I want to resurrect this blog, become a tourist again, but this time in my own life. Some new and potentially exciting things are happening - I have a new job and am trying to find some local but collective ways to make the world a better place - and I think writing is a good way to concentrate on them, make sure I pay them the attention they deserve.
My contrast for the day is between my life, my approach to life, and I think my generation's approach to life, and the way in which people tried to make social change happen in the long postwar period. I'm reading The good terrorist by Doris Lessing, which I would recommend highly. Her 1980s activists are filled with a level of anger, even of hatred of society, that I don't recognise in the people I know. They are inwardly focused, living off others whilst despising them. It's a depressing picture of what can happen to people when they become too caught up in a cause and lose their compassion for people who are different or not committed to the same ideals.
But it also reminds me that previous generations were more prepared to make sacrifices for their cause - indeed may not even have seen them as sacrifices. People of my parents' generation left university to live in squats or communes, devoted years of their life to Greenham Common or community projects in distant and thoroughly deprived places like Harlesden. They were not thinking about getting on the property ladder, they ate homemade soup and they hitch-hiked. Is this just a cliche? I don't think so.
It often occurs to me that the environmental movement needs people who are after more than being chased by police and being arrested as a badge of honour. It needs people prepared to throw themselves in front of horses, or go on hunger strike, or camp out for years at a time (and raise children in the campsite!). I'm not sure that it is these actions themselves which change the world, but I have a sense that they can send a powerful message of commitment.
But who will take up the challenge?
At this point I will confess to having both a mortgage and a pension.
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Monday, 18 May 2009
Friday, 31 October 2008
Boston V
Drummond very kindly sent me Simon Schama's new book which I am really enjoying. It is full of stories and characters that I had never heard before, and which I expect many Americans are also unfamiliar with (they are unlucky that it won't be published here until June 2009 I think).
One fact struck me particularly: in Mississippi in 1963 (i.e. a full century after political rights were supposedly granted to all) only 7,000 African Americans, of a population of 450,000 were registered to vote. This disenfranchisement was brought about by a combination of intimidation and obstruction (e.g. making black Americans take difficult tests to prove they were qualified to vote which white Americans were never required to take).
It has only been 45 years since the civil rights movement took on the establishment to end this kind of discrimination. It makes it all the more impressive that the country now not only has a black man running to be President, but that he has a great chance (I would need nerves of steel to put it more strongly!) of being elected.
One fact struck me particularly: in Mississippi in 1963 (i.e. a full century after political rights were supposedly granted to all) only 7,000 African Americans, of a population of 450,000 were registered to vote. This disenfranchisement was brought about by a combination of intimidation and obstruction (e.g. making black Americans take difficult tests to prove they were qualified to vote which white Americans were never required to take).
It has only been 45 years since the civil rights movement took on the establishment to end this kind of discrimination. It makes it all the more impressive that the country now not only has a black man running to be President, but that he has a great chance (I would need nerves of steel to put it more strongly!) of being elected.
Sunday, 21 September 2008
Tuesday 16th September 2008 – 23:15 GMT, Ziemia Cieszynska
I've finished The Audacity of Hope and maybe later on I will write a bit more about it. For now, two thing particularly struck me.
Firstly two facts that really shocked me:
1. In some high schools in America, the students are sent home every day at 1:30 “because the school district couldn't afford to keep teachers for a full school day”
2. “Each year more than twenty thousand workers are fired or lose wages simply for trying to organise or join unions” (unfortunately, no reference given)
Secondly, I was surprised to find a couple of areas of common ground between Obama and Morris/McGann – on performance related pay for teachers (a good thing), and on the obscenity of current levels of executive pay, especially the fact that the richest people make most of their money as capital gains (taxed at 15%) rather than income (taxed at 30%), meaning they pay less tax as a proportion of their total earnings than those anywhere else in the income spectrum.
I'm not sure exactly what this means. It could just be chance that some issues overlap between the two books. But I wonder whether these small areas of common ground are actually really important, as some of the few things that people from across a seriously divided political spectrum can agree on. They could perhaps provide the basis for some non-partisan work of the kind Obama is so keen on.
Sunday 14th September 2008 – 18:22 GMT, Ziemia Cieszynska
As a counter-balance to Fleeced I have moved swiftly on to Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope. I've not gotten far but it strikes me that his diagnosis of what is wrong with American politics – of why people are so disillusioned – is very different from the one implied by Morris and McGann.
His hypothesis is that the increasing polarisation between the Republicans and the Democrats is the main problem. This has many manifestations which turn voters off. Venomous, and highly personal, negative campaigns during election seasons. The inability of politicians from different parties to come together and reach compromises. And the sense that, as an ordinary American, the voter is forced to choose between two extreme positions, neither of which fits particularly well with their natural outlook.
Obama describes these people well: “There's the middle aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager's abortion, and the millions of waitresses and temp secretaries and nurse's assistants and Wal-Mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope that they'll have enough money to support the children that they did bring into the world”.
Not that the two hypotheses are necessarily mutually exclusive. But it strikes me that Obama's is softer, its solutions more inter-personal, while Morris and McGann are (or ought to be!) seeking a real revolution.
His hypothesis is that the increasing polarisation between the Republicans and the Democrats is the main problem. This has many manifestations which turn voters off. Venomous, and highly personal, negative campaigns during election seasons. The inability of politicians from different parties to come together and reach compromises. And the sense that, as an ordinary American, the voter is forced to choose between two extreme positions, neither of which fits particularly well with their natural outlook.
Obama describes these people well: “There's the middle aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager's abortion, and the millions of waitresses and temp secretaries and nurse's assistants and Wal-Mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope that they'll have enough money to support the children that they did bring into the world”.
Not that the two hypotheses are necessarily mutually exclusive. But it strikes me that Obama's is softer, its solutions more inter-personal, while Morris and McGann are (or ought to be!) seeking a real revolution.
Saturday 13th September 2008 – 21:10 GMT, Ziemia Cieszynska
I've been reading the latest bestseller by angry commentators Dick Morris and Eileen McGann: Fleeced (or, how Barack Obama, media mockery of terrorist threats, liberals who want to kill talk radio, the do-nothing congress, companies that help Iran and Washington lobbyists for foreign governments are scamming us... and what to do about it) – you get the idea what kind of book it is.
It was interesting, but not exactly in the way I'd expected. Its title, its tone and the first couple of chapters chapter seem to give it away as a right wing, anti-government rant. The first chapter is all about how Barack Obama, if elected, “would take this country suddenly, sharply and dangerously to the far left”. Firstly as if this in itself, regardless of what it entailed, was necessarily a bad thing – it gives them away a little – but also (secondly) pure scaremongering – everyone must know there is a real difference between Obama's policies and those of the “far left”.
But what is interesting is how the rest of the book pans out. The premise is not so much anti-government as anti-everything – the sleeve even says as much: they are angry about “big business, big labor, big government and big lobbyists”. Everyone, in fact, who seems to be screwing over the little guy.
At times they seem to willfully miss the point in order to be able to justify wild rhetoric against Democrat policies. They manage to get angry about Obama's policy proposal to reverse Bush's tax cuts for the top 6% of earners: “if the Democrats retake the White House in November, our wallets will be considerably lighter once they're finished with us” - again, giving away that they really speak for the rich (“our wallets”) rather than for the little guy. And the vitriol with which they write about the Clintons suggests a personal rift (he was Bill's political consultant for 20 years).
But at other times they speak a language that grass roots campaigners from all perspectives understand – giving out the addresses and phone numbers of the Senators who Chair committees on various issues, and urging readers to kick up a fuss to make change happen. In a chapter on regulating the quality of imported consumer goods they even recommend establishing a “no sweat” trademark, similar to the present “fairtrade” one to enable American consumers to select only toys produced by adults under decent working conditions.
And their conclusion, when considering a whole range of issues for us to be angry about (sub-prime mortgages, murky credit card charges, poor educational standards, excessive hedge fund profits, corrupt military contracts in Iraq etc) is actually more, but better, government, not less.
Which brings me back to the paradox which made me want to read the book in the first place. Someone at RSe (very sorry I don't remember who – shout if it was you!) pointed out that Americans are uniquely (among citizens of democratic countries) sceptical of government, yet have been unwilling (or unable) to curb some of the more blatant – usually financial – abuses of power which would simply not be possible in other countries. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us that the land of the pork barrel should be unwilling to trust the motives of those in power.
But America is also a land with a strong belief in progress, and in its own democracy. And if the consistently high ranking of this book on American bestseller lists is anything to go by, a lot of people are feeling alienated from business as usual politics. I suspect there could be considerable support for a populist political movement which genuinely shunned the corrupting influences of lobbyists, big business and the Washington “in crowd” in favour of truly defending the interests of the “little guy”.
It was interesting, but not exactly in the way I'd expected. Its title, its tone and the first couple of chapters chapter seem to give it away as a right wing, anti-government rant. The first chapter is all about how Barack Obama, if elected, “would take this country suddenly, sharply and dangerously to the far left”. Firstly as if this in itself, regardless of what it entailed, was necessarily a bad thing – it gives them away a little – but also (secondly) pure scaremongering – everyone must know there is a real difference between Obama's policies and those of the “far left”.
But what is interesting is how the rest of the book pans out. The premise is not so much anti-government as anti-everything – the sleeve even says as much: they are angry about “big business, big labor, big government and big lobbyists”. Everyone, in fact, who seems to be screwing over the little guy.
At times they seem to willfully miss the point in order to be able to justify wild rhetoric against Democrat policies. They manage to get angry about Obama's policy proposal to reverse Bush's tax cuts for the top 6% of earners: “if the Democrats retake the White House in November, our wallets will be considerably lighter once they're finished with us” - again, giving away that they really speak for the rich (“our wallets”) rather than for the little guy. And the vitriol with which they write about the Clintons suggests a personal rift (he was Bill's political consultant for 20 years).
But at other times they speak a language that grass roots campaigners from all perspectives understand – giving out the addresses and phone numbers of the Senators who Chair committees on various issues, and urging readers to kick up a fuss to make change happen. In a chapter on regulating the quality of imported consumer goods they even recommend establishing a “no sweat” trademark, similar to the present “fairtrade” one to enable American consumers to select only toys produced by adults under decent working conditions.
And their conclusion, when considering a whole range of issues for us to be angry about (sub-prime mortgages, murky credit card charges, poor educational standards, excessive hedge fund profits, corrupt military contracts in Iraq etc) is actually more, but better, government, not less.
Which brings me back to the paradox which made me want to read the book in the first place. Someone at RSe (very sorry I don't remember who – shout if it was you!) pointed out that Americans are uniquely (among citizens of democratic countries) sceptical of government, yet have been unwilling (or unable) to curb some of the more blatant – usually financial – abuses of power which would simply not be possible in other countries. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us that the land of the pork barrel should be unwilling to trust the motives of those in power.
But America is also a land with a strong belief in progress, and in its own democracy. And if the consistently high ranking of this book on American bestseller lists is anything to go by, a lot of people are feeling alienated from business as usual politics. I suspect there could be considerable support for a populist political movement which genuinely shunned the corrupting influences of lobbyists, big business and the Washington “in crowd” in favour of truly defending the interests of the “little guy”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)