do not have to be a member of the KKK to understand the smuggled message that underpins much of Donald Trump and co's campaigning rhetoric. It simply boils down to this (you do not need to know anything else) - the reason behind the increasing economic and social tensions inside the US and the growing reduction of American influence overseas is due to the continuing dilution of the founding principles of the nation that were put in place and successfully promoted by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Therefore, the remedy to the nation's ills is also simple. Reinstate these founding principles by reversing, removing or revising the current liberal agenda that currently pervades the nation.
 
Why has this reductive understanding been gaining traction ? Again simple, because the messengers of this reconstructed narrative have been successful in convincing sufficient numbers of average White Americans that they have become victims. The reason why you cannot get the job you deserve, the reason why cannot get into the correct school or college of your choice, the reason why there is increased violence in your community is because of the growing influence and behaviour of 'outsiders' who do not understand 'our rules'. Moreover, due to years of largely liberal 'leadership' - with the obvious exception of the Reagan presidency - we have seen preferential treatment given to minorities in the areas of education and employment, the promotion of sexual deviance (gay rights), and the development of religious practices and political views that are clearly Un-American. Our nation's priorities have become undermined by the corruption of others and the incompetence of our own government.

Now these selective sentiments, which are also felt by certain sections of European society, are based on 'knowing nothing'. On not knowing that the United States was energized and expanded by the very same multiplicity of ethnicities that are now seen by many as 'outsiders'. Moreover, without the influence and money these outsiders brought the Founders original project would not have been as successful in utilising and focusing the nation's imagination, innovation and industry. Also, what are these magical founding principles that have been recently infected by others? Well, self determination, individualism and a understanding of freedom through economic development do not strike me as issues that belong to one ethnic/religious group to the exclusion of others. However, if you are willing to no nothing about the 'hierarchy of race' that has existed throughout the US since its inception, if you are willing to no nothing about the continuing systemic unfairness built into the US legal system that is clearly not colour blind, and if you are willing to no nothing about the misuse of American power overseas as well as recognising the benefits it can bring then of course Trump and the rest of the 'boys in the band 'make perfect sense.
 
In the eyes of the law ignorance is no defence but it seems for many in the US that it is the ideal platform to launch a political movement and for some politicians an ideal environment to play dumb since Trump is not. For if they knew anything we could suggest that the conservative right are reliving the historic 'horrors' of the Red Scare, the Yellow Scare, Communist infiltration, black integration and Catholic contamination but thanks to the Glory of God - whoever he or she is - we know nothing about anything.
 
 Please read on to know something... As time goes by

KK 
 
        
 

 

 
           
 
             

The death of US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia late yesterday has certainly added spice to a presidential election that was already running hot. Why? Lets go back briefly to first principles. Of the three branches of US governance - executive, legislative, and judiciary - the Supreme Court is ultimately the most powerful since it is the final arbiter when interpreting the US Constitution(1787). The Constitution is not only the primary legal instrument of the nation, in many ways it is the nation. It sets out the structure of society, the distribution of power within its federal framework as well highlighting the rights and responsibilities of all citizens. Therefore, as American history has often revealed Congress may make the laws, the President may issue the directives but if this august body deems any of these decisions 'unconstitutional' then they 'count for nowt'. Hence, the make up of the nine judges that form this ultimate court is critical to the social development of the US. In other words, its membership is highly, highly political.
 
Until the death of Justice Scalia the 'recent' balance on the court had favoured conservative thinkers, moreover, Scalia was a proponent of the notion of 'originalism' - the consideration that the court should not move too far away from the original intentions of the Founders who constructed the constitution in Philadelphia(1787). All Supreme Court justices are presidential appointments who are confirmed by the Senate. Therefore, just as Reagan appointed Scalia in 1986 as a reflection of his own very conservative considerations it now seems conventional if not common sense that Obama will nominate a liberal lawyer that will not only swing the 'scales of justice' in favour of liberal understanding but it could have a profound effect on the current 'running list' of Supreme Court opinions that are now due for consideration; abortion, contraception and immigration. However, this is presidential election year.
 
In theory President Obama has until next January - the swearing in of the new President - to nominate and get appointed the replacement Justice, and usually after a short period of respect the nomination and Senate hearings only take a few weeks (on average 90 days) but already the majority leader of the Senate - Republican Mitch McConnell - has noted, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,". Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Signalling that the Republicans will do all in their power to 'delay, delay delay' as Donald Trump demanded last night in the latest GOP TV debate. Moreover, what Scalia's demise has highlighted is that out of the eight remaining justices three are over the age of 70 suggesting that deciding the next White House occupant is even more critical to the long term future direction of this nation.
 
As I've mention in previous blog entries the President of the United States is 'the most powerful man in the World' outside of the US since Congress is primarily the 'decider of domestic intentions' however, the Presidential appointment of Supreme Court Justice's is a way that the President can influence indirectly domestic development as well as leaving a strong lasting personal, political legacy - just consider that Reagan left office in 1988 but Scalia his chief judicial proponent of conservative values who has had major effect on Second Amendment understanding - gun laws - has only just departed during a hunting trip to Texas - how fitting.
 
Have any of these developments got anything to do with law and justice? Little. Have they much to do with democracy? Guess ! But they have much to do with political power. Since the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means the replacement of Scalia will seem crucial to the warring factions during the primaries. Will the average American care? Well, the last poll looking at who the American citizen most trusted in government - the US Supreme Court - mind you that is not saying much. But the political elite on 'the Hill' will care greatly since in their eyes the 'law of the land' determined by the Supreme Court, is the US.   
 
More later,
 

KK



 
      
 

 
    
 
         

Over the last couple of weeks while writing about the US Presidential elections I have asked the reader as well as myself - directly and indirectly - what is real? This is a straightforward enough question but potentially it has a series of complex answers. Hence, I would like to layout a clear, straightforward example of how difficult it is to measure the actual importance of the US primary elections when you look at the fairness and transparency of the process.
 
As each primary and caucus is held throughout the nation to identify the Democrat nominee for the Presidential race off the votes received by each candidate are counted and translated into delegate votes - there are 4,700 delegates in the Democrat Party Convention (To be held in Philadelphia during July). This suggests that the candidate who receives the most popular (regular) votes also receives the most delegate votes and therefore wins. Straightforward enough. So, if we look at New Hampshire, which is a small state, where Sanders received 60% of the vote (151,584) this was translated into 15 delegates for Sanders that subsequently go forward to the Convention. However, Clinton who received only 38% of the vote (95,252) also received 15 delegates votes to be carried forward. How? Why? Because within the Democrat Party system there are what is known as 'superdelegates'. There are 700 and they can be allocated to a candidate as required regardless or in spite of the popular vote. Hence, after this series of primaries are complete Sanders could collect a majority of the regular vote but still lose the nomination because of the allocation of these superdelegates.
 
This interim 'super system' was brought in by the Democrats during the early 1980's after the 'Carter disaster' - perceived as a calamitous presidential one term in the White House by James Earl Carter, who subsequently lost big to Reagan - so that the Party could assert more control over who could become their nominee. Like many interim systems it has yet to be replaced. This somewhat nuanced approach to democracy raises a myriad of issues. Firstly, it potentially devalues the 'real vote' that is actually taking place. This is a polite way of saying Mr or Mrs New Hampshire your vote does not actually count. Secondly, it suggests that the Democrat Party does not respect or trust the ordinary people to get the answer 'right'. By right I mean to fit in to where the Party's financial backers have placed their money. Finally, 'democracy' is all good and fine as long as you come up with the answer we want. This is a play on the old maxim in the American system of 'voting early and voting often', but now its vote early but then leave the result to us.
 
Now few of you would be surprised to learn that already many of the superdelegates in the Democrat Party have declared for Clinton. So, the only real way Sanders can get the nomination is to win BIG in the majority of the primary elections. Taking account of the Black vote that hugely favours the Clinton's (last night's TV debate between Clinton and Sanders focused on Obama's legacy of which Sanders is highly critical of, not Hilary, she was very supportive of the present incumbent simply because she wants to shore up her Black support) this seems highly, highly unlikely. So why bother with this process in the first place? Now the answer to this is straightforward. If the US sees no reason to try and reconcile the 'American Dream' with the actuality of American life why not have a voting system that projects the transparency of democracy whilst producing the answer that the 'super voters' wanted in the first place. Hence, what you think you see and what you actually get is... reality!  
 
More political magic later in the week.
 

 
KK