Here come the liberals

Will Hutton

Published 13 November 2008

For decades American conservatism defined global politics. Now we are about to witness a seismic change in Washington. Will Hutton leads our special report on the profound impact the new thinking will have on Britain and the world

Here come the liberals

British politicians, commentators and the public like to believe in their sturdy autonomy. We have arrived at our decisions as freeborn men and women. We debate our ideas furiously in pubs, on radio phone-ins or via letters to the editor. We read the opinion pages. We elect a sovereign parliament that passes the laws and regulations that we mandate.

The truth is more subtle. We dance to another country's tune. It is the United States that makes the political, cultural and intellectual weather. It is the rich American institutes that develop the ideas for XYZ plan or ABC radical reform. Our academics, especially in the social sciences, want to get published in the American journals and ensure they please the editor in question. Our politicians watch closely to see what works in the US. We enjoy their movies and use their technology. The West Wing and Mad Men are part of our culture, as are Sex and the City and Friends. We think we are free; we are painfully and excessively influenced by the US.

Which is why the election of Barack Obama matters so much. In the tidal wave of tears of joy, analysis of county by county results, the "were you awake to hear the speech" conversations, naming the puppy and the critiques of Michelle's wardrobe - and yet another article on the big things in his in-tray - one thing has been underplayed. Obama's success will transform British politics. The centre ground will move significantly to the left.

No account of the rise of Thatcherism or the character of new Labour is possible without acknowledging the force and impact of the 30-year ascendancy of American neoconservatism. They won control of Washington in the late 1970s, creating the Washington consensus. No country - from communist China to the Nordic social democracies - held out. Everybody, to a degree, bought into the market fundamentalist consensus. Tony Blair could have held out more than he did - but the room for manoeuvre was tiny.

It went very deep. Editors of the top US social science journals published articles in this idiom because they had secured their jobs by conforming to it; ambitious British academics soon learned what was accepted and what was not. Young British investment bankers training in New York learned about the value of securitisation. Treasury officials on secondment to Washington bought into the consensus that privatisation and deregulation were the only ways forward. From social policy (remember zero tolerance and broken windows) to " light touch" financial regulation, and from a belief in labour market flexibility to distrust of public service broadcasting, the cultural and intellectual backdrop was conservative.

Obama's election ends that. American conservatism is now in profound disarray. It is not just that Republicanism has been forced back to the south and the mountain states: the intellectual paradigm that it championed led to nowhere but a credit crunch, a bloated and overpaid financial elite and the onset of a deep recession. No accident that Obama's lead jumped in the wake of the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy and the part nationalisation of the banking system. Conservatism was on the ropes. A change had to come. Yes it did.

Here is a checklist of areas where the discourse is going to move left - intelligently and moderately because that is part of the Obama DNA. Firstly, trade unionism. Barack Obama shares the view of liberal Democrats that the best way to roll back the stagnating real incomes of the squeezed middle of the United States is to strengthen the bargaining power of organised labour. An empowered upper working class across all ethnic groups is the backbone of both the Democrat party and the economy.

This president is the most pro-union since Roosevelt. He wants to help unions organise and get recognition through a simple membership card check system, which workers can use freely and anonymously to signal their readiness to join - fiercely opposed by American business. This June, Obama even wrote to Tesco boss, Sir Terry Leahy, urging him to work with unions in the US (as he already does in the UK). The anti-unionism that led US officials to veto OECD reports that questioned labour market flexibility will be over. Now the US will encourage the OECD to publish evidence.

The BBC and Channel 4 should also be relieved at the victory. Obama is a strong supporter of public service broadcasting and caps on media ownership; he wants to see every American television and radio network commit to neutrality. In the US, one of the live issues is whether the Fairness Doctrine, requiring equal time between different points of view on broadcast media, should be reinstated - it was abolished by Ronald Reagan.

The subsequent avalanche of right-wing shock-jocks, the dumbing down of the American media and the partisanship of Fox News are even more an issue for the left in the US than the power of the right-wing print media is in Britain. For Democrats in the House, and Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is of iconic importance. Obama may stop short of imposing a legal obligation on broadcasters - but he will go a long way towards it.

So it goes, too, with tax. This is the president who will redistribute income from the top 5 per cent earners above $200,000 to the other 95 per cent. There may not be much cash involved, but as Professor Avner Offer says in The Challenge of Affluence,, the point about higher tax rates is not so much the cash they raise but the signal they send about the dominant values of society. Obama has clear views on that. As he has on tax havens.

His reforms of Wall Street will be far-reaching; he will constrain bank bonuses, introduce tough new regulations and, as Roosevelt did, set up a wave of new banking institutions. He is already committed to a National Infrastructure Bank. When this is set up, financing roads, railways, bridges and dams across the US, the argument that Britain should have one too will become irresistible. Obama will try to deliver universal health provision. He will try to extend college access. He will want to build affordable homes. He will try radically to lower the US's carbon footprint, lower petrol consumption and improve energy efficiency. He will aim to reindustrialise the US.

As for foreign policy, he will be more multilateralist and there will be no Iraqs on his watch. But he is closer to Tony Blair and David Miliband (I think, rightly) as a liberal internationalist than many on the British left might like. Enlightenment values, democracy and human rights are worth asserting as universal rather than western principles. And, at the limit, worth fighting for. Trade is a big question mark. His party remains very protectionist.

For all that, the message is unmistakeable. Barack Obama will change the trajectory of the US.

I have found it odd to have been pro-BBC, pro-multilateralist Europe, pro-moderate trade unions, a City of London sceptic, pro-public service, pro-fairness and pro-redistribution for more years than I can remember. Now the leader of the world's hegemonic power, in control of its political, intellectual and cultural levers, is making this cluster of views the mainstream. The Labour Party and the wider liberal left are being given permission to be moderately and intelligently social democratic again. It may be a hackneyed phrase - but this really is a seminal moment.

Will Hutton is executive vice-chair of The Work Foundation

Obama's inner circle

Rahm Emanuel: chief of staff An Illinois congressman and the fourth-highest-ranking House Democrat. A centrist renowned for his aggressive manner, he is a former ballet dancer and was a volunteer mechanic in Israel's army during the first Gulf War in 1991. After working for the Clinton White House, he made $18m in two years at an investment bank. He is feared for his tactical prowess on Capitol Hill by Republicans and by Democrats who are not on his list of favourites.

Robert Gibbs: press secretary Gibbs has been with Obama since his 2004 Senate campaign, an affable Southerner with a temper. He was despatched on the trail in 2007 after concerns that Obama's message wasn't getting across; no adviser has spent more time at Obama's side. He made waves in a recent on-camera confrontation with Fox News's arch-conservative commentator Sean Hannity. Obama calls him "the guy I want in the foxhole with me during incoming fire".

Robert Gates The secretary of state for defence may hold on to his position in the short term to provide continuity in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked as a CIA chief and president of Texas A&M. He shares Obama's vision for emphasising "smart power" over raw military force, and keeping him on could lend a bipartisan aura.

Lawrence Summers Tipped for the position of treasury secretary, a post he held under Clinton, Summers is also a former World Bank chief economist and Harvard president. Intellectually, he is hugely respected, but his occasional tactlessness - notably his comments about women's aptitude for science - has earned him detractors.

Tom Daschle Tipped for a cabinet-level post, possibly secretary of state or health policy tsar, Daschle led the Senate for a decade before being voted out in 2004. His early support for Obama lent the candidate credibility, and his legislative know-how will be of use in driving the agenda.

David Axelrod A likely senior White House adviser, Obama's chief campaign strategist began his career as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. He will be keeping his eye on Obama's 2012 re-election prospects, though probably with less of a hand in policy than Karl Rove had.

Valerie Jarrett A contender for a cabinet post, Jarrett is more likely to become a White House adviser. Co-chair of Obama's transition team, she is a businesswoman and a close friend of Barack and Michelle Obama.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

45 comments from readers

Carl Jones
13 November 2008 at 11:59

Emanuel is a Mossad agent, Tom Daschle was leader of the House and he assisted Bush with his 9/11 coverup by stopping investigations, ussig "this will take resourses away from the (sham) fight against the war on terror!LOl

Gates is just evil, with Joe Biden and Emanuel in the Whitehouse, we (the world) haven`t a hope. I find it amazing that on one hand we have Pilger and on the other we have Will Hutton giving opposing views.

In the past I have respected Mr Hutton and have always considered his opinions. But this article has changed my opinion for good.

When the heat is on, thats when people show there real colors (?)

Carl Jones
13 November 2008 at 12:15

Continued from above.

Putting on my conspiracy hat, I`d say Hutton had been asked by the dark forces to pen this piece of propaganda....I`ve never watched "West Wing", because I don`t believe the power is in the Whitehouse, oh sure, you need puppets in there, so things flow correctly.

Will points out the US will be moving left and he thinks this is good, maybe so, but he fails to mention the Big Brother web of control that pevades US/UK society,

I`ll fiollow Pilger...in my opinion, the US is sliding into a full blown Fascist State, a police state, a state of torture, a state clearly on the brink of war and on the brink of going bust. If Obama doesn`t jump, doesn`t jump the right height and fails to jump in the right direction when ordered to. Mr Biden will find himself behind the Oval office desk.....don`t YOU find it strange, just how quiet the MSM is on Joe Biden?lol

Mr Hutton, a very diappointing effort. I do hope that someone can counter the points I make.

Forlornehope
13 November 2008 at 13:06

Anyway, for those with long enough memories, it was the liberals who started the Vietnam war and the right who ended it.

William
13 November 2008 at 14:02

Nice, just hope that it is reality and not just a journalistic pipe dream. Regarding empowerment of American Trade Unions, since they were taken over by organised crime in the 60's, it would be worrying for them to expand further into our economies. Damn! just woken up, thats where Sub-prime fiasco started. Carl, your comments are a bonus as always.

JoeG55
13 November 2008 at 14:16

This is either the scariest or stupidist posting I have ever choked down to the bitter end! Card check is good, are you kidding me? The UAW has already destroyed the American auto industry with their average member pay of approximately $80.00 an hour compared to Japanese automakers (in the US) $33.00 an hour. The average price of a US built car is over $1000.00 more expensive just to cover labor costs. We can bail out the auto industry all we want but they still won't be able to sell a car with their inflated prices and lower quality, hence no profit and no incentive to improve.....and the Fairness Doctrine is something right out of Fascism, a first step in quashing all disenting views...Britons would do well to sit tight, wait and see and then decide if you want to go down the same dark road we are headed...remember, patience is a virtue, or is that just too old fashioned?

writeon
13 November 2008 at 14:49

Will,

I like and agree with much of what you've written, but this is really so full of wishful thinking, though it's sympathetic that your still idealistic and optimistic, I just hope you won't be too hurt and dispondant when your dreams fade away, one after another in the cold light of day.

I think that historically; the sytle, personality and abilities of the individual presidents hasn't has as much effect on the United States as people like to think. America is such an enormous place, so rich, so powerful, so diverse, so 'ungovernable' in many respects, that we collosally overestimate the real power of the president to 'rule' and really change the super-tanker that's the ship of state.

I believe presidents tend to almost surf on great, almost hidden waves that move through society and have complex structures relating to cause and effect.

Obama will inherit a country that's almost bankrupt and is mired in perhaps the worst economic situation in the nation's history, worse even than the Great Depression, if things go wrong, and they seem to be going wrong - and very fast!

One can have all the hope and faith and desire for change in the world, but that doesn't really help when the country is bankrupt. This idea that 'the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself' sounds good, only it may not have been true, then or now. One cannot just 'wish' oneself out of bankruptcy as an individual or a country!

In the 1930's the fundamentals of the US economy were fare better than today. The US wasn't caught in a debt-trap like a deer in a tar pit. It wasn't a vast and bloated consmer society. The rural economy was far stronger. It had vast ammounts of cheap and plentiful energy. It wasn't involved in collosally expensive imperial adventures. Today things are much more problematic and dangerous.


13 November 2008 at 15:20

"I believe in the deams & changes that will take place under the leadership of Obama. If the USA can have the first black president then i believe that the UK can have the first Chinese Pime Minister"

elreventon
13 November 2008 at 15:50

There's another thing that is as important as the substantive changes you see coming in the politico-economic-social structure of English speaking countries: Britain's autonomy [or lack thereof].

In the Bush-Blair years, Blair was so anxious to be "on America's side" that he completely surrendered Britain's independence. The media and political culture of Britain followed suit.

That surrender was profoundly damaging to the US. Why? Because in the context of American antipathy to looking to any "foreign" country for possible alternative policies and approaches, it is only Britain (and to a lesser extent Canada) that are seen as legitimate models for the US.

Under the "Britain as satellite" model your country did not provide us with viable alternative solutions to our problems.

Bush simply was too dominant, and Blair too willing to be dominated.

With Obama, the focus of politics in the US will be changed as your article described. Just as important for us in America will be the relationship between America and Britain: Obama simply does not want to dominate your country as Bush did. And, bless his Scottish heart, Gordon Brown is now free to come out of the closet as an opponent of the Blair "Guatemala-ization" of Britain.

No one in Britain can overestimate how important it is for America for Britain to formulate its own national policies out of the shadow of a dominant Washington.

From health care [positive British model] to labor policy [negative model, at least before Thatcher], to a host of other issues, Britain's experience has informed America's debate on issues.

So as a passionate American, I say to Gordon Brown, "Get on with it in newly-freed Britain, so we in tradition-bound America can look on to see what things you do that we can copy to our benefit."

subprimate
13 November 2008 at 16:12

Carl, I am sure Will Hutton writes these things because he believes them to be true - your conspiracy hat is a dumb one as it misunderstands the nature of power. There is no invisible elite group controlling everything, it's just capital and power politics.

Hutton's article describes how nearly everyone (Pilger excepted) has been compromised on their way up by associations, support, mistakes and compromises that mean they can't really speak the unadorned truth anymore. 'Success' in this world - or influence such as this writer enjoys - come with moral or political compromises. Only the very brave will fight on regardless of being ostracised by the establishment (be it political, academic or business). Hutton has tried to have it both ways for years, arguing for liberalism and stakeholder democracy but I have found him to dodge the issue when the right are on the march. He said some very dodgy things about council housing recently, for example. Council housing has many problems, but after subprime and the crash does anyone on the 'centre left' think the private housing market is an ideal solution to housing?

As for our bright new dawn, I think the global capitalist crisis, and how people react to it, will provide the best possibility of genuine social change. And as for peace in the Middle East, to paraphrase the words Obama once used and then repudiated to win the Jewish vote and get the support of the Democrat pro-Israel pols, the Palestinians will probably go on suffering for a while yet, until something happens that makes the israelis see sense and decide to give up a little land for peace and freedom for Palestine.

Joe Gill

Ramesh
13 November 2008 at 19:20

"Enlightenment values, democracy and human rights "

These are broad brushes and are pretty much useless for the practical discourse of International diplomacy. Because, dynamics of various situations in the world require quicker response from the west. Hence it is important to prioritize the values to defend and respond. For example, in a given civil war situation, should we support the concept of Self-Determination for the subjugated and thereby turn the heat mainly on the suppressor or in the name of human rights go blindly after all actors and restore status quo (which typically benefits the suppressor)! It is also important to remember that, currently, many of the subjugations in the world are being carried out with direct or indirect support from EU and USA through (western weapons, money, diplomatic support)!

Cybertiger
13 November 2008 at 19:54

@Joe Gill, the subprimate

"...until something happens that makes the israelis see sense and decide to give up a little land for peace and freedom for Palestine."

What do you think will have to happen to make Israel see sense at last?

Carl Jones
13 November 2008 at 19:56

SUBprimate

You clearly need to do some homework on the CFR, Chatham House, Bilderberg, BIS and so on. Ignorance is far too mild.

mariobruno
13 November 2008 at 20:20

This article reminds me of my college days; where communist professors would argue about freedom and human rights in the Soviet Union with young Jewish students who came to America from Russia under political asylum during President Jimmy Carter's administration. These professors would fly into Russia once a year, were greeted by diplomat types, and would be whisked off on regional tours to be shown the wonderful living conditions and freedom under Soviet rule.

The professors would of course carry back what they saw, and then argue with these poor sons of dissidents about how wonderful and free were the people living in the Soviet Union. The Russian students would fight back passionately with horror stories of political kidnappings, tortures and beatings, disappearances, assassinations and gulag imprisonment suffered by many of their family and friends.

Their words fell on deaf ears of course, and the professors always flunked these poor Russian students for their disagreement, telling them that they heard too many stories.

Your article shows an ignorance of America which rivals that of my old communist professors. This election was, more than anything else, about a bad economy and a messianic Democratic candidate. No one here is counting upon the big swing to the left that many Democrat politicians have hope for. This was no mandate. By a 6.5% majority, Americans chose the opposition party’s candidate, who happened to be the most charismatic, well spoken man to run for President in last twenty years. If you asked most Americans the difference between Obama’s policies and McCain’s, most of them couldn’t even tell you.

If America was showing its swing to the left, then California would have never voted against the gay marriage amendment which just passed. This goes a long way to prove that America is still a right-center country of swing voters, who voted for Obama, not for what he stands.

Mario Bruno, New York

Nilsey105
13 November 2008 at 21:18

Will Hutton and Alistair Darling are of the same ilk, they fool no one with their pronouncements.

Darlings "short sharp shock" dose of recession is wishful thinking, on his behalf.

Likewise the voice of Will Hutton ringing in his own ears telling himself the President Elect is a left wing radical. Hutton is a man who has lost his vision. Both Hutton and Darling need to open their eyes and look beyond what they are hopeing for. Reality is far different to the illusion of appearance.

And if anyone should think being, "left wing", in America equates in some way to left wing in the UK

or indeed the rest of the EU, then you are sadly mistaken.

Nilsey105
13 November 2008 at 22:09

Oh and btw your idea of a national bank is out dated

your best mate Lord Meddlesome gave the lifeline back to the Post Office .

subprimate
14 November 2008 at 11:00

Carl, I am sure I am ignorant about these groups, I just don't think they actually 'tell' people what to do directly. If you are in the elite, you have already internalised the 'correct' thinking and you act, or write, accordingly.

uditischler
14 November 2008 at 15:08

Serious question: do you people really think that someone like Will Hutton wastes time reading what the likes of Carl "Emanuel is a Mossad agent" Jones write here?

Carl Jones
14 November 2008 at 16:03

uditischler; thats a matter for Mr Hutton, but YOU read it.lol

Any journalist worth his salt, will read comments. However, I don`t believe they`ll change their spots because of it. It seems that you would like a society that keeps stum, just like pre-war Germany, or Amerika today, where no one dare question the sick agenda.

BTW, thanks for taking the time to read my comment.:)

claubruroe
14 November 2008 at 17:26

Not unusua, I find comments more interesting than the article. Have you read http://www.leap2020.eu on "Summer-2009 The-US-government-defaults-on-its-debt"? and this one on "...US, social unrest and army's growing influence on public affairs (2nd quarter 2007 – 4th quarter 2009)" http://www.leap2020.eu/SEQUENCE-6-Very-Great-Depression-in-t...

What would you say?

Any way, Obama is no idealist in foreign affairs, but a realist and thus he will not be delivering "liberal" solutions. Let's wait and see.

John Marsh
14 November 2008 at 18:21

The credit crunch shows the failure of the policies of economic liberalism. It is liberalism in economic areas that is being rejected. So much for the triumph of liberalism.

And are we really going to see either a Labour or Conservative government giving new powers to the Trade Unions. I think not. Will Hutton is living in a fantasy world. Come back to planet earth Will.

FreedomLand
15 November 2008 at 06:06

"...the profound impact the new thinking will have on Britain and the world..."

Depending on which news service website you accessed today, you would have seen a story on the economic/financial summit meeting in Washington with the first Neocon emperor greeting either the British PM or the Australian PM or the French PM or whoever..... and they all desperately had their hands out to be greeted by the time their feet had touched the second step from the top.

But Obama was propelled to the forthcoming presidency as much by recent circumstances as by his own persona and very limited known capabilities. As such, he will be more of a social change president than the current conventional leader the establishment is used to from either the Democrats or the Republicans. All that means domestically, though, will be that infrastructure issues will be federally addressed instead of leaving the states to grapple with their own.

Internationally, things are far different as Obama will become the first black (brown to be accurate) president of the world's still most powerful country. That sends a profound message that the past 200 or 300 years or so of white-is-right global hegemony is OVER. A new world order of non-white races is being ushered in January 2009 and it will mean a lot more than just getting used to China being back on track after a bad century or two.

Thus this will fast become a multi-polar world in more ways than one. On the ground in Britain or any other Western European country as well as in their former white-dominated colonies, a new racial dynamic is about to appear. It is going to be far more pervasive than just simply accepting that China and India and Russia and Indonesia have influence in the world and in their regions. It is something that the more pretentious whites are going to have to get used to, uhh......

Riaz Ahmad
15 November 2008 at 16:53

EU is the biggest economy in the world, not USA. EU is no way second to the united states in the field of expertise in any field. EU has much richer history and culture than the United states. EU is much more sophisticated in dealing with world problems than the cowboy US politicians. Yet the EU has not woken up from the cold war subservience to the US. UK is far more addicted to this subservience to the extent that she has no forign policy of her own. Times have changed, America is in irreversable scientific, financial, political and most of all moral decline; something the intellectual elites of Europe and USA are ignoring at their own peril. America has openly violated the very principles which she has cherished and always tried to defend, an act of self defeating madness. New world order is already taking shape. Orginisations like the UN, IMF, Worldbank, G7 have been rigging everything in favour of the west for long enough, but time and events have changed everything. If these orginations do not reform pretty soon, they will be ignored and side lined by the emerging economies, the current and future engine of growth of world economy. EU must build bridges with the emerging economic power house and play a leading role in shaping a just and enduring international economic and political order. America will play a spoiling role, unwilling and reluctant to give up its hegemoney, this is where Europe can play a leading and most sensable role by bringing the American elite to their senses and make them recognise the changing reality. At the moment this elite is more motivated by power and arrogence than the impending reality. America has lost all credibility in the Islamic world, it will take decades to mend this trust, here again Europe can play a leading role. I am no admirer of Sarcosy, but looking at the reality of his actions, one cannot deny that at last an European is thinking and acting in the interest of Europe and not USA.

writeon
15 November 2008 at 18:04

Simplifying and being blunt, the UK and the USA have pursued disasterous economic policies for a long time, around thirty years. Substituting the creation of debt for the real economy. But one cannot build an economy on just 'confidence' and debt for ever, even thought he levels of profit were enormous.

The debt economy grew out of all real proportion to the real economy. A vast edifice, a mirage of debt, balancing on a shrinking foundation. When the bubble bursts, that's it, more or less. The fantasy has to return to reality. This will be a collosal unheaval for these nations. The end of an era, but will it be the end of Capitalism too?

That's where the rest of the world comes into the picture. Will they accept the thesis that the USA is simply too big to fail? Will they accept being blackmailed and keep on supplying the UK and the US with unlimited credit for ever? There's a risk involved. The risk that the US/UK will drag everyone else with them into a long and deep Depression. What should they do? Is it cheaper and better to cut them loose now and cut ones loses? Or should one keep bailing them out, do they have a choice?

Nilsey105
15 November 2008 at 22:07

writeon

"...the USA is simply too big to fail". Is like saying Man United are too big to go down, but they have.

The rest of the world is highly distrustful of the UK/USA right now. Rightly so too they have been shat upon from a great hight by the bankers in London and New York. And the respective governments of the UK & USA have condoned the antics of those bankers by not contolling and regulating their behaviours correctly.

The distrust of the World Bank and IMF by emerging economies is all to clear to see. We are selves had to endure a taste of the IMFs punative loan agreements.

Brown is now calling, inparticular, for Obama not to rescue the US auto industry as this is clearly seen as protectionism. But if Obama gives in to Browns demands that will leed to another 6 million US workers becoming unemployed. But, more importantly it will send a resession into a SLUMP and that will certainly last for years, perhaps 5,6 or longer. Or we all fall into the abyss of yet another world war. And that would undoubtedly be the war to end all wars .

The belief that the US is too big to fail may have been true whilst it was the biggest country following the CMP. Now that China is a member of the club and soon to be a leading member then maybe the mantle of too big to fail will now fall upon China. And America and UK will become part of the third world counties.

Nilsey105
15 November 2008 at 22:09

and countries.

Red Shift
16 November 2008 at 01:57

Twentieth century solutions for the 21st century? DO we want to continue with top dog politics, domestically and internationally?

I listened in to an interview with Oliver Stone on newsnight and he reminded us that the powers of the US President, are not ABSOLUTE in the way of a medieval monarch. Europe had and still has monarchs attached to various lineages, and is not entirely free of medieval absolutism. With the passing of the House of Bush it might be remembered why the powers of the US president are limited?

Cybertiger
16 November 2008 at 11:58

"making emanuel his chief of staff says it all. the man is an israeli citizen. which side do you think he bats for??? "

... the 51st state of the blessed union over which Obama presides?

gnuneo
17 November 2008 at 05:43

hope you're right Will, but i worry you're being over-optimistic.

Paul Lettan
18 November 2008 at 13:34

Little attention has been paid to the influence of that first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, on Barack Obama's thinking and politics. Lincoln was a Whig profoundly influenced by the ideals of the American Declaration of Independence. Obama talks from and to that deep seated, heartfelt, sense of American identity.

It is something cynical post modernist Brits simply do not understand. We may watch US soaps like West Wing but we watch and 'read' it differently. Also all Americans, Republican and Democrat, hold John Locke and his Liberalism in high esteem. To be 'liberal' has different meanings on either side of the Pond.

Locke, Franklin, Paine, Jefferson and Lincoln have a contemporary resonance in the US today that no 18th or 19th century thinker or politician has in 21st century Britain.

Here in colonial England we do the USA and Obama no favours by denying our European history, identity or vocation. We delude only ourselves and deny our children their rightful European inheritance.

Carl Jones
18 November 2008 at 14:47

Paul; 3rd paragraph...this is commonly known as a "time warp". The act of independence was put together by a group of senior Freemasons and these were senior Freemasons allied to the Crown of England. Independence was an illusion cast on the new world workers. Please don`t confuse the "Crown" with royalty. London is the centre of world power

writeon
18 November 2008 at 19:44

Carl,

You've done it again! Hit on a very interesting idea, which I'm thinking of picking up and running with. I'll remeber you and dedicate the book to 'Carl Jones, for showing me the way.'

I like the idea that Revolutionary War, or War of Independence, was really a civil war between two factions of the same ruling elite, one based in England and one in the USA, which isn't quite what you were saying I know. That it might have been an illusion, a clever plan, is interesting.

Carl Jones
18 November 2008 at 20:52

writeon, Its not my idea, but I do believe it, in its basic concept. I believe there are factions. But the US war of independence was a scam. I`m sure that many, if not most were believers in the cause, but didn`t understand the mechanism of control. As I understand it, CIA officers swear allegiance to the Crown (Inns of Court Temple) and the US legal system is just a franchise of the UK system.

gnuneo
18 November 2008 at 21:37

its can be called the 'multipolar society' view, that although there ARE elites (well, duh!), there are also disagreements and divisions - and an internal hierarchy - between them.

this is also the reason why i tend to strongly distrust those who try to make it simple black/white (ie Saddam bad, Bush good, or Freemasons bad, Catholic 'Church' good, Labour bad, Tories good etc etc), because it rarely is. All the groups above, although at times they oppose each other, also have common aims - such as reducing individual liberty and transferring power into hierarchies.

the very same problem can be seen with 'liberals' and 'conservatives' - in both cases the idea-groupings have negative memes attached, for instance in education:

conservatives believe 'we are all born "bad"', and that children should be abused (they call it 'disciplined', LMAO :'( ) until they conform to what Authority has decided is good behaviour - being quiet, open & empty minds passively awaiting the beneficial social conditioning that their elders and betters have decided is good for them.

oddly enough, this creates rebellion and inefficiency.

but compare the 'liberals': the behaviourist notions of education is that the children should not be physically abused - instead they should be MADE to be quiet by supposedly making them 'enjoy' the top-down enforced approach to education by creating and enforcing mind-dampening drugs, such as Ritalin. Yes, scarily enough, this is part of the 'liberal' approach to education.

and naturally enough, this also creates rebellion and inefficient education.

these are pretty much the only two views of education allowed in Anglo-Saxon education circles, and they are presented as the only two choices available - straightforward abuse to break the Will of the child, or behavioural modifications to make the child 'appreciate' the abusive system.

another choice, that of involving the students in the creation and evolution of education

continues..

gnuneo
18 November 2008 at 21:49

are almost never heard, yet they are now widely accepted across Northern Europe.

http://www.childresearch.net/RESOURCE/RESEARCH/2002/DAVIES.H...

this notion holds that people - whether children or adults - learn best when they are *genuinely* motivated to learn, when teachers and educators are *Participants* in the individuals education, NOT *Enforcers* of social control and social programming.

sorry, long monologue off-topic, point being many apparent 'dichotomies' that people are pushed to choose between, or merely two sides of the same coin, and the media are part and parcel of this campaign, this 'structure', of ignorance.

to bring this back to the 'War of Independence', it would be a mistake (i believe) to simplify it to 'English Crown v American Revolutionaries', there would have been much cross-Atlantic support for many of the Ideals of the Revolution, and indeed many Americans would have remained loyal Royalists. Common sense, when you think about it, right? ;)

which leaves, without any real argument, the possibility that groups were playing 'both sides of the fence', with their own agendas.

writeon: you should ask Carl for links to what you mentioned, i suspect he has quite a few interesting ones lined up...

Paul Lettan
19 November 2008 at 03:46

Carl, as you're clearly interested in the subject, might I suggest a visit to the Local History Museum, Granby, Quebec. In 1977-78, I was working on project based on the life and work of Palmer Cox, a 19th century children's writer and illustrator. My office contained a library of documentation, continuous, of Masonic literature 1764-1933. I catalogued it and contacted the 'Grand Loge de Francmasons de l'orientation de l'est' de Montreal. Of course Franc Masons and Freemasons hold different views on these matters. Freemasons being considered 'chevaliers errants'. You could, Carl, spend many happy hours, as I did, parsing disputes from the 1760s to the 1820s. You may need to review your theories. To their credit, Freemasons in Montreal, with the help of their brothers in the Eastern Townships of Quebec, were key to bringing freed and escaped slaves to Montreal.

Paul Lettan
19 November 2008 at 04:17

To return to my main point, Carl, whatever the origins contemporary Americans feel a direct link to the 1770s and 1860s that no English person feels to a similar historical period except the 1940s. Welsh still smart at the treatment of Owen Glendower, the Irish bristle at Cromwell, and the Scots the treason of Union.

American history still informs contemporary politics in a way that nothing does in England. Our 'cultural' colonisation by film, music, internet, lifestyle, political economics is complete. We are provincial in our thinking and, it would seem, happily so.

Even Canada has a greater and stronger sense of selfhood vis a vis the States than we do in Britain, whence Blair's poodlehood.

I stand with Riaz Ahmad wholly. What Riaz makes of 18th or 21st century masonry I cannot imagine. Address the points Riaz makes. Like him, even I find Sarkozy more up to measure than most Brits. Who in Britain bats for Europe? Ken Clarke?

Paul Lettan
19 November 2008 at 04:28

Apologies that should read 'Franc macons' above.

Amir Cassam
19 November 2008 at 05:59

I urge the readers of W. Hutton's above piece to read the remarkable eye-opener article by Aijaz Ahmad contradicting Hutton, in India's leading newspaper The Hindu of 18 November 2008 entitled "Obama presidency and some question marks." Search for Aijaz Ahmad in The Hindu of 18 November 08.

Carl Jones
19 November 2008 at 13:02

gnuneo, i`m not making a black-white distinction. I am generalizing....using the KISS priciple..."keep it simple silly". You could hardly call my suggestion mainstream, I am not trying to convert the open-minded. I have talked with many American`s and for some strange, or maybe not so strange, they seem to understand this construct better than most.

As to understanding Freemasonary, there are a few basic principles. The vast majority are low order and they have no idea what goes on above them, there are 33 degrees and it is suggested there are a further 13 degrees above that. The idea that super elite masons, a very small clique, would keep incriminating documents, is a laff.

Of course there are feuds, factions and breakaways, its a bit like the UK political construct. Three main parties reading from slightly different scripts. But anyone of them in power would carryout similar policies. They all want power and global domination. The captain doesn`t need to be on the bridge all the time.

I like your education bit.:) The standard reply from most is that "THEY" couldn`t organise "9/11, or "7/7". They see the chaos in their working environment and they simply don`t believe most conspiracy theories. But ""alledgedly"", al Qaeda ( CIA creation) carried out 9/11 and the stock reason for their success, "they got lucky" and out of that we got "the terrorists only have to be lucky once"!LOL

NWO rules can be right and wrong depending on how they are applied. Bush says he believes in CAPITALISM..the free market, yet he`s just nationalised the US mortgage market and the worlds largest insurance company.

I`ve had a (many) comment censored. In one I mentioned the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. It was repealed on the 12th Nov. 1999, just 8 days after Bush won the fixed US election. That and a few other things and what has happened over the last few months was predictable and planned.LOL

Paul Lettan
19 November 2008 at 14:15

The records left to the Local History Museum were those of the Grand Masters of the Lodge. They were bequeathed to the Museum by the grand daughter of a grand master. It also included fascinating documents from 1760s through 1820s pertinent to the Franc Macons of early British North America and contained much material relating to the Acadiens during the enforced move to Louisiana. Whence Cajun music and food to this day.

In the 1970s, many English quebecers were leaving the province of Quebec following the election of the Parti Quebecois government. And much valuable historical material was in danger of being lost. I have no doubt that the elite of the elite put little on paper but the Grand Master's level had to keep records clearly.

gnuneo
20 November 2008 at 04:49

Carl: "gnuneo, i`m not making a black-white distinction. I am generalizing....using the KISS priciple..."keep it simple silly". You could hardly call my suggestion mainstream, I am not trying to convert the open-minded."

actually, my good fellow, you do rather tend to make it black/white, especially around your personal Totemic Monster the NWO. I tend to do the same on mine, Religious/Political Corruption. You will have no doubt noted we tend to correspond in many ways! :)

[tendencies - gotta love that word. So much more Adult than absolutes are.]

and whether or not you regard it as mainstream, what is interesting is that in previous times, the notions WERE mainstream, openly debated. It was only marginalised with the rise in dominance of the Murdockracy, which i in no way regard as coincidental. The same has become true of in depth discussions of the Free Market, which have also been hidden, or else subsumed into the revolting neo-liberalism that takes some of the language of Free Markets, and combines them with policies designed to do the exact opposite. We have already talked about this.

"The vast majority are low order and they have no idea what goes on above them, there are 33 degrees and it is suggested there are a further 13 degrees above that. The idea that super elite masons, a very small clique, would keep incriminating documents, is a laff."

the same is true in all hierarchies. Do the staff @ Sony know the ins & outs of policy as it is debated at Sony Head Office? Naturally not. No more than the street-hoods who wear BNP badges know what is actually planned by the Leadership... or the sheeple @ Lib/Lab/Tory conferences.

however, you are wrong on the last count there, in fact record keeping is something of a fetish for these types - they want to brag to future generations. It is absolutely astounding what is kept, and even what is published! (Thankfully).

gnuneo
20 November 2008 at 05:20

"I`ve had a (many) comment censored. In one I mentioned the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. It was repealed on the 12th Nov. 1999, just 8 days after Bush won the fixed US election. That and a few other things and what has happened over the last few months was predictable and planned.LOL"

of course much of this is planned - we are both fully aware that power-brokers in the Anglo-Saxon world completely knew this pyramid scheme was going to go belly up, and what it would take down with it. There are always plans-within-plans, contingency plans, disinformation plans, and each of them interpreted differently by different groups, and at different levels of the hierarchies.

but as i've said before, its *vitally* important to realise there are dissenting views even within the Elite - even GBush Senior's group opposed the invasion of Iraq, for example, and many even within the neo-con umbrella would have been terrified the attacks on the WTC could have backfired. Congress could have refused to pass the emergency act, the media could have actually done some investigative journalism. Hell, even the election of GWB (the first stolen one) could and should have been blocked had the US constitution have been followed properly. They are running on luck, and they know it.

we are not facing a unified, implacable Enemy, unless we draw a line around everyone who disagrees with anything we say, and call them 'The Enemy'.

you will note this is precisely what the fanatical Zionists do, and you might even note that this behaviour isolates them even from moderates, such as myself, writeon etc. By so doing, they ultimately create the unified block against them that they were afraid of to begin with!

you have your part to play in this drama, and you play it well. I would be *extraordinarily* pissed at the NS if they ever ban you from commenting, btw.

writeon
20 November 2008 at 07:45

Re. the United States.

It doesn't really have a 'two party system' in my opinion. It's more accurately described as a 'twin party system', as the machinations post Obama election euphoria, so amply illustrate.

The 'twin party' system is also very hierachical with the greatest differences, where they actually resemble two parties, clearly observable at the lowest levels of their respective party structures. Yet importantly, the higher up the hierachy one moves the more they come to resemble each other, until at the top, there really isn't a dimes worth of difference between them. This is especially true during elections, when even the leaders ship suddenly wakes up and becomes political and partisan. But all this is quickly forgotten once the ritual is over, calm is restored, expectations dampened down, back to business as usual.

The figurehead on the ship of state changes, but the underlying course remains the same. The king is dead, long live the king!

Riaz Ahmad
03 December 2008 at 08:23

Conservative or Labour, the political parties follow America with unparalled servitude. It will come as no surprise to any decent UK citizen even with a cursory examination of reality. The conservatives will adopt democratic party policies and Labour will embrace neo-conservitism with the greatest of pleasure. The last three priministers, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair, as soon as out of office, all three were on lucrative remunerations as directors of American companies.

gnuneo
12 December 2008 at 03:39

riaz: and it was amazing how quickly and widespread in the media such (frankly, as far as i am concerned blatant corruption) 'nesting' was reported - surely there is none who are not aware of this??

oh no wait - that was in the alternate reality where the Media actually report on Public Interest stories, and not just on whichever current witch-hunt is on.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker