Two days ago, I was walking home from the train station when I heard a loud noise explode from behind me. The dreadful cacophony sounded like a goose was being strangled in 3-D surround sound. I turned, and saw that a group of teenagers had appropriated a traffic cone: one of them was using it as a megaphone. The lad was rather skinny, diminutive, but with the bright orange cone, at least he was able to say “hello” in the most disruptive, annoying manner possible.

I had hoped that they would stop after a few paces; after all, it was unlikely that the cone was something the group carried with them wherever they went. But for about half of my journey home, they were right behind me, continuing to use the megaphone en route. Both I and about half of my town got to hear the speaker’s honest opinion of several of the girls in the group: I’m fairly certain that the audience was as un-edified by the experience as I was. Fortunately, a divide in the road meant I went down one track, and they went down another, their voices continuing to rage against the dying of the early autumn sunlight.

Alone at last, I began to think about George W. Bush. I realise this thought is not linear given what I’d just experienced, but the idea of a stolen megaphone giving a loud voice to a diminutive individual is something of a metaphor for his reign. If he had not been President, and the power of his thoughts had not had any amplification, how much better off would we have been?

I must admit that my thoughts were given some additional potency given his recent statement about the $700 billion bailout of American financial institutions. In some respects, it was amusing: after being told for years about the evils of socialism, here we were, being told it was necessary to support the largest, rottenest and most bloated features of the capitalist landscape. In other respects, it was maddening: I don’t accept that this money has to be spent in the way they describe. Rather than use it to bail out the banks, why not use it to help those who are disadvantaged by the banks failing? A simple question, but I see few asking it.

The bailout, as Bush wants, is likely to happen, and the office of the Presidency combined with George W. Bush’s will are enough to create sufficient public and political paranoia to make it so. We’ve seen this same dynamic at work in determining whether or not to invade Iraq. Without the megaphone, this intellectually incurious man would have been one voice drowned out, perhaps solitary in his opinion.

I try not to think about what we’ve lost in the past eight years. While the world of 2000 was by no means a perfect place, it was in much better shape than it is now. Yes, challenges remained in former Yugoslavia, and Palestine was still a source of conflict and strife, but at least there were a lot more Iraqis who were among the living. At least America was not broke. At least the world was not painted in quite as dark hues, coming from a palette of blood, environmental degredation and violence.

I have no doubt that the World Trade Centre would have been attacked, regardless of who was President. I believe Osama bin Laden was and is trying to provoke a war between the Muslim and Western world as part of his personal political programme; I reject the idea that he is particularly Islamic in any proper sense of the word. However, the correct response was not to instantly take up arms, though rounding up bin Laden and his gang for trial in the Hague is absolutely the right move. What 9/11 did was open doors that had previously been closed; the French summarised the mood quite well. Le Monde, a paper not traditionally favourably disposed to America, said “today, we are all Americans”. Regimes that had hitherto been hostile, even Iran, were dismayed by the act. That should have been a cue for a larger summit on how to resolve the conflicts in the Middle East, with the United States as an honest broker. However, because the wrong man had the megaphone, an opportunity for peace turned into war. A chance to elevate the discussion was cast aside, and the world was plunged into bitterness, rancor, torture and death.

Economically, there was an opportunity as well. After fits and starts in the Nineties, the American budget was moving in the right direction: debt was being paid off. Some of the benefits of growth were reaching those at the bottom of the ladder. All that needed to be done was to keep going, and to add an element of environmental responsibility. This too was thrown away, burned up in the midst of a series of irresponsible tax cuts. Furthermore, nothing was done to restrain the unrelenting greed of bankers on Wall Street: their focus on delivering ever bigger short term returns cannot be dismissed as a contributing factor in creating the false boom and all too real bust. The cleanup of the credit crunch, the unpaid-for tax cuts, and the mounting costs of the war means that the total debt of the United States government is now approaching $10 trillion. To give an idea of how much a trillion is: a trillion seconds ago, reading and writing had yet to be invented.

There were opportunities to improve the environment. In the fight against climate change, time is the most precious commodity; wasting it is more than a pity, it’s a crime. Yet, the Bush era should have as its hood ornament a giant, polished SUV. Perhaps the most appropriate kind is one I saw in New York: it was a long, white stretch limousine that was made out of a Hummer. I was glad there was no opportunity to pull the driver over and ask him how much fuel it consumed; the answer would likely have been as obnoxious as teenagers armed with traffic cones. Yet, I am sure I was in a minority by being outraged by its existence.

I don’t envy Barack Obama, assuming that he wins. It’s a tradition for Presidents to leave behind on the Oval Office desk a letter for their successor, usually providing some advice or just well wishes. I suggested to my work colleagues the other day, half in jest, that should Barack win, there would be a note written in crayon waiting for him saying “ha ha ha”. Obama has to somehow rewind all the damage; fortunately, there is enough goodwill still left for America that he will have plenty of nations cheering him on, and helping where they can. But thanks to the Era of Missed Opportunities, he will no doubt have moments where he will wonder what he could have done if he had the legacy of 2000 to work with, rather than the legacy of 2008. Hopefully these periods of reflection will be momentary: the full extent of regret should be left to historians. I just hope the man meets the measure of the mess.

Mr. Adams’s Last Crusade

Joseph Wheelan. Avalon Publishing Group 2008, Hardcover, 336 pages, £15.99

Ask anyone of a progressive bent who features in their pantheon of political heroes, most of the answers you’ll get will be fairly modern: usually icons of the Sixties, like Noam Chomsky or Robert Kennedy, get many mentions. Sometimes you’ll get Herbert Marcuse. The most historically minded tend to go for Franklin Roosevelt.

It may be a slight stretch, but it is perhaps fair to say that John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States and lion of the House of Representatives, rarely or never gets a mention. However, he should, as this new volume by Joseph Wheelan illustrates.

Adams seems an unlikely source for progressive political thought: after all, he was part of the Revolutionary generation, one that accepted a constitutional settlement which suggested a slave was three-fifths of a person in terms of reckoning the electorate. His balding, stern visage as seen in his portraits seems an embodiment of Purtianical white male hegemony.

However, lost in the mists of time is a different notion of Puritanism, the kind that stressed striving towards personal righteousness and personal self-improvement, the kind that meant sacrificing oneself for principle, rather than herding others towards the same goal. Adams was an embodiment of this earlier form of thinking, and this led him in surprisingly modern directions.

Wheelan’s discussion of Adams’ early career as a diplomat and Secretary of State echoes earlier accounts; by all indications, the young Adams was a “wunderkind” of American diplomacy, multilingual and quick to absorb national nuances. In the first years of the American Republic, Secretaries of State often were expected to run for President, which Adams did in 1824. No clear winner emerged from that election as there were four candidates; it was only through Henry Clay, one of the contestants, agreeing to throw his support to Adams that his office was guaranteed.

Once in office Adams refused to behave like a politician: he didn’t sack the existing staff, so long as they were competent at the jobs they were hired to do. This infuriated Adams’ allies, who thought they deserved a share of the spoils. This also gave Adams’ enemies a powerbase to undermine his Presidency. His obstinacy about doing things in a manner that would be described as “typical”, meant that he was unable to get much of his ambitious agenda for public works through, a programme summarised with the slogan, “Liberty Through Power”.

Adams also was constantly at loggerheads with his Vice President, John Calhoun of South Carolina; here began Adams’ vocal antipathy for slavery. With all these factors going against him, and the fact that he found “spin” somewhat bizarre, he was heavily defeated in his bid for re-election in 1828 by Andrew Jackson.

Had Adams stopped there, this account would have been quite short, and that of a failed, if quirky President. However, Adams ran for a Congressional seat in 1831, and then came into his own.

Being a Congressman enabled Adams to take on opponents in debate, something which he was skilled at, rather than having to go through the labourious business of herding legislation through Congress. Once there, he became quickly known as “Old Man Eloquent”, and proceeded to infuriate every reactionary member of the House of Representatives.

It’s tempting to think that “Yes” is the most powerful word in politics, however Adams career, as Wheelan demonstrates, shows the strength of “No”. When President Jackson wanted to clear Native Americans off their lands, Adams said “no”, saying it violated the Indians’ rights and the existing treaties signed with them. Adams was consistently against the annexation of Texas, and as he had negotiated the treaty which had defined the boundaries of the Louisiana Purchase, he was able to puncture Jackson’s claim that Texas was part of it. When Congress started talking about abridging the rights of women, Adams said “no”, and publicly and loudly said that women had political rights. When Congress tried to skip paying a set of workmen, Adams managed to trick Congress into paying them. This had the unexpected effect of making Adams something of a hero, who received that rarest of all political tributes: fan mail. His defence of women in particular led to many admiring tributes, and apparently more woolen knitwear than he knew what to do with.

That said, according to Wheelan, the loudest and longest battle Adams faced was against slavery, and indeed, the resistance to any discussion of the topic. Not long after he arrived, a regulationknown as the “Gag Rule” was put in place, blocking any debate. Adams constantly provoked the Southern members of Congress, using oratory, parliamentary procedure and even a bit of grandstanding to get his way; eventually the Gag Rule was repealed, with the assistance of his allies.

Adams assault against slavery reached as far as the Supreme Court; thanks to modern cinema, the Amistad case is well known, as is Adams’ representation of the Africans who were under threat of being sent into Spanish slavery. What is less well known is how this man, in his seventies, stood up and presented a case for four hours to the Supreme Court, and then did an equally long summation. Justice Joseph Story was impressed and riveted, as Wheelan notes.

Adams’ later years were consumed by the war against slavery. In perhaps the most astonishingly perceptive and progressive outburst of all, he said that if it needed the blood of millions of white men to scrub the nation clean of the curse of slavery, “let it come”. It was not a sentiment held by most at the time.

Adams had robust health right up until the last two years of his life; he collapsed on the House of Representatives after voting, again saying “No”, and died two days later in an ante-room in Congress.

Wheelan’s narrative of this rollercoaster ride of a career never lets the reader’s interest waver for a moment; despite the cold unloveability of Adams’ external demeanour, Wheelan makes it clear it was due to not dissatisfaction with people in general, but a result of a man who was constantly striving to be better and do better, and who could never take a break from the exertion. I ended up liking Adams very much and now consider him foremost among my heroes; it’s difficult to see how anyone could peruse Wheelan’s account and not feel the same.

My blockade of cold call sales people took yet another unexpected turn; the Project Manager in my team, who hitherto has kept her name out of the the bullseye of these firms, is now starting to receive much of the same email traffic that I receive. The first paragraphs in their latest email is revealing:

Dear (Project Manager)

Growth in the market in August indicated that competition amongst organisations for rare talent is still intense and we are still seeing an acute shortage of candidates with high demand skills.

The general demand for IT skills is likely to remain reasonably buoyant and there is a general expectation that there will be a rise in staffing costs over the next year. Based on current placements and candidates registered, average permanent salaries have increased and average Contractor pay has leveled off.

As someone in the IT industry, I know this simply isn’t true. Furthermore, this “state of the market” report is contradicted by their behaviour: they are pushing so hard because the market is indeed contracting. As mentioned in my previous posting, unemployment is on the rise. Yesterday it was stated that Britain is sliding into a recession. There is no empirical data to support the assertions made in this mail. Rather, the cold caller is trying impose their version of reality on the customer in order to stimulate demand.

This is definitely an act of desperation; denial is not just a river in Egypt. I spoke to a contractor earlier in the day (not for the purposes of hiring, mind you), who said he believes that the recruitment industry as a whole will improve after there has been a big cull.

Amen.

The absurdity of cold call selling has reached new depths at my workplace; my voicemail is full of messages from recruitment agents who are desperate to get in touch with me.  Still, I’ve kept the barriers up. So, they’ve gravitated towards my Development Manager. He too has put them off. So finally, they found out the name of my lead developer, and yesterday they started calling him and asking if he wanted contractors.

This is just ridiculous; if they keep going down the company structure, the cleaning people are going to be assaulted by recruitment consultants in the parking lot at knifepoint and asked if they want C# / .NET contractors.  

There is some logic behind the madness, albeit, it’s tenuous.  According to today’s Guardian:

Britain’s jobs market is suffering from the slowdown in the economy as a new report out today shows the number of permanent jobs available has plunged to its lowest level since 2001.

And:

The Recruitment & Employment Confederation’s latest survey today says permanent placements contracted for the fifth consecutive month in August while temporary jobs fell for the first time since May 2003.

This includes, I assume, IT contractors. Anyone involved in this business is bound to be particularly jumpy. There hasn’t been a recession for fifteen years and they didn’t plan for the possibility.

Just a hint to any recruitment consultants reading this blog: if you don’t stop harassing potential customers and don’t provide innovative services, your firms will die. Employers like myself will laugh at your demise.

If you want a good indication of how the environment has degraded over time, get out your old home movies. My parents did this last Christmas in an effort to embarass me in front of my girlfriend, an endeavour made simpler by a recent transfer of some old Super 8 films onto DVD. As I inwardly squirmed through the showing, there was one scene that caught my attention in the 1979 film provisionally entitled, “When I Learned to Ride a Bike”. I was seven years old, making my first wobbling, halting attempts at balancing myself properly on a bike with an obviously shaky front wheel. The scene was familiar: our old street, like many streets in American suburbia, was lined with sycamore trees. It was a bright autumn morning and the wind rustled against the film camera’s crude microsophone. My father had obvious problems with the zoom lens as he focused on my younger self pedalling away.

However, what really caught my attention was the colour of the leaves. The sycamores were an explosion of reds, golds and oranges, made all the more brilliant by the slight Impressionistic blurring that came from the poor quality film and the dubious DVD transfer. As I thought about it, I realised that my childhood was dominated by that spectacle every autumn: sometime in September, the days got shorter, the air acquired a chill, and the leaves began to change. By the time October came, the colours dominated my home town, as if Providence had quietly drawn its brush across the scene and lacquered it with brilliant oils.

After being dazzled by the scene and by the memory, I turned to ask my mother, “The leaves, do they change colour like that any more?” My residence overseas had meant I hadn’t been around to see an American autumn for quite some time.

She thought for a moment. “No,” she replied.

Now I’m aware this is anecdotal, not definitive. I am also aware that there are many places that still do experience spectacular autumn colours: I haven’t been to New England in the autumn for over a decade, but I’m told that “leaf looking” is still helpful to the tourist trade. However, looking that far back in time and witnessing what was, is indicative that something has changed, and not necessarily for the better.

Yesterday, Hurricane Gustav hit the coast of Louisiana. As it wasn’t a category 5 hurricane by the time it arrived, the damage is apparently less severe than that inflicted by Hurricane Katrina. Still, there was footage from the BBC this morning that made me wince: the sight of waves lapping just over the top of the levees was somewhat frightening. It reminded me of an attempt to carry an over-full bucket, the water sloshing over every so often. If too much poured over, the painful reconstruction of New Orleans would have been set back yet again.

Yes, hurricanes are a fact of life on the Gulf Coast; but rather like with the leaves changing, the changes in the frequency are happening sufficiently slowly that we have an intellectual escape route into thinking this is normal, expected, and that somehow the weather patterns aren’t altered. This is the classic boiling frog scenario: according to popular myth, if you drop a frog into a pot full of boiling water, it will jump out immediately. However, if you put a frog in a pan full of cold water, and raise the heat gradually, it will cook before it realises it. It takes drama to make a lot of people notice that similarly, nature is on the boil, just as it took a long-ago film to make me realise how much had changed in less than thirty years.

If we accept that things are changing, the question comes down to responsibility. Many “carbon apologists” now admit that climate change is happening, but refute man’s role in creating it. This denial made easier by the fact that science is rarely set in stone: hypotheses are there to be tested, assumptions are there to be challenged. Man’s role in climate change is only largely proven, not totally, absolutely proven because of this inherent flexibility.

That said, it’s the height of irresponsibility to ignore the possibility that man might be at fault. I know that from my career in technology, when I try and diagnose a problem, the first step is to eliminate possible causes. For example, if a bug shows up on this WordPress installation, I de-activate plugins, one at a time, to see which one might be having an issue. Similarly, if indeed the potential exists for man to be the creator or contributor of climate change, should it not be contingent upon us to rule ourselves out of the equation?

I am not suggesting that if man did this, that the climate would stop changing. Nature is in a constant state of flux: some deserts were jungles in the time of the dinosaurs, rivers flood or dry up, lakes and seas can disappear and this happened well before man arrived on the earth. However the rate of these changes may vary: the boiling frog can be given a reprieve. If we make a change, what nature does as opposed to what man does could then be seen much more clearly, and a better response could be formulated.

It is among my long term plans to become a father. It makes me sad to think that when and if I have a son or daughter, that in the bright dawn of his or her youth, that child won’t have the same autumns that I did, and won’t be able to learn to ride their first real bicycle on a crisp autumn day, bright with the colours of the fading trees under a clear blue sky. It makes me more sad to think that when the time may come to embarass him in front of his significant other, the changes in nature since that time may be even more wretched and heartbreaking than the ones I’ve already seen. If we haven’t done anything to stop it, this melancholy will naturally be accompanied by well-deserved guilt.

I must admit, I was surprised by McCain’s vice presidential pick. Unlike many, I’d heard of Sarah Palin before, mostly because she was in favour of drilling in ANWR.  Still, because of her relative lack of notoriety (and the fact she’d only been governor for two years), I thought McCain was going to choose a standard issue boring white guy who would be to politics what warm milk is to beverages. I was fully prepared to time my naps around this: in particular, Mitt Romney should be classified as a sedative by the FDA.

Palin isn’t like that. She’s different: however, I don’t buy the whole “Alaska hockey mom” thing; after all, she is a governor. You don’t get into any Governor’s Mansion by merely being normal, on the contrary. Mid to high level politics requires a different set of instincts and nerve endings that precludes most “normal” people. That said, I don’t think some of the commentary by some of Barack’s other supporters has helped: I wasn’t thrilled by the suggestion that her Down’s Syndrome child is actually her daughter’s son. Sorry, folks, there are pictures of her with a baby bump, and there’s a difference between that and stuffing a basketball in her skirt. Going on about this simply looks nuts.

Nor do I think it’s good politics to be saying she’s a “beauty queen”; yes, some beauty queens tend to reveal that they’re pretty dumb when they get asked about world affairs. However, if her answers aren’t stupid enough to elicit laughter, this too might backfire.

Furthermore, I heard a comment from CNN that really alarmed me: I can’t reconstruct the actual quote, but I certainly can recall the gist. The commentator basically said that the demands of taking care of a Downs Syndrome child and running for public office were incompatible, and nearly suggested she was neglecting her kid. Worse, the talking head in this case was male. Ouch: I could almost hear the scraping sound of disembowelling knives being sharpened echo across the ocean.

Anyway, these approaches also miss the point.  Her big bugbear is sucking more oil out of the Alaskan wilderness; let’s go ahead and rape nature some more, shall we?  Furthermore, for all her talk of “reform”, she simply wants to do things in the same way, perhaps even more vehemently than before. These are the genuine obscenities that should get us worked up; I know that the tactics of Karl Rove have conditioned people to look for the quick, easy kill on the basis of some scandal. Trying to go for one of those is going to be tough, and the risk of backfire is too much.

But as ever, Barack knows best.   He and Joe Biden issued a gracious and polite statement.  I think he knows that being too aggressive against Palin personally isn’t necessarily the wisest move.  Furthermore, I think he also knows that McCain is taking a real chance here: Alaska is one thing, the national stage is quite another.  If she messes up and confuses Iraq with Iran, it’s not like when McCain did it: everyone assumed he was having a “senior moment”.  If she shows any intellectual cracks, she’s a female Dan Quayle. The microphones can and should be at the ready.

Barack is deliberate; I can imagine him reading her file, looking at videoed speeches and having quiet discussions with Biden and his advisors.  I envisage they have a few ideas on what to do: but I suggest that one of the best ideas is the simplest.  Just say, “I disagree”, or “we disagree”. No one can deliver that line better than Obama: “John McCain and Sarah Palin believe in continuing the same economic and foreign policy of the past 8 years, and infact, want to go even further – I disagree…John McCain and Sarah Palin want to follow the same environmental policies – I disagree.”  The frame of the debate in this scenario shifts from personalities to policies, which is decidedly an Obama advantage.

Some people I know are tempted to be dismissive of Palin; there’s a chance that could be interpreted as sexist.  Furthermore, the fact that Geraldine Ferraro was so warm and effusive in welcoming Palin’s candidacy does indicate that at least some women are seeing this as a historic pick. Please: take her seriously, take her calmly, just disagree.

So, things are a bit more complicated than they once were.  I’m disappointed that my Romney induced naps turned out to be a pipe dream.  Still, 2008 is on its way to being the best election ever.

Some people might take umbrage at that title.  After all, the economy is in bad shape, the environment is in trouble, Russia is running rampant, and China appears to be in the ascendant.  However, look at the situation: even the Republicans are having to move in a progressive direction, albeit nominally. Their glass ceiling was always thicker and more bulletproof than the Democrat one: the Democrats had their first female Vice Presidential candidate 24 years ago. The tickets taken together show that politics is opening up: none of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are part of a long-established political dynasty (Mccain’s family is admittedly high up in the Navy).  Neither Barack nor Palin are particularly rich.  This is also the most youthful election in many respects: this not just refers to the ages of some of the candidates, but it also refers to the engagement of young people in the process. Democracy is working: it’s vacuuming up the dust of yesteryear, and in the process, establishing a new set of norms.

No longer is it going to be “groundbreaking” or “historic” for there to be a Presidential candidate who is either a minority or a woman or both. These things have become normal thanks to Barack, Hillary and yes, both McCain and Palin. After this year, I doubt they’ll merit too much comment. If Deval Patrick runs one day, or Kathleen Sebelius decides to step up, no one will tell either of them that it can’t be done. Of course it can be done; it’s there to be done, and now it’s been done before. Thanks to the best election ever, while some of the candidates may never be normal, having the corridors of power open to anyone regardless of race or gender certainly is.

I continue to be fascinated by the progress and exploits of Kirsty Coventry, the double gold, quadruple silver and bronze medal winning swimmer from Zimbabwe. Yesterday, she returned home to what The Zimbabwe Times called a “hero’s welcome”:

Hundreds of fans gathered at the Harare International Airport on Wednesday to welcome Zimbabwe’s gold and triple-Olympic silver medal winner Kirsty Coventry and her colleagues in the team which represented Zimbabwe.

It appears also that the “give her a farm” movement has not disappeared since her medal winning outing in 2004:

It was an outpouring of passion for the 25-year-old as hundreds hailed the swimming sensation with one placard reading: “Kirsty, we will give you a farm.”

This was a considerably brave thing to say, given that Mugabe was due to greet her and the rest of Team Zimbabwe. However, others were even more courageous:

A sea of red cards appeared directly in front of Mugabe and roars of “Chinja” – the MDC slogan for change – drowned the efforts of the military band. His supporters responded with cries of support, but were easily outnumbered by joyful MDC activists.

As for Ms. Coventry herself, her diplomatic skills and graciousness were abundantly in evidence:

“I was just trying to show the rest of the world that there are also good things in Zimbabwe,” Coventry said. “I can never be anything else but Zimbabwean. I am glad I am home to share my success with all of you.”

Mugabe’s response showed his discomfort, as well as the contrasting joy of the people of Zimbabwe in her success:

“I am sure you all join me in congratulating them, especially Kirsty Coventry, most heartily on that heroic performance,” Mugabe added, amid shouts of “She is white, why are you kicking out whites?”

A legitimate question, as Blessing-Miles Tendi of the Guardian reported Mugabe saying:

The only white man you can trust is a dead white man.

Our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy.

However, because Coventry is popular:

…she attended a banquet hosted by Mugabe at his official state house residence.

And Tendi gave perhaps the best summary of the situation:

Anti-white politics has not aroused black Zimbabweans against white people. Even during the explosive land seizures phase, to a greater extent attacks on white Zimbabweans remained linked to state-sponsored farm invasions and official pronouncements.

…

The Mugabe government’s “hatred” of whites has not filtered down to the average black Zimbabwean. Most black Zimbabweans are aware that the root cause of Zimbabwe’s problems is, ultimately, the Mugabe government. Blaming white Zimbabweans and white Britain will never wash this charge away. Black Zimbabweans see through it – just as they see the irony in the Mugabe government’s taking of Coventry to its bosom.

Which should give hope to those who want Zimbabwe to succeed as an example of a multiracial, peaceful society. Again, well done to the able Kirsty Coventry, and well done to the people of Zimbabwe.

Finally, Bill did the right thing. He gave a speech which was unequivocally supportive of Barack: I breathed a sigh of relief. It was also gratifying that Bill managed to surpass his wife: while she said all the right words in her address on Tuesday, it was done in such a way that one couldn’t help but think her intent was opposite to the text. For example, when she stated pride in supporting Obama, my face automatically contorted into a cynical smile. It’s a skepticism that has deep roots: the first thing that sprang to mind when I heard a gaggle of meth-heads were arrested for threatening to kill Barack was “Hillary!”. After all, she had cited the assassination of Robert Kennedy as a precedent and a reason for keeping her campaign going long after it was reasonable to do so.

I am admittedly approaching this situation from a bias: I’m one of those who has been left completely cold by the Clinton “phenomenon”. I simply do not understand the wild passion that her supporters have for her. She strikes me as emotionless, overly ambitious and crushingly condescending. Hearing her speak is akin to enduring fingernails being clawed down a blackboard: I obviously lack the gene to be able to warm to someone who believes that insulting the intelligence of the American people is something that should be rewarded. I was born without the capacity to find such behaviour worthy of any enthusiasm whatsoever.

The same applies to Bill. I never warmed to him either, because I constantly felt like he was lying to everyone around him. I only had marginal difficulty with him carrying on with extramarital affairs; that issue properly lay in within the bounds of private life. However, I did have a problem with him carrying on with a government employee, during government hours in a government office. The disparity of power relationships alone should have made feminists scream; it certainly did on this side of the Atlantic. I also had difficulty with the fact that when caught, he should have simply told the truth and had done with it. Had he done so, Kenneth Starr, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky would all be minor footnotes by now, rather than names written into Presidential legend. I believe Bill was bright enough to realise this, which made the situation doubly perplexing: why lie if you know it won’t make anything easier or better? The only answer suggests a pathology at work.

Worse, when it comes right down to it, it’s difficult to name too much either of them did that didn’t adhere to a purely “pragmatic” agenda. Clinton balanced the budget, some will say: whoopee, this was probably helped by the tension between what a Republican Congress wanted to spend money on, and what a Democrat President deemed worthy of largesse. Revisions to health care provision did not get anywhere; this was due in part to the complexity of Ira Magaziner’s proposal, otherwise Hillary’s lack of political salesmanship was to blame. The environment did not noticeably improve; if anything, rampant consumption galloped away. Even radical, interesting appointments to high office like Lani Guinier fell at the first hurdle. In the Clintons efforts to remain politically “viable”, improvements were limited to tinkerings at the micro-level; as such, any nostalgia for this era seems misplaced. Eric Lott, a professor at the University of Virginia, summed up Clinton Era trends with his work, “The Disappearing Liberal Intellectual”; he stated that there was an overwhelming movement for those on the Left to shun more radical ideas and groups in order to make themselves more “palatable” to a public that had accepted the conservative paradigm. Furthermore, I believe, a new thesis was adopted that emphasised “managerial competence” over a gripping contest of visions. One would have thought that the credit crunch and the rapidly degrading state of the environment would have burst this particular bubble of whimsy. Things as they are, or things only changed a little, is definitely not the answer: a continual test of ideas is much more likely to create innovation.

Yet, the Democratic Party, for better or for worse, is still tied to the Clintons, even though they have conclusively proven that they only have a one note song to sing: “me me me me me me me me me”. This lingering, malignant affection possibly extends from the heat of battle: had impeachment not been such a partisan affair, abandoning the Clintons for some would probably seem less like a betrayal. Or it may simply extend from gratitude associated with victory: after such a long interregnum, Democrats were glad to get anything they wanted, even if it was only getting someone with a “D” next to their name elected to the White House.

As a result, I don’t envy the balancing act that Barack has had to maintain: he has had to assert control yet at the same time mollify the Clintons. If he does too much of the former, he switches off a portion of the electorate that he needs. If he does too much of the latter, he appears weak, and provides an opening for Republican attack. There is no clear and obvious way, at least to me, that he can wash away the curse that the Clintons bring to any election. Worse, he cannot fully abandon the Clintons’ centrist agenda; while I think he has the inclination to be more radical (one would have to be made of stone to not be affected by working as a community organiser in the poorest part of Chicago), his street smarts probably tell him to keep these aspirations under the radar.

But Barack has to overcome, and to triumph; it’s the only way that the Clinton legacy can be dispatched. If Barack wins, then Hillary is out of the game; that said, the increasing prominence of Chelsea Clinton indicates that Bill and Hillary are getting ready to pass the torch to the next generation. If Barack loses, then the misery of 2012 will be tragic to behold: the economy will probably not have recovered, the environment will not be in any better shape, and Hillary will likely be running again. The worst aspects of the Clinton political machine could be enshrined as the only method by which victory can be ensured, and the Democrats will have completed the transformation from the party of the people into the party of opportunism and power.

It may be a forlorn hope, but with luck, Bill’s swan song last night signifies the end. As I watched him, he reminded me of a faded, once-popular crooner, who found himself twenty years past his prime singing to retirees in old-fashioned Catskills resorts. He should know that there comes a time in the life of any performer to hang up the microphone, pack the tatty leather showman’s trunk for the last time, and to bid the stage a final adieu. A graceful departure of this kind would be welcome; it is time to move on, and perhaps by being generous to the Clintons, Barack is easing their exit.

The end of the Beijing Olympics has created an atmosphere, particularly in Britain, in which the focus has narrowed to the point of fixation on the London Games of 2012. I’m slightly irritated by this; after all, there are the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver to enjoy. Here is a promotional video to remind everyone:

I prefer the Winter Games to the Summer ones; generally speaking, the Winter Games has not featured athletes who appear to be on the point of death due to heat exhaustion. In terms of environmental impact, the Winter Games are generally less extensive and thus require less emissions to build the facilities and to host the events. “Slushy” Winter Games can also serve as a poignant reminder of the perils of climate change: I recall that Turin’s 2006 Winter Games had weather issues.

Yes, Britain is far less successful in the Winter Games: the fact that this is not really a ski-resort country probably has much to do with it. Torvill and Dean, the golden pair from 1984, may have put people off ice dancing. Building a long-track speed skating rink in say, Slough (although it is an intruiging idea), would be rather preposterous. Still, it looks like an altogether more comfortable, more intimate affair. Plus, there’s ice hockey.

The Vancouver games should be particularly successful as Canada has a knack for hosting the Winter Olympics; the Winter Games of 1988 were held in Calgary, and I recollect them fondly. It’s a good advertisement for Canada as well; at the present time, I’m thinking about moving there, and have found out that I’m eligible under Canada’s points system to immigrate. It’s entirely possible the Vancouver games will “complete the sale”. Even if it doesn’t, it still looks like it will be fun, and certainly won’t be just a “speed bump” on the way to London.

The Democratic National Convention has kicked off in Denver, and apparently it’s gotten off to a brisk start. The reviews of the speeches by Michelle Obama, Senator Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi suggest all have gone off without a hitch. No doubt, Michelle, Ted and Nancy breathed more easily once they got off the stage and out of the glare of the television cameras. They deserve to feel a cool, satisfied sense of relief. The convention so far has been carefully scripted, strictly managed, and well presented; the Democrats are doing their utmost to put their best foot forward, and so far have achieved almost Beijing Olympics levels of efficiency.

I suppose this masterful orchestration should cheer Barack’s supporters up. I can’t help but feel a bit of disquiet, however; something that tightly wound and absent of any genuine surprise cannot help but be somewhat dry, no matter how well crafted the rhetoric may be. It has all the hallmarks of one, long extended commercial, and is nearly as boring. I think in this regard America has much to learn from Britain, and from the debates that occur within British political parties.

It may sound somewhat perverse in a twenty-four hour, cable television news driven culture to say that arguments are worthwhile. After all, the American press would seize upon any open disagreements as symptomatic of a “split”. However to speak in pure platitudes and paper over the cracks is far less “genuine”: normal, intelligent people, if gathered in enough numbers, are bound to have big debates. This is not Stalinist Russia, after all; there is no obligation to keep applauding the party platform lest one thought to be disloyal. Even Karl Marx said that without the dynamic of criticism, no society can progress; the same holds true for political parties.

In Britain, arguments at party conferences are a fact of life. The Liberal Democrats, for example, argue every year about decriminalisation of marijuana. Within the Labour Party, there are annual debates about the role of the private sector in the provision of public services: how much should they provide, or if they should provide any at all. The Conservatives fight over Britain’s membership of the European Union and how quickly taxes ought to be cut. These discussions are not interpreted as a genuine “split” unless there is an actual rebellion: i.e., Members of Parliament refuse to vote in accordance with the eventuallly agreed party platform.

American conventions are not anything like this. In fact, these events have been little more than a rubber stamp for decades; the only opportunity there is for such discussion is when the party nominee is unclear. Perhaps the best convention in American history was the Democratic convention in 1948; the party was hopelessly divided when it came in, and it fought and argued. Harry Truman prior to the convention had little natural constituency; he had been an afterthought when selected to run as Roosevelt’s vice president in 1944. Indeed, there were some Democrats who wanted to draft in Eisenhower. Few wanted to stick with Truman; however the process of argument established his natural ability and force, and displayed the charismatic and moral qualities which enabled him to win an election pre-ordained to be hopeless.

Can argument be a negative? Certainly, if free speech is seen as a right to promote anarchy: the Democrats had quite enough of that in 1968. A combination of a party establishment that was frightened of the radicals, a group of radicals that was not willing to compromise, and the assasination of the bridge between the two groups, Robert Kennedy, meant that disagreement became destructive. By and large, however, disagreement is normal, cathartic, and allows both radicals and moderates to believe their voice has been heard, even if neither side gets all of their positions adopted.

The counterpoint is that a gathering that focuses on unity (which has a similar feel to the Beijing Olympics sense of “harmony”) should give Barack a substantial bounce in the polls. I disagree; predictable television like the convention is bound to switch off undecided or uncommitted viewers. This is not the fifties, after all, when there was a limited number of channels and programmes; no doubt some viewers are flipping back to women’s beach volleyball matches they recorded on their Tivos. Indeed, any “bounce” is likely to be attributable to the event’s coverage, rather than the convention itself. In contrast, because the Republican ship is rotting from within, and there is a fundamental split between the Evangelical and Libertarian wings of the party, this is likely to be much more interesting; I personally look forward to seeing some of their party faithful speaking in tongues and praying that Jesus casts out the demons within McCain. More worryingly and much less amusing is the thought that the Republicans’ lack of organisation may accrue the advantage of their getting all the arguments out of the way, rather than having them fester beneath the surface.

There is the possibility that the Democratic convention could still become a series of debates; for example, there is still some obvious disquiet among a segment of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. I suggest that the attempts to silence them are likely to be counterproductive; let them say why they are so convinced that Hillary ought to be nominated, even though Hillary herself has backed Obama. It may seem akin to primal scream therapy, but if the party gives them space for venting their anguish, they may finally be able to move on and do something useful. If not, they’ll simply look insane and lose all remaining credibility. Forcing them underground only gives added cause for grievance and creates an atmosphere of subversion rather than principled disagreement and a process of healing. Additionally, I believe Barack is more than strong enough to face down any doubters; he’s come this far, this seems like a small gulf to bridge.

However, I doubt this will occur, and I doubt that the “bounce” will amount to much: I sincerely hope I am incorrect, but I can proclaim expertise in what constitutes “boring”, having been exposed to endless tedium by working in the technology industry. This experience has imbued me with a desire to call a halt to it whenever possible: if I were in Denver, I’d likely be approaching the nearest convention official and saying, like a Monty Python character, “I’d like to have an argument, please”. It might be helpful.