Skip to main content

Bush's speech

One of the useful things about the internet is that you can go back to source. Whereas prior to the net it was possible to get hold of the original text. Now it is very easy.

Bush's inaugural speech

has various elements to it.

"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

I suppose this is the key change. In the past the US was generally very introspective. Now the Project for a New American Century's ideology has come to the fore. This is not surprising given the Close Associations between the Bush Administration and PNAC.

"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

Tyranny is set as Bush's enemy and Liberty is his objective.

Democracy


Democracy is supposed to be the basis upon which the US is governed. Indeed the US do have elections, but gradually over time these elections have become dominated by advertising spend and election fraud.

Within the UK now a number of representatives at both local government level and parliamentary level depend upon electoral fraud to get elected. The Ukrainian elections were marred by Fraud particularly the first time. However, letter boxes are set on fire, and we have small election riots in the UK.

Democracy based upon the secret ballot is absolutely crucial to proper government, which I why I spend so much time banging on about this. Sadly under our current regime the fundamentals of democracy have been dramatically undermined with thousands of false ballots completed.

Some of the people supporting these changes make the assumption that people are less corruptible than they are. Others do it expecting electoral advantage.

In the mean time the Electoral Commission in the UK are proposing scrapping the declaration of identity. This is something which facilitates proving fraud. So they would make fraud harder to prove and then people would claim there is less fraud merely because it cannot be proven. The Electoral Reform Society have done a review into this.

So, there is no merit in Bush banging on about democracy when the democratic structures in the US and UK are so badly damaged. Personally I would not be surprised if his victory margin was less than the margin of electoral fraud in the USA.

Liberty


There is a challenge in getting the acceptance of any particular position in a country. A fair election can be part of this. It is, however, important to be aware of the political anthropology of any one country before coming to conclusions as to what approach is best.

Furthermore there is a fallacy of imperialism which is that the imperialist assumes that they understand the situation when frequently they do not. That is why it is important to be guided substantially by people in any country being considered rather than assume that a model defined by people in the US or UK will actually work.

Trying to impose a model suited to a class based society on Africa has been part of the cause of famine over time. Unless people understand exactly how the power structure operates it is a mistake trying to do anything to get involved.

Issues like the level of social capital are things which take at least one generation to change and are crucial issues in the operation of political structures.

The worst mistake the West makes is to assume that just because a regime is being nice to the West (eg Saddam Hussain in the 1980s) they are people to support.

Often the US's international adventures have come back to haunt it. (eg supporting Saddam Hussain, Osama bin Laden)

This did cause them to give up for a while.

It would be possible for the West to do something useful. That would be to work on the basis of principle rather than just responding to regimes on the basis of a combination of national interests and whether the regime is sympathetic to the west.

I am not going to hold my breath, however.

My fear of Bush's speech is that he has learnt nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Imposing a western model on a segmented society fails.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: