Charles and the Monarch's Constitutional Hara-Kiri

Republicanism on the Left has traditionally been the counter-part to a keenness for the Gold Standard on the Right: a useful indicator that the beholder has a fondness for ideas comfortably outside the political mainstream.

With the coming Jubilee the UK faces another round of ersatz debate over the monarchy. It is pointless because the relevance of this conversation will remain in stasis until the death of the Queen. Her personal popularity obfuscates any analysis of the monarchy as an institution itself.

The republican movement wastes time and precious oxygen by protesting the Jubilee. However the lifeless sails of republicanism will soon billow and strain from the hot air produced by our current Dauphin. Darwin made no comment on whether being prone to gaffs is a trait which is able to percolate through the genetic line. If it is then Charles is a child strongly of his father’s patrimony.  

The ascension of Prince Charles to the throne will be a victory for Republicanism on a scale not seen since Darth Vader reordered the constitutional foundations of the Empire by throwing the Emperor down into the abyss of the Death Star.  The British people have an affection for the current Queen which is measured by the only metric which seems to matter in modern life, opinion polling. Only the most ardent Royalist would suppose it extends to Charles.

In a liberal democracy a constitutional monarchy is popular and possible when the monarch in question realises the limits of their influence, a necessary limitation Charles has constantly chaffed against.  His influence peddling for the practitioners of pseudo-science is distasteful in particular and scrutiny over how he has used his influence will increase as he moves closer to the throne.

Romney, Gingrich and a Fleeting Consensus

The coverage of the GOP nomination fight so far has been drenched in soggy clichés confidently stating that the Republican electorate will eventually settle for Mitt Romney after flirting with a raft of other potential suitors. The coverage has mainly focused on how other candidates have exploited the weaknesses of front runner Romney, contrasting his apparent moderation with their own bona fide conservatism. This hesitance to accept Romney has led to the party spreading the electorate wealth, with three separate candidates winning the first three primaries.

Looking beyond the relative appeals of the candidates there is a structural reason for the variety of winners. In the 1980s Ronald Reagan created the coalition of social, fiscal and defence conservatives that have been the backbone of Republican electoral success since the 1980s. Until recently the GOP has treated these three positions as orthodoxy. The 2008 election was the first real sign of disunity within the coalition, with the social conservatives in particular being especially unhappy with the nomination of John McCain.

Social conservatives maintain strong doubts about Mitt Romney, finding his Mormonism unpalatable and his former moderation on social views unacceptable. Thirty years after the election of Ronald Regan social conservatives have not yet seen their most keenly held ambitions fulfilled. There has been no roll back on the legalisation of abortion or the ban on school prayer. Congress repealed 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' over the protests of social conservatives with the support of several Republican Senators. As a result they have been the most stubborn holdouts to Romney, instead favouring candidates who they consider will be more aggressive in the promotion of social conservatism.

Rick Santorum has sought to capitalise on the frustration of social conservatives as the central theme of his campaign. This frustration among social conservatives has contributed to the truncation of Romney's lead in the polls. Santorum's victory in Iowa damaged Romney's hue of inevitability and opened the door for Newt Gingrich who confounded both rational expectation and expert opinion to carry South Carolina on the back of strong debate performances.

Defence and foreign policy hawks have been given pause for thought by the rise of Ron Paul and his brand of isolationism. The more hawkish elements of the party have long been in the ascendency, but the 2010 Midterm elections saw isolationist tendencies once more appear within the Republican electorate. While Ron Paul is the only candidate who embraces a drastically insular foreign policy, he wouldn't have killed Osama Bin Laden nor would he take military action against a nuclear armed Iran, a section of the Republican electorate has clearly more become more receptive to the central isolationist tenant of his campaign. The appeal of Paul has had an effect on the race with both Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich attacking President Obama's decision to use force in support of the Libyan rebels. Only Mitt Romney has given his full throated endorsement to the traditional platform of defence conservatives, backing an open ended presence in Afghanistan in the same manner McCain did.

Only on Iran, again with the exception of Paul, is there consensus on stopping the Islamic Republic developing a nuclear device. However the Republican position on Iran is ersatz foreign policy. It features so highly on the agenda because of its appeal to a slice of domestic evangelical Christians and orthodox Jews who see Israel as under imminent mortal threat from Iran. The most fervent advocate of military action against Iran is Santorum who draws support heavily from the evangelical movement. That most Republican candidates have endorsed the possibility of action against Iran is more to do with the domestic appeal of this policy to these two groups than the electoral appeal of neo-conservatism.

The attacks from Gingrich and Santorum on Romney's record at Bain Capital are unorthodox within a Republican primary. The party has constantly referred to itself as the champion of free trade and business enterprise and Republican rhetoric praises those who create jobs and wealth. Romney himself promises to designate China as a currency manipulator and to put in place tariffs to balance against this if elected President. Protectionist sentiment concerning China's impact has usually been from the Democrats who traditionally draw support from the northern industrial states which have been squeezed by low cost of Chinese manufacturing. Perhaps this is a reflection that the issue of growing income inequality has percolated into the Republican race for the first time. While the GOP can hardly be accused of abandoning capitalism, it is interesting to see that candidates for the party's nomination can win support through attacks on 'predatory capitalists', language which used to largely be confined to the Democrats.

The attacks on Romney's record at Bain Capital in are all part of the bluster and thunder of an election race. However the attacks on the inequities of US capitalism are sticking to Romney, and Obama, from the State of the Union, will seek to press home this message in the general election. It is an interesting historical quirk that it is the Republicans who have helped manoeuvre the topic of income inequality into the centre of a general election. There is clearly an audience even within the Republican Party which is receptive to arguments on this subject.

The ideas and beliefs on which political parties profess to fight elections has over time shifted and sometimes swerved. It is not always clear if the debates and arguments seen in this primary fight are signs of any great shift in Republican thinking. However the race so far has shown that there is a space within the Republican Party for the questioning of traditional orthodoxy, particularly on foreign and fiscal affairs. Romney's primary record so far has judged him poorly on his ability to be the consensus candidate accepted by all three groups. However this primary race has revealed that parts of the conservative orthodoxy have been challenged by groups within the GOP. Romney is trying to become the consensus candidate at the moment when that consensus is beginning to change.

New blogging opportunities

I'll be publishing new material at a couple of new sites.

At Hackeryblog http://hackeryblog.wordpress.com/author/alexdimascio/

And Sabotage Times http://www.sabotagetimes.com/author/alex-di-mascio/

Hopefully I'll continue to post stuff here for you my loyal reader.

Everything in moderation, including moderation

Thus spoke Oscar Wilde

Moderation, a trait which a substantive and vocal part of the Republican electorate now openly states, is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. This logic places Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty and Daniels at a severe disadvantage at winning the nomination and really challenging Obama in the 2012 election.

All four have been governors and have differing elements of crossover appeal to the wider electorate. However this experience of governance coupled with the potential to appeal to centrist voters has not warmed any of these men to the base. While all adhere to the core principles of modern conservatism, each according to the base, has dabbled with some unspeakable heresy which rules them unfit to be the party's nominee for President. Romney enacted health care reform in Massachusetts which seems uncomfortably similar to Obama's plan. Huntsman has tacked away from the social conservatives on the issue of gay rights as well has serving the administration as ambassador to China. Pawlenty once advocated cap and trade and Daniels has suggested steering clear of social issues until after the economy is fixed.

The Tea Party, though often amorphous and contradictory, is setting the contours of the debate within the party. It shows no signs of moderating its idealogical commitments in the face of and electorate which in 2012 who will be younger, less white and right wing than 2010 electorate which swept so many of their candidates into office. As a result the otherwise more moderate candidates are having to recast their own records and views in order to appeal a base which is increasingly conservative.

Romney's experience within the party shows the danger of doing this. He quickly embraced the social conservative default on both abortion and gay marriage, while simultaneously stating that his Massachusetts health care proposal was fine at the state level but the almost identical version of it rolled out by Obama was unconstitutional and financially reckless. As the result Romney has managed to recast himself not as the man of all seasons but as the man with two faces. A once plausible candidate with a strong economic record is distrusted by the socially conservative base who rightly notice that he is an inauthentic messenger for their deeply held beliefs while independents and moderates have been put off by his lurch to the right. Ultimately Romney will suffer from his win-at-all costs strategy in 2008 where he overreached in selling himself to conservative voters at the expense of broader national appeal. That or they pull out all together as Daniels did, either not wishing to engage in such intellectual gymnastics or perhaps guessing that he as a moderate would be better served running in 2016.

With the unemployment numbers as they are and the entire national debate being consumed by economic issues it is astonishing that candidates with high profile business and management experience have either decided or been forced by the intellectual climate in their party to focus on their adherence to idealogical sacred cows over social issues, climate change and the debt ceiling. It's interesting that Daniels, one of the stronger candidates, has withdrawn entirely perhaps to save himself for 2016 not wishing to taint his “brand” with the concessions he'd have to make in order to win the 2012 election.

Democracy is fundamentally about competition. The Tea Party's adherence to idealogical commitments above all else will undermine this competition if they are allowed to set the the tone of the debate within the Republican party. The Republicans cannot hope to recapture centrist voters when part of their base sees Mitt Romney's ability to speak French as elitist and out of touch with what they call the “Real America”.   

Why Nick Got the Blues

Many have wondered why Nick Clegg has thrown the fate of his party and his own political fortunes, once riding so high, in with a program of financial austerity which was always going to be politically unpopular. Why has he placed the survival of the coalition ahead of treasured Lib Dem policies like the scrapping of tuition fees? There are two answers, one the background of Clegg himself and two the fear of being blamed for undermining a government which has a severe economic crises to deal with.

Much has been made of Clegg's social background and the parallels with Cameron which have enabled a harmonious relationship between both leaders. However while the personal relationship between Cameron and Clegg is probably important it's hardly enough to keep the coalition together during periods of strife. Clegg's background as an MEP has been largely ignored by the UK press, who have always maintained that European politics is a form of exile. The flippant dismissal of his background in European politics ignores that EU politics consists heavily of coalitions and compromise between parties. To what extent then has his background in European politics informed his decision making over the domestic?

Clegg's priority has been to maintain the stability of the coalition as he needs to show that they are a viable form of government for the UK which has been traditionally used to a single party being in charge. The UK public is used to governments which have the discipline and power to enact change on their own terms. Clegg has calculated that they would not tolerate a coalition in a time of financial crises if their contribution was seen to be excessively obstructionist. To 'break the public' in to the idea of coalitions, for want of a better metaphor, Clegg has viewed decisions through the lens of coalition integrity. For better or for worse the coalition must stand if the Liberal Democrats are to be seen as a responsible governing party.

They key word there is 'excessively'. To what extent will the public and the Lib Dem voters accept acquiescence towards the Conservatives in the name of government stability. Clegg was hammered and rightly so for his capitulation on tuition fees, with the public rightly reckoning that he and the senior party leadership rolled far too easily on the issue of the fee increase. Thus is the unpleasant role of the junior coalition member. Can you exert influence without being considered a hostage taker? Will your compliance be viewed as collaboration?

I would argue that Clegg was correct in recognising that the public would not have tolerated the Liberal Democrats, as the party who came in third, taking the policy initiative in the aftermath of the election. While Cameron did not win outright, he still pulled in the largest number of seats and thus possessed the legitimacy to govern. What has dammed Clegg is his party's derogation from the 'Mr Nice' role in front line politics. No longer will the Liberal Democrats be able to offer what amounts to a money laundering service in politics. Vote for us and you've participated in democracy and because we'll never get into power your vote will never connected with the dirty business of actual government.

Alex Salmond: Living the Dream

Could First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, take up the legendary mantel of Peter Risdale and economically destroy an institution he professes to love, largely to appease his own ego? Let me explain.

We remember back to those halcyon days, when Leeds were not only in the Premier League but challenging Manchester Utd for the title. More impressive was the run all the way to the semi-final of the Champions league where they were eventually beaten by runners up Valencia. Unfortunately if Leeds were adopt the mantel of legend it was to be of Icarus, rather than Hercules. Their flight to the top was financially disastrous with the the club splashing out on expensive players like Rio Ferdinand, gambling that continued, extended runs in Europe would fund their purchase and wages. To complete the metaphor , Leeds flew too close to the sun, eventually plummeting into the depths of League 1 as the financial adhesive which kept them airborne disintegrated. The experience of Leeds, serves a cautionary tale not just in football, but is an effective warning against hubris in other less important arenas. The governance of Scotland for example.

The rest of the SNP victory in these Parliamentary elections was the collapse of the Labour and Liberal Democrat vote, with these voters defecting largely to the SNP. This has handed the party a majority of seats, winning 69 out of the 129 available. As a result, this gives the SNP the chance to bring a long held dream to fruition, a referendum on independence. There are several issues of interest here.

To start on a lighter note, parts of the right-wing press have furiously denounced Labour as both architects of devolution, which has brought this constitutional calamity to a head by allowing those rouge Scots an independent parliament. Secondly they attack Labour and the Liberal Democrats for failing to 'hold the line in Scotland'. Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph refers to the 'little people' who run Scottish Labour as being no match for the political skills of Alex Salmond and as a result has brought us 'to the break up of the Union'. There is a certain irony in the Tories, who have long abandoned Scotland electorally, criticising the two parties who are still electorally relevant in Scotland for not stopping the SNP. What a potential Scottish referendum might bring is a debate on the nature of governance in the UK, over the centralising power of Westminster vs the desire for constitutional institutions which draw their power and legitimacy from the region which they represent. Fat chance, a debate over Scottish independence, and ultimately the fate of the union will be more underhanded, intellectually pointless than the AV referendum. With the three Westminster parties and the SNP playing for keeps, a referendum will not be a pleasant affair.

Right, back to Peter Risdale. The second, more pressing issue for Scotland is if increased political independence is worth truncating the Union as well as splitting Scotland off from the larger economic unit of the UK. Salmond has spoken in grandiose language about the establishment of a renewable energy manufacturing base, which will help to re-industrialise Scotland. The critical issue is over the North Sea oil and gas, can this provide the needed capital to re-invest in Scotland and make it economically viable in a globalised economy. Opponents of independence, frequently point to the importance of the bloc grant from Westminster to Scotland's economic performance as well as its provision of social services. Salmon's greatest test as a politician will be to explain that the potential for cuts in social services are a price worth paying for independence or that they will not manifest in any meaningful way.

If this is the case then Salmond will be recast as Peter Risdale but now in charge of a nation. Can the desire for what Salmond sees as the ultimate prize be reconciled with economic realities? If Scotland does vote to seek independence, then the best of luck to them both politically and economically. However what Salmond might discover is that the numbers simply don't add up and that these grandiose ambitions will be worth nothing if Scotland cannot rapidly establish itself as a viable nation state. If not a slow decent into the lower league of nations is on the cards. On the upside, scraping to defeat Liechtenstein’s football team wont be as bad in comparison.

My Three Foreign Policy Books

My Three Foreign Policy Books

1. Icarus Syndrome – Peter Beinart

I really enjoyed reading Icarus Syndrome, it's an extremely well written book by an eloquent commentator and previous advocate for liberal interventionism. Beinart, like Hitchens and other liberal hawks backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This excellent book is partly a way of Beinart explaining why he and other liberal interventionists supported the war and part how a nation like the US could be seduced by moments of hubris which would lead to ruination.

This book analyses three distinct and important periods in the history of American foreign policy: the Paris Peace Accords of 1919, the Vietnam War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Beinart discusses why the US made certain critical decisions during these three critical junctures and how the repercussions have shaped the US's role and outlook in the world.

The book is not a comprehensive history of the three periods. For this I would recommend Paris 1919, The Best and the Brightest and the Rise of the Vulcans. What Beinart offers is to show how the lessons and perceived lessons that have resulted from major world events have been learnt and internalised by institutions and individuals. Beinart's work shows how these perceived lessons are just as important in shaping policy as hard facts. This attention to the perceived lessons is the most intriguing part of the book as it reveals an often unappreciated part of diplomatic history. What individuals and institutions take from situations will shape policy often regardless of the facts on the ground. Both governments and societies should not ingrain any lesson or maxim to the extent that it can overrule what is clearly in front of them.

2. The Shia Revival – Vali Nasser

This book is important as it is a telling reminder that there was a Middle East, with its own rich history and internal rivalries long before the West became involved in the region. Islam's great divide between Shia and Sunni has set the tune to the movements of different countries and groups of the region and it continues to do so despite the influence of oil, terrorism and other external factors. The book shows how recent developments in the region fit into the much longer history of the Sunni/Shia struggle and how the preferences and beliefs of the two groups has shaped their fortunes up to now.

The most interesting and eye opening theme that I encountered is the almost forgotten idea that the 2003 has not just affected the region vis a vis the West. Western involvement, especially the invasion of Iraq has unsettled the balance of power and history between the two groups with the primary beneficiary of the toppling of Saddam being Iran. Vasser shows how the Shia have an chance to recast parts of the Middle East in their favour and that this will be strongly resisted by the Sunni states, focused around Saudi Arabia. The tensions between these two states will be the defining factor over regional stability.

The key issue is that policies will be lost in the region if they do not respect that Western efforts will feed into a larger history of the region rather than supplanted it.

3. Descent into Chaos – Ahmed Rashid

It's important to read a book about how things go wrong, how the best intentions can be for nothing and how a few critical mistakes can have such a terribly detrimental effect on both policy and the fate of a nation.

Rashid describes this elegantly in Descent into Chaos as he charts how the twin US objectives to both thwart Al Qaeda and develop Afghanistan often clashed to the detriment of both. Throw in a generous helping of cynicism from many in the Bush Administration coupled with the inevitable problems involved with such an ambitious nation building project and the causes of the in problems in Afghanistan becomes clearer.

The book elegantly imparts a large amount of information, imparting both a comprehensive picture of the fate of Afghanistan since the 9/11 attacks as well as portraying how errors, miss steps and chance have shaped it. This focus on the unintended consequences is the general theme of my three picks. What the West gleaned from the demise of the USSR was an overconfidence in capability of our arms and the extent of our knowledge. Instead of recognising our lack of appropriate knowledge about the rest of the world we insisted it could be reformed into an copy of ourselves. The West has had to relearn this humility at great cost to the prestige of its nations and the lives of so many of its citizens.