Subscribe to the Compass feed
Join the Compass Facebook group
Follow us on Twitter
EVENT
After the election: what next for centre-left politics?
CAMPAIGN
High Pay Commission
PUBLICATION
The Advertising Effect
THINKPIECE
#60 Responses to Recession
Stuart White explores 'The New Republicanism'
The financial crisis and resulting recession is feeding a sense that we could be at the end of a political era - in a way, at the end of two political eras: the era of New Labour and the era of ‘neo-liberalism' of which the New Labour years were a part.
But what will the new era look like? What will be its agenda? Unless we sort this out, and quickly, there is every chance that neo-liberalism will win through, again, by default.
On the right, thinkers are already staking out their territory. In his ‘Rise of the Red Tories', Phillip Blond argues that the time is ripe for a new Conservatism based on a repudiation of both social and economic liberalism. On the economic side, Blond advocates greater political and economic localism, the regulation of markets to protect small businesses and the wider distribution of wealth. On the social side, ‘Red Toryism' eschews multiculturalism as morally nihilistic in favour of a ‘common but high civilisation' that ‘binds all Britons together in a vision of a culture worth sharing.'
In our new book, Building a Citizen Society: The Emerging Politics of Republican Democracy, Daniel Leighton and I have drawn together a distinguished group of contributors to set out a different agenda. We believe that republican democracy offers a political philosophy that takes on the contemporary challenges of unaccountability and wealth concentration much more capably than either the traditional Labourist approach or the various new conservatisms currently on offer. It also offers a much more attractive, liberal approach to cultural diversity.
Democracy, liberty, equality
So what is ‘republican democracy'?
To begin with, it is not primarily about monarchy. Of course, hereditary monarchy is a silly and inequitable idea. Of course, the monarchy should be abolished. But getting rid of monarchy is not where the most important action is for contemporary republicans.
Republican democracy is, first and foremost, democratic. It affirms that state authority derives from ‘we, the people'. But democratic authority, to be legitimate, must also justly serve the people. To this end, it must be guided by two core values: liberty and equality.
Liberty demands that individuals be free of what the philosopher Philip Pettit calls ‘domination': of living at the mercy of others who have the power to intervene at will in one's life. This applies to the state. But it also applies in the workplace and in the family.
Republican democracy calls for a high degree of economic equality. In part, this is a just demand in itself. But it also follows from the desire to protect liberty, for liberty as non-domination is easily subverted by accumulations of power that result from inequalities of wealth. It also follows from the concern to maintain popular sovereignty. For such accumulations of power can also too easily displace the demos as the real decision-making force in society.
Not least, republican democracy holds that a free and sufficiently equal society cannot be maintained with a passive, depoliticised citizen body. ‘We, the people' must take active responsibility, through political and other forms of social participation, for the achievement of democracy's moral ends, liberty and equality.
This is all very abstract. So let's draw out some more concrete implications and explain how they contrast with the traditional politics of ‘Labourism'.
Differences with Labourism
First, consider ownership issues. Post-war social democracy tended, at least in practice, to downplay issues around ownership (and we mean ownership of wealth here, not income). It rejected the traditional socialist commitment to take all major industries into public ownership, but didn't put much in its place. Republican democracy calls for renewed attention to ownership questions.
For one thing, a much wider dispersion of wealth is essential to achieve liberty (for all). Without property of their own, individuals become reliant on others - employers, spouses, family - for vital resources. But someone with property has crucial bargaining power. They needn't scramble desperately into this or that job, because they can, for a limited time at least, live off their property. This is why republican democracy looks favourably on proposals to universalize capital ownership or to create near-equivalents like a scheme of unconditional basic income.
From the point of view of popular sovereignty, it also matters who controls property - or, more exactly, who controls investment. While democracy and capitalism are partly complementary, they are in part at odds because the private control of investment flows by a (usually) small elite places definite limits on what a democratically-elected government can feasibly do: if it goes 'too far' in a reformist direction, there will be a capital strike, and reforms will have to be abandoned to revive the economy.
Republican democracy looks in the long-run to overcome this contradiction by bringing investment itself under greater democratic control. This does not mean giving control over investment to central government. Rather, it means democratizing the way in which investment funds are controlled from within society. For example, as Robin Blackburn has suggested, we could establish, by means of a capital levy, new 'social funds' under the control of trade unions and citizen groups.
Second, consider the nature of citizenship. For the most part, post-war social democracy accepted - even encouraged - a relatively passive notion of citizenship. Yes, citizens should usually come out and vote for an MP once every 4 or 5 years. But it was not necessary or desirable for them to do much more than this.
But there are a number of reasons why social democracy is likely to fare badly on this basis. First, participation in collective decision-making arguably has important educative effects in terms of nurturing citizens' skills and sensibilities. Here social democrats might have something to learn from an unlikely source: Alexis de Tocqueville. In Democracy in America (1835, 1840), Tocqueville argued that 'the Americans' of the 1820s/30s had rescued themselves from 'individualism' - the immersion of individuals and families in their own affairs to the neglect of a concern for the wider society - by devolving governmental power down to localities. This, he argued, pushed people out of the narrow circle of their private concerns, increased their sense of interdependence, and their sensitivity to the interests of others. In short: participation in collective decision-making can help to nurture a sense of civic membership and concern for the common good.
Second, participation matters because of its power effects. As the level of popular participation in political life changes so too does the balance of power in society. Stated crudely, 'people power' emerges as a counter-weight to the power of money. This is why republican democracy celebrates the new citizen-organizing movements, like London Citizens, which seek to bring church groups and unions and other organizations together to campaign for policies like Living Wages and better treatment of asylum seekers.
Differences with ‘Red Toryism'
Some of this might sound a lot like ‘Red Toryism': a suspicion of the state, a celebration of civil society, a commitment to spread asset ownership more widely.
To the extent that there is overlap, we say: well and good. But there are also a number of very important differences.
First, while republican democrats are suspicious of the state, they nevertheless see it as having a crucial role in realizing democracy's moral ends of liberty and equality. The point is not to eschew the state as such, but to limit its power to act arbitrarily and to restructure it so that it is more open to popular participation. At the same time, the state - including the central state - must be used to combat economic inequality and, thereby, to protect individual liberty and popular sovereignty.
Republican democrats celebrate ‘civil society'. But it is not celebrated simply as an apolitical realm of natural freedom in contrast to that of the state. Civil society - Edmund Burke's ‘little platoons' - can have its own parochialism, and it is important to have public forums and encompassing social movements which draw people into engagement with society's wider, common good.
And yes, republican democrats seek a wider distribution of wealth. But in contrast to ‘Red Toryism', they have plenty of genuinely radical ideas about how to promote this: citizen's inheritance schemes under which all citizens receive a capital sum at birth or on maturity financed from inheritance tax; compulsory capital-growth sharing schemes under which firms are required to set aside a proportion of their profits in the form of new shares to be held by workers' trusts; or popularly-controlled social funds, as discussed above, which could provide dividend payments for all citizens.
A deeper difference with ‘Red Toryism' is that republican democracy does not set itself up in opposition to something called ‘liberalism'. Liberalism has contributed enormously to our understanding of what liberty and equality, the moral ends of democracy, require. Republican democracy comes to realize liberalism, not to bury it.
The state must not play favourites between citizens of different religious faiths (and none), and certainly should not seek to build a shared political culture on the basis of any particular faith tradition. Religious commitments will of course motivate many to participate in politics. But the core values of the public sphere - democracy, liberty and equality - are independent of specific faith traditions; and it is in terms of a shared commitment to these political values that a sense of common citizenship is properly built.
So that's what we mean by republican democracy. It's not about absorbing society into the state or into the market or about uncritically celebrating ‘civil society' as an alternative to both. It's about using all three in a way that delivers on the promise of democracy and its moral ends of liberty and equality.
Stuart White
Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.
To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.
Comments
on 27 February 2009, 6:19:29 PM
But you're evading Stan's (implicit) question, Lee. It's pointless to express what you DON'T want to do without expressing also what you DO want to do.
Do you join with the United Nations and most of the rest of the world in saying "This is a local matter which they must deal with themselves" and then ignoring the atrocities being inflicted on tens of thousands of innocent people ?
That is what was happening in Afghanistan before bin Laden, it was happening in East Timor and Cambodia, it's what is still happening in Zimbabwe and Darfur and Congo and Tibet and heaven knows how many other countries. The UN does nothing, the world does nothing, a few people wring their hands and bemoan the dreadful state of humanity (as you just did) and people die in their hundreds of thousands, when they need not.
So the USA invaded Afghanistan (quite legally, incidentally, and not in defiance of international law) and you say they shouldn't have, but offer nothing else to the Afghans than a return to the horrors of the Taleban. It worries me that you seem even to be saying that they are somehow inured to those horrors, and have a culture which accepts them, so the horrors are not, to them, as horrible as they would appear to us.
Forget about geopolitical supposition for a moment and tell us what (if anything) you think SHOULD be done to protect the Afghan people from the Taleban, and who should do it, and how likely you think it is that the people you elect for the job will actually accept your election.
The rest, as they say, is nothing but narrative.
on 27 February 2009, 5:23:15 PM
Wars are fought for economic reasons.
on 27 February 2009, 3:52:22 PM
***********************************************************
Stan, I will let Frances answer for herself.
I find the Taliban appalling. I do also believe that they have a larger degree of popular support than the western media report, because they provide a kind of social structure that I wouldnt like, but that satisfies the traditions and even the needs of the area.
Firstly, I am not sure that the population of Afghanistan would select the United States to invade and occupy their country (and kill their children) to remove the Taliban. It is not the only option. Afghanistan is full of local barons and war lords, some of which are better or worse than others. There are also local elders who have quite a lot of authority and power. The US has the most rudimentary understanding of the real situation, and so even if they were invited in, and even if they were well-intentioned, it is almost impossible to believe that the US can have a positive rather than destructive and distorting impact. Generals are effective at moving troops around and killing the enemy. They know nothing about how societies operate.
Secondly, I dont believe that the US is in Afghanistan to save the Afghans from the Taliban. They are there because of the strategic importance of the country in terms of oil pipelines and the competition with China and Russia over access to and control of oil resources and distribution in central Asia. The US has not even denied this reality. It is all described in detail on the PNAC website and in national security reports
Thirdly, the US has had an appalling record of treating civilian populations in countries in which they intervened. They sponsored Pinochet's massacre of thousands of civilians; they did the same in East Timor, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia. They are directly supporting a disgusting dictatorial regime in Uzbekhistan, which is equally bad as the Taliban, and the US has no problem with the Saudi oppression of women and impoverishment of the population. So I see no evidence that a US invasion and occupation helps liberate anyone from anything. Karzai is hardly that much better than the Taliban: he is probably the most corrupt "leader" in the area, and he is being kept in place by US troops.
So, while I am 100% with you, Stan, on the undesirability of the Taliban, I do not accept that the US invasion and occupation is an acceptable solution. Neither do I have a knee-jerk reaction, which I think is what you suggest. Although I do not believe that Tony Blair was whiter than the virgin snow in intervening in Sierra Leone, (there were British interests to protect), by and large that brought about some positive results, even although I would not have advocated it myself
on 27 February 2009, 1:47:31 PM
on 27 February 2009, 1:21:05 PM
on 27 February 2009, 12:17:55 AM
on 26 February 2009, 10:40:33 PM
If the judicial system is under the control of the guilty party, and the guilty party is at liberty to ignore any and all legal findings, and there is no way to enforce a judgment, it becomes moot whether international legality matters. Obama is making a big play now of wanting to be internationally respectable. If he were informed by the World Court that US presence in Afghanistan was illegal, his response would be precisely the same as Bush's.
on 26 February 2009, 6:22:25 PM
Obama seems to be prosecuting the war against terror in Afghanistan spreading over to Pakistan with the same crack pot beliefs and determination as Bush. It was always a nonsense and it hasn't improved with bloodshed. It has virtually become a war on the Pashtuns who live in these hinterlands on behalf of US supported governments in notional capitals miles away out of Pashtun areas.
It will go on forever because it is a bad political carve up and leaves the majority Pashtuns without representation. The Taliban are only one sort of freedom fighter claiming to be liberating the Pashtun from the US and local Pashtun enemies. The US has no legitimate right to be there and there is no victory possible.
What on earth is the point of this misconceived nation building?
It's not a legal war and it can't be prosecuted nicely. But once you sign up to it as Obama has then all the rest follows. And as the US gets further and further from winning the abuses will get greater.
If I wanted to go to law over it I would go on the fundamental grounds of going to war on a ridiculous premise with non achievable war aims. I'm sure it can't be a legal war.
on 26 February 2009, 5:21:32 PM
on 26 February 2009, 1:47:03 PM
I'm sorry Lee is detecting a gap between the rhetoric and reality in Obama already. It took me about nine months with Tony Blair. It's the extra troops for Afghanistan that gives me cold shivers.
*********************************************************
Just some facts
"On January 23, President Obama gave a green light to missile attacks from Pakistani-based CIA-operated unmanned drone aircraft at targets in Pakistan’s tribal areas. About 20 civilians were killed in the two missile attacks....Again on February 14, at least 28 people were killed in two drone attacks in Waziristan region. And two days later, on February 16, a US drone fired three missiles at a target in Kurruam Agency killing 30 people." (OpEd News)
"CIA Director Leon Panetta said yesterday that U.S. aerial attacks against al-Qaeda and other extremist strongholds inside Pakistan would continue, despite concerns about a popular Pakistani backlash. " (Washington Post)
"The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended on February 20 that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights. In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention."
"Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward" (LA Times)
"Panetta also stated during the hearing that he would ask President Obama to authorize CIA agents to utilize harsher interrogation methods than the Army Field Manual permits if necessary." (Dissenting Justice)
"Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, Obamas Solicitor General nominee, reportedly told a Republican senator that the Administration agreed with Bush that we are at war and therefore can hold enemy combatants indefinitely. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Kagan: Do you believe we are at war? I do, Senator, Kagan replied"
"The Justice Department is defending Bush administration decisions to keep secret many documents about domestic wiretapping, data collection on travelers and U.S. citizens, and interrogation of suspected terrorists."
"Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards "get their kicks in" before the camp is closed, according to a lawyer who represents detainees. Abuses began to pick up in December after Obama was elected, human rights lawyer Ahmed Ghappour told Reuters. He cited beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-forcefeeding detainees who are on hunger strike." (Reuters)
on 26 February 2009, 11:49:08 AM
Finally, Pelsoi must be told to stop blocking Conyers committee investigating the breaches of the constitution and perjury committed by the Bush admin, especially characters like Karl Rove who must land up behind bars. Again, I dont think there is much Republican sympathy for these low lives.
What we must remember about the Clinton affair which wrecked the business of government, is that this was done through congress as an impeachment. Once the reports you speak of have been done, there is no need whatsoever for either Congress or the Obama administration to have any involvement. Any prosecutions will take place within the normal court system, so there could be no accusation of partisanship. Although they seldom mean it, American patriots constantly call Murka a land of laws and trumpet the importance of the law. Its mightily hypocritical, but Obama can use that to good purpose. He himself can simply stay out of it all, which would be proper in any event. He can also ensure that those carrying out these investigations do not talk to the media until the investigations are complete, published, and handed over to the Justice Department. Or at least he can try.
(In reality, Murka could challenge Wales for the title "Land of Leaks"...bad pun...sorry Taff)
on 26 February 2009, 9:58:59 AM
I see no reason why he shouldn't clearly state the following :
a) We have reason to believe that US government officials have been responsible for torture;
b) This administration absolutely confirms that it has given clear instructions to all its officials and agents that it will not permit nor tolerate any torture in future;
c) Any person reporting or providing evidence of past torture by others is guaranteed protection and immunity from prosecution;
d) The government has commenced an investigation into allegations of past torture by officials and agents of the US government, and will prosecute to the fullest extent any and all persons, including both elected officials and employed agents, against whom evidence is found;
e) The government will issue a full report of its investigation by the end of 2009.
Allowing for any problems with details of language, I think the above can be said, and will satisfy the world that Obama represents a change in governmental style and substance on this issue.
on 26 February 2009, 12:15:04 AM
I dont simply ignore the argument about how much Obama has to do, and how show trials could set back an agenda. That is a reality. There are, however, strong expectations both in the US and the world, that he should do more than issue disingenuous statements that America doesnt torture. How can you continue to pursue war criminals elsewhere in the world by simply exempting America from the standards expected of everyone else. It will also be seen as Obama exempting himself from such standards, at the start of, what I believe, will be a disastrous escalation in Afghanistan. Obama as President, has already slaughtered a few dozen civilians since he took over. He cannot expect to have his "change" taken seriously, if he simply closes the book on the Bush atrocities. That will be exactly like America of the past, never taking responsibility for anything. How can he say "God bless America" if that is how he is going to behave ?
So, somehow Obama has to find a way of doing both: moving ahead with his agenda, but also carrying out detailed investigation of crimes and unconstitutional actions by the previous regime. Perhaps its a matter of sequence. Perhaps it can be a sharp and unambiguous expose and condemnation short of prosecutions (if it were to wreck Blair's personal enrichment program and result in his universal blacklisting, that would be enough for me). But he cant do nothing, and he will not get away with pretending that there is nothing to be done. If he tries to do nothing he will end up in deep trouble, especially as it is far from certain that he can meet any of the other goals he has rather unwisely stated, far earlier than he could possibly have sufficient certainty to set such goals. Grandstanding is not Obama's most positive attribute, and it could be his undoing.
on 25 February 2009, 10:54:49 PM
I don't think that's a fair challenge to "Give-him-a-chance-Obamaites". I don't think Obama would, or should, see such show trials as a priority; his objective should be to recant past errors as quickly as possible, and to unite his country in pursuit of a new era of foreign and domestic policy. He simply has far too much to do URGENTLY, and he dare not jeopardise that for the sake of being seen to follow the high moral road.
A FAIR challenge to Obama will be to see some high ranking bankers, and SEC executives, in court. That's because it is crucial that he ensure no repetition of past malfeasance in Wall St, and the best way to secure that is by threat and example.
Another FAIR challenge is to expect the Federal government to purchase over-mortgaged houses and to enter into long-term lease-back agreements to replace foreclosures.
A third is that he offers Iran a non-aggression treaty and guarantees against aggression by Israel in exchange for Iran allowing full UAEA inspections and dropping its uranium enrichment programme.
I'll take a punt at all three of those by the end of the year, and if he doesn't then I'll buy you and any two other Obasceptics that meal.
Actually, it would be nice to arrange a meal for some of us, maybe in Granita, or else that fish and chip shop of Prescott's ?
on 25 February 2009, 9:24:57 PM
*********************************************************
Stuart: Please explain what this means. Such a situation not only exists already, it has existed and deteriorated over decades, and is entrenched by the structure of governance and power elite. So what do you mean that "this inequality should not be allowed" ?
And how would you justify, in terms of any conceivable economic model, paying the same salaries to people regardless of how much social value and social wealth they create ? Do you seriously suggest that a busker at Picadilly Underground would receive the same income as the lead violinist in the BBC Symphony Orchestra ?
And supposing this really is your agenda, how do you move from NOW, to FUTURE ? Is this to be a peaceable revolution, or will it require the mobilisation of the masses, pikes etc ? I trust you are not hoping to make this change through Compass-style "narratives".
on 25 February 2009, 6:49:58 PM
One in 4 \ 5 in this country are living around or below the Accepted Poverty Line.
How can introducing savings schemes of whatever nature assist these citizens when almost every penny is spent on the basic necessities to live in this Sad New World ..... food \ housing \ energy clothing \ transport .... ?
Social mobility ? A dream .... especially so for carers ( whilst caring ) and the elderly. Without adequate incomes which allow a surplus after paying for the aforesaid necessities , all hope is lost for the many millions which have been previously classified in other threads on this Form as the " Underclass ".
on 25 February 2009, 5:47:29 PM
On equality: the demand for 'equality' is indeed very ambiguous, so much so that I was able to write a whole book about it (EQUALITY, Polity Press, 2006)!
My reaction to the ambiguity is not that we should drop the demand - after all, plenty of basic value concepts, 'liberty', 'democracy', etc., have a similar ambiguity, and we wouldn't want to drop these - but that we should seek to clarify the different things which people demand under the heading and clarify which of them we think are important. So meritocratic notions of 'equality of opportunity', while important, do not go far enough because they allow for vast inequalities in income and wealth based on inequalities in marketable talents over which people have no control.
That view will be controvesial amongst those political theorists who think of themselves as 'republicans'. The common ground amongst republicans, I think, is that economic inequalities must be limited to the extent necessary to prevent the emergence of undesirable power inequalities. For example, if inequality reaches a point where some are rendered dependent on the arbitrary will of another for a decent minimum, or where wealth concentration threatens the sovereignty of the demos itself, then this inequality should not be allowed.
I think one implication of the republican view is that a strategy for economic equality should focus not only on income (though, as the posts on low incomes on this thread make plain, this is hugely important), but on wealth - the ownership of stocks of marketable wealth, including financial assets. It is striking how far wealth inequality, as distinct from income inequality, often drops out of the picture in today's policy discussions. The recent government White Paper on promoting social mobility made little reference to the issue; and the Narey Commission which the Lib Dems set up to consider social mobility made no no reference to the issue at all.
The government has taken some important modest steps in the direction of a 'wealth-spreading' policy with its introduction of the Child Trust Fund and the Saving Gateway policy which will soon be rolled out. But there is a lot more that could and should be done on this issue. On this point, I think it should be possible to get a consensus amongst genuine meritocrats, moderate republicans, and republicans such as myself who think that a good deal of income and wealth inequality, even that which has impeccable meritocratic credentials, is unjust.
on 25 February 2009, 3:48:06 PM
All the state benefits come in at between £50 and £80 a week. When my son was first ill he got JSA at £52 a week and a letter from Income Support to say that this was deemed more than the minimum required to live on so they wouldn't give him any more. With a mortgage to pay he just went bankrupt. I don't think you should add on attendance allowance or disability allowance that pay for the costs of the disability because they are to pay carers and the costs of the illness and you don't end up with the money.
If the carer has more than the minimum savings for IS then they do have to live on the £50 with nothing else. Of course in the end the savings are all gone and income support will kick in still at very low levels (£120 a week). But why should people use up their savings, lose their house and their financial future because they become carers.
Most benefits are less than the pension. You have been deliberately dazzled by figures in the press relating to people with lots and lots of young children. They do pay extra to protect children but try being single with no children and you get these derisory levels of income which cannot be a serious attempt to support you. No one knows or believes or seems to care how low the levels are. Compared with MPs expenses it's obscene.
The system is mind bogglingly complicated on purpose so no one knows how little people get but the levels are very, very low.
..................
I'm sorry Lee is detecting a gap between the rhetoric and reality in Obama already. It took me about nine months with Tony Blair. It's the extra troops for Afghanistan that gives me cold shivers.
on 25 February 2009, 1:25:13 PM
Dugsie: I can genuinely report no affinity to Mr Mosely or his strange hobbies. I will use "chastise" or "scold" in future, so as not to raise any doubts or expectations !
I dont disgree at all about your observations regarding Marx. Its just that he (and I) were concerned primarily with instrumentality: the task of revolutionary change. If you focus purely on the aftermath, as Stuart appears to do, there is, I am sure you would agree (if only a bit) that there is a danger of becoming utopian. It is also important to recognise that Marx's critique of capitalism within Kapital, was not simply an analysis aimed at providing a justification for an aftermath. It was a serious, detailed, and (yes) often tedious dissection of the inherent weaknesses, waste, instability, and eventual vulnerability of classic capitalism and the way it might evolve. You cant simply leap-frog over the things that need to be changed and land up in the brave new world. That isnt how change happens. And if one tries to do it that way, you will simply be highjacked by those intent on ensuring that change either doesnt happen, or that it happens only superficially leaving the basic structure intact (the latter being the liberal agenda).
on 25 February 2009, 1:06:45 PM
That said, they and I disagree about many other aspects of their agenda, which is dedicated to maintaining huge wealth differentials.
The American political scene is a complex thing when you scratch the surface. The Libertarians, for example, are a wacky group in many respects, but they strongly opposed Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo, and detentions without trial as well as many other constitutional crimes committed by Bush et al. And people like Pat Buchanan, who has repulsive racist views, was probably one of the strongest and most persistent critics of the Iraq invasion, and supporter of impeaching Bush. It was the Liberals in the US who became, and still are, the appeasers of imperialist aggression. Pelosi and Obama will do their level best to protect the former Bush regime criminals, while relatively moderate Democrats, like Henry Waxman, are ardent supporters of full criminal investigations.
If you recall, Obama in his speech stated: "And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture." Now many people will simply applaud that, not noticing that Obama is using the tense with a clear intention to be ambiguous. He doesnt say: "America will no longer torture (now that I am President)". He denies the very premise that America could ever be involved in torture. In my view, the reason he has done this is because he has decided that he will not investigate and prosecute thise who tortured. This is known psychologically as "reducing cognitive dissonance", denying the premise of torture so he is justified in not acting on it. In other words, its a trick.
I am sure that those who believe that Obama is the second coming, will howl in protest, and we will get lots of "give him a chance, for Christ's Sake; he has only been in office for a month." Fair enough. Let's see who turns out right. I hereby undertake to buy a dinner for any three dedicated "Give-him-a- chance- Obamaites" at a restaurant in London of their choice, if any of the torturers of the Bush administration appear in a US or foreign court indicted for torture. I wonder whether any of you would be willing to make the same commitment, to seal the deal.
on 25 February 2009, 1:06:02 PM
Lee
'I expect to be thoroughly spanked by Dugsie for this, but that's OK because he is older than me.'
This is not the first time you have mentioned being spanked. Are you a friend of Max Mosley ?
Like many of his generation of theorists, Marx believed in the possibility of a social science which would have all the claimed objectivity of natural science. However, he didn't think that he ought to be a detached investigator, but rather a political activist against the exploitation and inequalities of capitalism. 'Philosophers have only interpreted society the point, however,is to change it.' In order to change it you first need to understand it and that is what he tried to do. Classless society is an equal society. It's an objective approached through material struggle, rather than merely idealist aspiration.
on 25 February 2009, 12:44:36 PM
You might like to know your reaction was shared by some right-wing Americans I communicate with (in the interests of learning about opposing views).
on 25 February 2009, 11:35:39 AM
As soon as a carer reaching State Pension Age , Carers Allowance is removed because of the Overlapping Benefit rule ... since when is Carers Allowance a benefit ? It was originally introduced as a Replacement Wage. For some carers , that means Carers Allowance of £ 50+ per week is a wage for a minimum of 35 hours per week ( less than £ 1.44 per hour ) and some carers , like myself , who care \ cared for 24 \ 7 , were paid what anyone would call Slave Wages.
Don't loose sight of the present rules governing payment of Carers Allowance .... for example , whilst caring 24 \ 7 , it would be withdrawn if a carer elected to study for more than 21 hours per week ( home based or otherwise ) in order to gain whatever qualifications are now needed to secure employment in the future ( once his \ her caring days ended .... usually on the death of the caree ).
To add insult to injury , when a carer ceases to be a carer , and seeks to " Sign on " at the ( non ) Job Centre , JSA is NOT automatically paid as Carers Allowance is NOT recognised as paying for one's NI Contributions in order to qualify for JSA in the first place. A week after my mother died , I lost £ 50+ per week as Carers Allowance was withdrawn , and , as I had a private pension of £ 95 per week , that was deemed sufficient to live on when I signed on .... no JSA for me.
Even a doubling of Carers' incomes would still leave many facing relative poverty , both now , and in the future.
on 25 February 2009, 11:20:46 AM
on 25 February 2009, 11:16:46 AM
Marx actually had a name for this brand of socialism: he called it "infantile socialism" because it was utopian, too simplistic, and missed the major goals, which was the maximisation of lives not the equality of lives. The major goal of Marxist socialism and I believe most variations that emerged directly from his and Engels work, was to displace those who appropriate the wealth created by the worker, with social organisation and capital investment. The use and operation of capital in production and services is pretty much the same under both systems. But socialism rids us of the parasitic hegemony of the capitalist, who enjoys massive privileges for doing little more than making the capital available. That is the fundamental issue, we should keep reminding ourselves, and that is what the Gordon Browns and Obamas of this world will fight to preserve until (as the Boers used to say) the blood reaches the horses' ears.
Our system today is riddled with more parasites than Marx could possibly have envisaged, although he did predict some. A parasite is someone who draws immense wealth from the system despite the fact that he or she creates nothing, no social wealth. The parasite is able to operate because the system has created institutions and mechanisms through which the parasite can operate and protects the rights of the parasite. The parasite qualifies by having either possession of or access to great wealth which becomes the instrument, through the system, of sucking more wealth out for his private enjoyment and deployment.
That to me is of far greater significance than ideas about equality. Unless refirm is aimed at the heart of the problem, the dreams of equality, whatever they may be worth, are simply dreams. That is why I find much of what Stuart advocates as being cosmetic or symbolic. We seldom hear, on the Compass site, reforms that are fundamental, such as the type I have described. Its about the power of capital, and that for most people is too scary a topic to confront directly.
I expect to be thoroughly spanked by Dugsie for this, but that's OK because he is older than me.
on 25 February 2009, 10:27:28 AM
I know that Carer's Allowance is derisory because my mother got a letter to say she qualified for the allowance and the amount she was due to be paid was £0.00 because her state pension was higher than the amount she would otherwise be due to be paid. Wonderful civil service gobbledegook. When I notified the DWP of my father's death, WITHIN THREE DAYS they sent my mother a letter including the following:
"We have looked again at the facts and evidence we used to make our decision. As a result we have changed the decision.
You are not entitled from xx/xx/xxxx. This is because the person you were claiming Carer's Allowance for died on xx/xx/xxxx."
So they sent a THREE PAGE letter to say that the Carer's Allowance of zero would cease to be paid ... real Alice in Wonderland !!!
But to return to the issue of minimum income, surely it is impossible that a carer is receiving ONLY a Carer's Allowance ? He/she would also receive a state pension or a benefit of some sort ? I mean, it would be impossible for a person to physically survive on £5,000 a year, would it not ? I would be very interested to see figures on gross/net income at the lower end of the population.
And Paul, I'd suggest that raising incomes for the bottom 20% IS THE SAME as reducing income differentials. There is no purpose in artificailly reducing top level incomes alone, if that just leaves people at the bottom starving. So I would want to do both together - classic redistribution.
on 25 February 2009, 10:04:22 AM
'Dugsie, you say we should not confuse equality with sameness. But we do, and I'm not convinced it's a confusion. A while back, I was taken to task here for "settling" for equality of opportunity. If equality differs from sameness, and is not equality of opportunity, then what exactly is it ?'
Equality of opportunity applies the same concept and assumes that it has some practical application. But it may just mean an opportunity to be unequal. Equality of outcome is also a concern in a social democratic project.
When we got on to discussing equality previously, someone said that people were unequal in many ways and any attempt to make them the same was doomed. If we decided, because of people's innate inequalities,that we ought to develop a meritocratic society, we would need to make list of their attributes, qualities, abilities, skills, etc.and then weight them against each in some calculus which would determine the reward we would all receive from society. Of course, these abilities are not actually all of the same kind, how would you weight Lee's intellectual fire against my goodness of heart, for example.
No, equality is a fundamental social value which informs our social and political activity.It is the expression of the political Left that all people should be equal, regardless of their large range of differences. Hence the continuing opposition to all forms of exploitation. What is the derivation of human rights ? There are no rights in the state of nature, so they are not natural. They are essentially social, derived from our tacit acceptance of a social contract.
on 25 February 2009, 8:49:17 AM
On one point - £10,000 is by no means the minimum income in this country. Pensioners, carers and claimants of all kinds including the sick are on about £3000+. Nobody undersatnds this. When people go on about scroungers they have no idea what a pittance they are being worked on to resent. Ask people in the pub - they all guess £10,000.
People aren't born wanting white weddings. They are born with biology that points them at basic family and social fulfilment. Society processes these needs in to needing a rolex watch whatever that is. Puritanism has also been promoted at times successfully, the green movement being the latest version.
Don't underestimate the strength of the capitalism advertising. They have the best social researchers. If you want proof that social science is a science watch them.
on 25 February 2009, 8:39:55 AM
Millions of carers and the elderly would bite your arm off !
Talking of text book socialism , reducing income differentials is one thing .... raising income levels for those unable to work ( Carers work .... as carers ! ) via a Social Wage ( thus removing all carers and the elderly from the horrors and indignity of the ( non ) benefits system ) is another.
Anyone brave enough to rescue 15 \ 20% of this Sad New World's population from relative poverty through no fault of their own , namely caring and \ or old age ?
on 25 February 2009, 12:11:55 AM
Just to throw some actual numbers in, let's hypothesise that median income in the UK is £30K a year, minimum £10K and maximum somewhere north of £10M. That is a scheme of things which any socialist would say requires a significant reduction in income differentials (and it's noteworthy that probably 80% of the population shares that view).
Now suppose that the median/minimum/maximum figures were £35K/£20K/£200K. I suspect that 80% support for differential reduction would change to 20% and a large proportion of socialists too.
That suggests to me that there is a tolerance for inequality of income at a certain level, but not above it. If I'm right then socialism isn't about equality so much as relativity.
I suspect the reason is exactly what Frances alludes to. Some people eschew income as an objective in life and in work because their ambitions lie in "higher" things such as job satisfaction, self-fulfilment, service to others, achievement of personal objectives. Others, less fortunate perhaps in that they do not perceive these "higher" aims in life, or maybe just lack the education and skills to achieve personal aims, have to turn to income as their only measure of success.
Socialism must surely be able to honour the aspirations of both groups, and to allow each member of society to contribute as (s)he can and wishes. Each group needs the other equally, and so society needs both.
on 24 February 2009, 11:49:46 PM
"Error: I have been told that Oscar Pistorius's blades were designed and made in Iceland "
In which case your whole argument falls, I assume ?
*****************************************************
Alas, not a shred of credibility left
on 24 February 2009, 11:48:16 PM
Why not celebrate differences for their own sake. Why does contribution have to be reflected in wealth and bonuses. What happened to intrinsic worth and satisfaction.
People could have a fairer more evenly spread share of spending power. It might be nearer in quantity but no two people would spend it on the same things.
I don't see the connection between financial equality and sameness.
on 24 February 2009, 10:20:58 PM
In which case your whole argument falls, I assume ?
Dugsie, you say we should not confuse equality with sameness. But we do, and I'm not convinced it's a confusion. A while back, I was taken to task here for "settling" for equality of opportunity. If equality differs from sameness, and is not equality of opportunity, then what exactly is it ?
What turns many "ordinary" people away from the socialism which (I believe) is their natural philosophical constituency is the belief that socialism has equality (actual, real, sameness equality) as its primary objective. So having an absolutely accurate definition of the word seems to me crucial.
I'd like to add my voice to Frances' welcome of Stuart to the debate. It is indeed a breath of fresh air to find an author interested in the response to his article and willing to debate, rather than the hit-and-run egotists who write for their own glorification and for the instruction of others.
on 24 February 2009, 8:47:20 PM
on 24 February 2009, 4:25:42 PM
I am pretty sure our goals are very similar. I prefer the aspiration of "maximising human lives" because "equality" can mean so many different things, and as the liberal ethos is the prevailing one, I regard most "equality" as too symbolic and under-achieving. Its also not trustworthy. America claims to be the bastion of equality, the shining city on the hill. And yet, the type of equality proclaimed by the founding fathers was reserved for wealthy white males, and they hated and despised democracy. Culturally, it also troubles me that America proclaims "equality" and yet its culture is one of the race....one winner and the rest are losers. Its American Dream is a fraud...it simply rewards those who are unscrupulous enough to tramp on faces in the struggle to the top, and rewards and celebrates the liars and cheats who are clever enough to escape detection. This is not, profoundly not, the "equality" I want to be associated with.
Stuart's concepts, as I understand them so far, are very vulnerable to just this form of chicanery and casuistry...announcing equality when it is self-evident that what has been achieved may go little further than symbolism.
Oscar Pistorius, a hero from my native land, has made it clear many times that he is not seeking that Rupert Murdoch moment...the one in a million lucky guy whom the wealthy elite has helped to run on blades designed in Norway. For the liberals, special paraplegic games, and the odd Oscar here or there is sufficient to satisfy their concept of equality. Oscar goes further. He is fighting for all disabled athletes who do not wish to be assigned a second-rate place. He also denies strenuously that he is unique; and finds the Rupert Murdoch moments repulsive. He is in the business of maximising lives, not just his own.
Interestingly, it was the liberals who cried "unfair" when Oscar tried to get permission to run in the Olympics.
As America is the dominant culture in the west (regrettably), both you and Stuart have a lot of unpacking to do before you can safely use the word "equality", as I am sure that neither of you would be satisfied by a Rupert Murdoch moment.
on 24 February 2009, 3:02:27 PM
I just wanted to say that if you don't support equality in principle, then you wouldn't be looking to develop policies designed to improve it. Perhaps the opposite. The movements for the extension of the franchise were seen as democratic movements and based on the principle of human equality. Of course, those who claim to support an authentic democracy don't necessarily actually do so.This introduces the notion of ideology. The implication, for me, is that you judge not on the basis of what politicians say but of what they actually do.
I'm a socialist, opposed to democratic centralism, who regards social democracy as both a way of being involved in here and now politics and as an arena of dispute between the Left and Right of the Labour Movement. I regard equality as a fundamental socialist value, but it should not be confused with sameness.
If we are not able to get a majority of the electorate to support our policies, then we should look for the reasons why. The possibilities may be an imbalance in power and resources, ideological control, or our inability to explain what we stand for. I would also put opportunism and careerism high on the list.
on 24 February 2009, 2:30:11 PM
What would you do in a republican democracy if you set up all the democratic procedures and all the citizens became active and participated and then they started demanding an exagerated meritocracy where certain groups had the opportunity to become very rich.
Would you say that the principles of equality and liberty were a given like the Constitution in the US and had to be upheld (by law?) in the face of democratic demand?
on 24 February 2009, 1:09:36 PM
Thanks for those explanations. My post, below, may give you some idea why I am not too impressed by liberal symbolism. The equalities in simple things, which turn out not to be that equal, are of course worth fighting for, but they are the beginning of the real work, not the conclusion
on 24 February 2009, 1:04:24 PM
My mind (odd though it is) works this way. There is the matter of equality in simple things and equality in complex things.
By simple, I dont mean that the concept or right is uncomplex, but merely that it is conceptually simple to achieve. The most obvious is universal sufferage. Others are the basic rights: to health care, housing, education, support for the aged and disabled, etc
But my now deceased ultra-Marxist father used to argue strongly that even in the case of this equality in simple things, there was a difference between the "fact of equality", and the "quality of equality". Suppose I have my vote in a constituency which is closely divided, and suppose you have your vote in a constituency that has been Tory for generations and where there is no prospect of a Tory loss. My vote could make a difference; yours couldnt. They are not equal in this profound sense.
Why that mattered to him, and to some extent to me, is that he was an adamant opponent of liberalism, and insisted that liberals indulged in simplistic fantasy about equalities. That meant that their reforms were bound to be superficial and under-achieving, based largely on symbolism. In other words, once everyone had the vote, the liberals would declare that all are now equal.
We know that free universal access to the national health system is another one of those deceptive equalities, given how starkly the services differ from one part of the country to another. Your simple equalities never achieve equality of quality.
That doesnt mean that they are not important to achieve. My father would describe liberals as valuable fellow travellers up to the point of this simple factual achievement, after which they could offer nothing because they would be satisfied that all that could be achieved had been achieved.
Then there is the question of equality in complex things. We may all insist that we are eligible to run the race, but some are more able than others. There is no way of achieving equality in winning. If there is no possibility of your winning, what exactly is the value of the equality of opportunity ? A chance to perpetually humiliate yourself by losing every race ?
Again, that doesnt mean that one should not fight for equality of opportunity, because that is a fight against privilege and discrimination. But only liberals, my father would say, would believe that its achievement means equality.
This is why, in his Gotha Critique, Marx made use of Louis Blanc's doctrine: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This was a way of stating that socialism has to go much further and deeper than the superficial and largely unachievable liberal concepts of equality.
I anticipate a somewhat lively debate.
on 24 February 2009, 12:39:19 PM
(1) Why 'republican' democracy? One reason is the emphasis on participation. The other is that we are seeking to revive the idea that what makes a government legitimate is not only decision-making procedures (that they be inclusive etc.) but the kind of ends which government pursues. Classical republican authors distinguished between regimes on the basis of the structure of decision-making and on the basis of whether the government pursues the 'common good' or a sectarian or sectional good. Republican democracy = procedural democracy + orientation to the common good.
If we then ask what the 'common good' is, that's where we bring in the ideas of liberty and equality. Our common good is centrally our shared interest in liberty. Thinking in terms of a common good also requires, we think, accepting some notion of citizen equality, or else we are sliding back towards favouring some over others in a way that undermines pursuit of a 'common' good.
(2) In terms of what 'equality' means, my own view is that it ought to mean something quite close to equality of income and wealth and not (mere) equality of opportunity. However, I see this as just one view within the 'republican democracy' camp: others might well see 'equality' in terms of equal opportunity, qualified by a concern to prevent income/wealth inequalities that undermine liberty and popular sovereignty.
(3) Is a high level of citizen participation feasible? One of the contributors to the book, David Marquand, emphasises how demanding republican democracy is in this respect. It certainly runs against the grain of contemporary politics to some extent. The book starts a discussion about we might promote greater participation, e.g., by introducing new forms of participatory democratic institutions alongside those of representative democracy, by regulating working hours to release time and energy for civic pursuits, and so on. It also discusses initiatives like London Citizens which I think are very promising in this respect.
on 24 February 2009, 11:33:11 AM
You have to accept the principle of equality to seek democracy. Why else would democracy be desirable ? It certainly poses lots of problems. We have to convince our fellow citizens before we can implement our favoured policies. It's better than dictatorship though.
We live in a tenth rate liberal democracy. The reasons why it is tenth rate are easy to adumbrate. Even if it was first rate, it would still only be a very limited form of democracy. Liberal democracy is contained and constrained within capitalism, but it's still better than dictatorship. Socialist democracy seeks to go where liberal democracy fears to tread. I became a socialist about sixty years ago, but socialism has never seemed more relevant to me than it does now.
on 24 February 2009, 10:45:36 AM
You also said that "one citizen one vote" translates to "everyone being equal" but that can't be right. Sure, it would mean that in terms of their election of their representatives they do have equal OPPORTUNITY but, as we have argued many times, equal opportunity doesn't necessarily create equality, and equality of representation is just one of very many equalities. Of all equal opportunities, I suspect that this one is LEAST likely to produce any semblance of actual equality.
Lee's cynicism over the value of equality, which I share, is (I think) based on the way that the word "equality" has become an obsession of modern liberalism to the extent that its true meaning has been lost. It's a useless word unless it is carefully defined, and the PC liberals steadfastly refuse to do this because they want no boundaries set on their Orwellian pursuit of their control over every facet of people's lives.
I don't accept that "equality" is an inherent objective of "socialism". If 'twere so, then socialism is indeed a doomed philosophy. Socialism, I think, uses equality as a marker of the general direction it should take, not as an objective to be attained.
Returning to Stuart White's article, he talks specifically about ECONOMIC equality, which I think is valid (although again only as a marker of general direction). He argues that other equalities will derive from this, and actually I find that a valuable method of judging which equalities might be achieved, and how.
on 24 February 2009, 8:57:11 AM
It would look like the society we have now.
I can see that Dugsie is defining equality of status and rights firstly as human rights and not being slaves or owned by the landlord. And I can accept that as and necessary first step in equality which we seem to have progressed to implementing.
But the inequality is just transmitted through money and wealth. Wealth then transmits inequality of health and education and opportunity down the generations. And that is what socialism was meant to address. And you won't necessarily get a democratic mandate for proactively taking charge of this and challenging it which is why I say equality (in this second sense) and democracy are not necessarily compatible.
........................
A question
Compass now has mass membership support for opposing the privatisation of the Post Office. How is this will being turned in to political action to defeat the bill.
Compass previously asked for opinion about the Welfare Reforms and got mass support from the membership for opposing the Welfare Reform Bill. But the second reading of that bill is this week and how is mass will of the Compass membership being turned in to political action to stop Purnell?
on 24 February 2009, 8:35:18 AM
'Strangely, I have never been turned on by concepts of "equality" because we are so diverse and have such different abilities and needs, that it seems to me an unachievable and even undefinable goal.'
If a person didn't support equality why would thay support democracy, which is based on the principle of one citizen one vote i.e. everyone being equal. It is not about abilities or aptitudes, but a fundamental social value which defines the political left.
What would a society based on people's alleged inequalities of worth look like ? Feudalism or capitalism perhaps ?
on 24 February 2009, 1:38:40 AM
on 23 February 2009, 10:51:26 PM
But it reads well, I find little in principle to disagree with and much of positive value.
It's easy to say it's impractical, and it's unreasonable at this stage to ask how it could be electorally implemented. Surely the first thing to do is to decide whether it properly represents what we want, and then how it could be made practicable.
It's on that last word that I stumble. Our system has evolved through the apathy of the people it was designed to benefit. Under it all, IF ONLY we had a population of active, thinking, concerned citizens then the New Labour abandonment of proper governance, and the banking crisis, and the recession, and Guantanamo, and Iraq, and so many other events just would not have occurred. I cannot see how Republican Democracy will fare any better.
Sure, Stuart says that the machinery will expose the citizenry to political activity, and thereby will become more involved in the process. He sees a newly active, liberated electorate. But I don't think so, indeed his model is so DEPENDENT on that premise that it is likely to founder on its non-achievement.
All my experience convinces me that Vilfredo Pareto discovered something more important than small people like Newton and Einstein. Pareto would have said that 20% of the population will effectively control the other 80%; Republican Democracy, it seems to me, flies in the face of such a ratio.
I think we stand a better chance of reinforcing Social Democracy and settling for the Pareto Ratio than believing that we can truly extend civic participation to the degree that Stuart suggests.
on 23 February 2009, 7:39:08 PM
Frances: Strangely, I have never been turned on by concepts of "equality" because we are so diverse and have such different abilities and needs, that it seems to me an unachievable and even undefinable goal. Even equality of opportunity is questionable in a world where opportunity is circumstantially rationed. Fighting structural and policy-related inequality seems more practical and achievable, and would probably accomplish more. It would, for example, challenge the concept so warmly held by many progressive educationalists, that education is the vehicle of social change. It can certainly be the vehicle for social advancement in individual circumstances, buy I doubt very much whether educational outcomes can be improved without significant social change as a precursor. It doesnt at all surprise me that the two countries at the bottom of the OECD upward mobility league table, are Britain and the USA. In both countries, an educational policy built on the myth that education can, in itself, spark a social revolution, have seen paralysis and back-sliding in social reform. Its useless to point at the lucky individuals, all exceptions, who have broken through. In almost all of those cases, in any event, radical social changes have occurred around them while they were being educated. Britain and the US have far more graduate waiters and pizza-throwers than anywhere else in the OECD.
on 23 February 2009, 6:08:02 PM
Could you explain what you mean by equality.
NewLabour use it to mean equality of opportunity. This means they try and set a level palying field and after that the devil take the hindmost. NewLabour subscribe to the idea of competition and people getting rich by working very hard. I prefer sharing and caring values so I don't care about competition and massive rewards for work - and under thsi scenario I don't see how you stop the wealthy buying advantage for their chidren and tilting the level playing field.
So I would go for equality of outcome which means reducing differentials in income and wealth proactively.
But neither of these forms of eqaulity will necessarily be supported by the voters. So how can you have a particular form of equality along side democracy.
Democracy is a system of delivering government and popular will and equality is something the electorate can then choose to demand or refuse.
on 23 February 2009, 5:45:53 PM
on 23 February 2009, 3:01:14 PM
The problem with this species of "enlightenment scenarios" is that it ignores what really matters: the current power structure, how power is maintained and shifts, and how these structures within Britain are a consequence of and maintained by the world power structures at large. In other words, as is so common on this Compass site, it is another exercise in "little britainism". It isnt even clear how these messages would be carried into and fought for in the electoral arena.
True, this is just an article, and to be fair one should read the book. But even although there are pleasant ideas here, it doesnt fire me up, which one would assume would be the purpose of such a leader article.
When is Compass going to acknowledge that change will occur ONLY when Britain's place in the world is fully described, analysed, understood, and policy reform based on how that role can be altered ? I would say, probably never. Compass doesnt do the world...it prefers the national parish pump approach.
As a result, while I applaud Mr White's efforts at enlightenment, this stuff remains superficial and unactionable. The issues are simply bigger, more fundamental, and broader than he seems able to acknowledge.
Leave a comment