‘Silly Season’ time again this side of the Pond. This used to mean, apart from obscure foreign interest stories, nothing much happened for a couple of months in the Summer. That paradigm has changed (if it ever really existed). News and politics is a constant cycle now; there is never a real break from events or a crisis. Life, it all of the petty squabbles and great issues continues remorselessly.
One such place where the beat goes on is during an interminable succession race for the Labour Party leadership. There is absolute panic among moderates and Blairites after a Yougov poll gave Jeremy Corbyn the lead. Cue the media gleeing (who are overwhelmingly anti-Labour) and promoting of Corbyn’s cause knowing that it his election would ultimately lead to electoral disaster for the party. Some of this is pure mischief making, more is unfounded speculation with weeks still to go but some of the analysis is real and sincere. Labour would be taking a massive gamble if they were to elect Jeremy Corbyn as their new Leader. This would be a huge leap into political dark matter – a stupendous risk.
Jeremy Corbyn’s analysis of global capital is something anyone the Left would find hard to really argue with. But like all his predecessors from the Hard Left ‘Campaign’ group, we are into ways and means. The most obvious issue around this election is where the party members want Labour to position themselves? A Jeremy Corbyn win would be that equivalent of the party electing Alex Tsipras; but a Tsipras that wouldn’t sell out on his left wing principles. It’s hard to see how many of Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet, let alone the remaining Blairites, could offer any loyalty to a man they believe will write them another 1983 manifesto, famously described by Gerald Kaufman as ‘the longest suicide note in history’. It really pains this writer to say this, but Tony Blair is right when he says Labour can not seek a comfort blanket after their post-election blues. Make no doubt about it, the Party was traumatised in May. A big if, but if it had not been for Scotland and the Bogeyman of the SNP, Ed Miliband would be in 10 Downing Street now. The party is still in a state of shock but each member, trade unionist and elected member needs to decide if Labour wants to be predominantly a party of principle that probably won’t win an election for another 15 years, or if they want to be a Movement, that believes in the idealism of the Centre-Left but recognises the need to be in Government to implement change.
One of the more depressing aspects (from a Left perspective) of the Greek crisis, is how powerless the Hard and Soft Left are against Global Capital. Labour electors need to take a hard look at the lessons from Athens. Britain is nowhere near the debt level that will enslave the Greeks for generations but the Syriza failure is a stark warning of what happens to a political movement that takes Capital on in a straight head-to-head battle. Capital, these days, is always winner. The Soft Left, Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists need to learn lessons from this – to think smarter, to realise that they are in for the incremental long-term. This is not easy; the Left is in tailspin but times and things do change. It’s no revolutionary slogan but it is reality.
That is why Labour voters should think twice before they mark their ballot papers for Leader and Deputy Leader. Liz Kendall would equally be a disaster for the party; she’s shown every intention of throwing everything out the window that makes Labour not the Tories.. The structural issues in Britain need a John Smith figure now, not a Tony Blair one. Liz Kendall would be an enormously alienating figure that could condemn any hope of a Labour revival in Scotland. She was an early media favourite but is now being pressurised within the Party to drop out to stop Corbyn. Liz Kendall may have a lot to offer, but the offer isn’t leading a demoralised party back into power. That is for others to do.
The real choice to be made is between two perfectly capable candidates wiling to grip and lead the party from the Centre-Left. Both Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper would make fine leaders who would steer the party in the right direction. Any elector that votes with their head and heart would have to see this. The strange days of Summer have thrown up a leadership contest that gets to the heart of what the party stands for. If the electors choose Burnham or Cooper, they’ll have demonstrated that they’re serious about getting back into government sooner rather than way, way later.
American politics never ceases to entertain, appal and amaze. With the entry of Jeb bush into the Presidential Race, we have the very real prospect of another Clinton v Bush contest, a whopping 24 years after the 1992 original. In life and political terms, that’s a whole generation ago; for this author (in his early Forties), it would be like looking back into the 1950s to election races a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. What lies ahead for Clinton-Bush redux? What are the strengths and weaknesses for both individuals?
2016 is a long way away if we heed to the maxim that a week is a long time in politics. However, even this far in advance, the importance of getting a good start and dominating the process will be at the forefront of both campaigns. They will both be aiming to be the ‘TINA’ candidates; they will hope to turn round to their respective Parties and say ‘Look, There.Is.No.Alternative’. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush will be seeking to have the race over before it has begun. This is politics where the winner not only takes all, but all opposition is destroyed in the process.
Let’s look at Jeb Bush. Purportedly the smarter of the brothers – quiet at the back there – Jeb is a moderate in Republican terms. This means he has taken stances that won’t appeal to the Base but may gain traction with the wider electorate. The problem is if, and there’s a long way to go, if he gets the nomination, he may already have been portrayed as a latter-day Romney; privileged, protecting the interests of the 1% and part of a dynasty out of touch with the aspirations of middle America.
Yet he has strengths. He is articulate. He is the Republican that could win back much of the Hispanic vote that went Democrat in 2012. He speaks fluent Spanish, for goodness sake. His moderate stances and positions, by Republican calibrations, mean that he can potentially reach out beyond the Angry Constituency that is much of the GOP Primary vote. He may well get the early backing of Big Money and Republican Party grandees keen to avoid the circus-like atmosphere of the 2012 nomination process. In short, he is a very strong candidate and has real prospects of blowing other candidates out of the water. He could have the Party Nomination sewn up well before it becomes a Race; he is already a hot favourite.
What of HRC? Let’s look at her weaknesses first; some of which may also be seen as strengths. She too is part of a dynasty, albeit by marriage. She has a partisan legacy that still isn’t totally dispelled; older voters may not warm to her, she may be seen as overly ambitious (would the same be said about a male candidate and on the same terms? Perhaps not). Then there’s the question of where she really stands on anything; is she a conviction politician or more of a ‘Traingulator’ like her husband Bill?Will President Clinton (Bill) lose it during the campaign? Will Left-wing Democrats come out and eventually vote for someone who can easily be perceived as on the economic Right of the Party? Will Monica Lewinsky’s name come up again and again? All of these factors are negatives that will have been gamed and planned on by the Spin Doctors. But Hillary’s positives may far outweigh her negatives.
She has name recognition that surpasses Jeb Bush’s. Bill will be a formidable campaigner on the stump and 2016 will be a repeat of the adage that if you vote for one, you get two. Bill Clinton has become hugely popular since his retirement. They will be an incredibly united and determined couple; Jeb Bush will be taking on a formidable team. HRC will be able to tap into as much corporate wealth as Bush will; see how much she’ll raise on from the West Coast Silicon Valley moguls compared to Bush Wall Street money. Hillary can make history by becoming the first female President and if nominated she will have Obama touring the stump for her, making some more ’08 style Home Run speeches. It would be the arc of history in full sweep; Obama supporting his once defeated rival. For all these reasons, HRC will be tough to beat.
Anything can happen between now and the next US General Election. But it is rare that at such an early stage, pundits are predicting who the two nominees will be. There is many a slip between cup and lip; lots can go wrong for both individuals before 2016. This contest may lack the excitement and rhetoric of 2008 but it could be epic nonetheless. Once again, the Game of Thrones is taking place; whether it is Clinton or Bush that survives the clash of the dynasties, well, this is one that is beyond the power of the prognosticators.
Didn’t see that one coming at all. Neither did most commentators, politicians, or the Public. While there are some grounds to think that Labour knew all along that they were running behind the Tories, the scale of their defeat left many supporters devastated. So what was behind the Shy Tories? What were the reasons behind a relatively comfortable victory for the Conservative Party? How did Cameron manage to pull off the first Conservative majority in 23 years?
Those of us who remember 1992 and John Major’s shock Election win will say that this seems familiar. It’s that sinking, depressing feeling of knowing that there’s five more years of the same to come. A small but significant amount of voters are just too embarrassed to tell opinion
pollsters of their voting intentions. They’d rather say they’re in the undecided camp than admit to being a Tory. Cameron doesn’t care; as long as he gets the votes at the end of the day, he’ll take as many Shy Tories as he can handle. Some things can be just too embarrassing to admit, and it appears that being a Conservative is such an embarrassment for some voters.
Weak leader. Oh, it’s so easy to be right with hindsight. Miliband, Ed, was not the Alpha Male or tough Blair clone. Even his fans, and yes, there were some, would never have gone that far in their descriptions. But he was and is a decent man with some excellent ideas about how to make Britain a fairer and more democratic country. The Conservative Press will be content to run with the ‘Wrong Brother’ narrative but we can never know if Miliband the Elder would have mitigated the damage enough to have justified his selection as leader. Ed Miliband had his faults but the Conservative media coverage of him was tantamount to bullying a lot of the time. Cameron the Bullingdon Boy took on the Fresher who looked geeky. The Tabloid Press outdid itself again in being trivial, boorish and predictable. Never underestimate the ability of Yellow Journalism to outdo itself again and again.
Although it really galls most decent people to acknowledge it, Lynton Crosby played an absolute blinder. Negative and nasty, Crosby and Cameron crafted an almost perfect campaign. They were blessed with having a resurgent Scottish Nationalist Party that decimated Labour north of the border. Remember, the Tories did their level best to talk up the SNP against Labour in Scotland and use the Nats as a Bogey Man in the south. As a wedge issue, it had a huge impact in 2015. Crosby tries to hit on dog-whistle subjects; he appealed to some of the subconscious instincts in swing voters with the effective but false question of asking if they trusted Ed Miliband with the Union and with the Scottish Nationalists. A sufficient amount of those voters were convinced enough to put Cameron back into Number 10. Paul Mason, among others, has posited that the Tories relied on the propertied English to rebut the Social Democratic Scots.
The Conservatives were absolutely ruthless in how they dealt with their erstwhile coalition partners. This was a decapitation strategy on an enormous scale. The Liberal Democrats were utterly shell-shocked after their worst result since the 1970s. All the talk of them being a permanent party of government has evaporated like the dew in the morning. They learned a cruel lesson; it is the minor party that usually gets the raw deal in any post-coalition election. Nick Clegg’s fall from grace has been stellar; the Liberal Democrats lost many excellent MPs. It will be a slow, long comeback for them. They will be wary of ever going into government again.
Cameron’s election promise on tax seemed like folly at the time. How can anyone promise not to put up tax for the duration of a parliament? Yet, this is exactly the kind of distancing from Labour that Crosby will have suggested. This, along with the right to buy social housing, provided Cameron with Clear Blue Water. The cynicism is breathtaking; how any government can read the economic runes for the next five years is beyond this humble scribe. The may well be hoisted on their own petard on this one.
To the victor the spoils. The Tories can now implement the kind of agenda they were only dreaming about a mere few weeks ago. If you’re not with them, you’re against them. The next five years will probably see the Tories Americanise the welfare state and privatise much of the NHS. There’s danger ahead south of Calais of course as ‘Europe’ once more becomes a make or break issue for a Tory Prime Minister. On a worst case scenario, Cameron could lose Scotland AND lose the in-out European referendum. Don’t write off a Labour revival yet; politics never ceases to surprise.
Tory Target Keeps Moving
So is it ‘Red Ed’ or ‘Stud Ed’ or ‘Geek Ed’? Less than a month to go to the British General Election and the Tories and their newspaper allies still can’t make up their mind on how they should paint
Miliband. Is he ruthless – the kind of sneaky sibling who would knife his own brother in the back – or is he weak, an Islington Policy Wonk with no knowledge of the real world? This is a genuine problem for the Conservatives; they’re relying on Ed Miliband being the weak link in the Labour chain. In fact, it’s been a faulty campaign truism for the Tories; they’ve taken for granted that the Electorate would be so put off by the younger brother that labour would be tanking in the polls. Instead, Labour are, by some recent polls, ahead and in the driving seat to form a coalition, at the very least, in the next Government. If most voters aren’t scared of Ed, and remember there is still plenty of time for some Kinnock-style monstering from the Tory Press, then David Cameron’s goose has been well and truly cooked. There is, however, the chance that the Conservatives will go relentlessly negative; the evidence from this type of campaigning is mixed – negative can work in certain circumstances. Lynton Crosby is relying on a few more cards up his sleeve; whether it is enough to stop Miliband from heading into Downing Street, we will find out very soon. Many are saying this is the closest election in decades; at this snapshot in time, it is slight advantage to the Labour Party.
Scotland the Kingmaker
Labour’s woes in Scotland are substantial. The take from the Independence Referendum is that they might have won the battle but they are losing the war. Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP are resurgent. Never a really national party before, they are all set to wipe out the Labour ascendancy north of Hadrian’s Wall. Jim Murphy has been given the hapless task of trying to save enough seats from the wreckage to keep the Labour dream of an overall Westminster majority alive. There are some slim causes for hope – the odds still favour a Labour decimation – that will give Murphy fire in his belly in the adrenalin fuelled coming weeks. Firstly, Gordon Brown saved the Union and is still a hugely popular and respected figure; Scottish Labour would be mad not to have him out on the campaign stump and it would be a major surprise if this Big Beast doesn’t start roaring. Secondly, SNP policies on spending and the prospect of another independence vote are starting to come under the sort of forensic examination one gets during a general election campaign. Nicola Sturgeon is enjoying an electoral honeymoon but from here on in, the campaign is for her to lose. Thirdly, Scottish Labour have logistical experience and boots on the ground; you can have as many Twitter supporters as you like but unless people get out and canvass for you, your opponents can make hay at your expense. If Labour are destroyed in Scotland and the only practical coalition post-election is Labour with SNP support, then politically, we’re into almost completely uncharted territory. Perhaps the only comparison is back to before the First World War and the Irish Parliamentary Party supporting the Liberals. Whatever happens, the ‘Scottish Question’ hasn’t gone away; Scotland will shape the next Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Suppose David Cameron does it. He could. He could get enough votes in swing constituencies in the South to become the largest party by twenty seats or so. The polls are mixed on this. If he is just a nose ahead of Labour, then his moral authority to form a government will have been severely weakened. He may well get first approach on forming a government, but it would be difficult for a Left-leaning Liberal Democrats to re-enter a coalition. But if the SNP incapacitate Labour in Scotland and enough voters look to their wallet and UKIP peak and/or decline, then there’s a reasonable chance of Cameron getting back into Downing Street. He is relying on a lot of variables, more than the Labour Party are, for his clear path back to power. For DC to get back to Number Ten, Labour must fail disastrously in Scotland (likely but not guaranteed), UKIP most implode (possible but not probable) and the Liberal Democrats must hold their own in seat numbers and come back with either Nick Clegg as their leader (looking dubious) or with an ‘Orange Book’ new leader (this may be a step too far for the grassroots). A Tory minority government with Liberal Democrat ‘supply’ support seems unworkable and the Conservatives will need to storm ahead if they’re to get into Minority Rule with DUP/Ulster Unionist ‘supply’ votes. It is difficult, at this juncture, to see how David Cameron will be Prime Minister rather than Ed Miliband. Three weeks, however, is a long time in politics.
David Axelrod is a giant among Spin Merchants and Political Communicators. Renowned as Barack Obama’s ‘Keeper of the Flame’, ‘Axe’ has put his life thus far to words in ‘Believer – 40 Years in Politics’. For any student and observer of American Politics, this is to be welcomed. Republicans will hate this – it’s a take on how Progressives can win elections if they’re prepared not to be ‘Swift-Boated’; ‘Axe’ loves a good fight.
Have a close up look at David Axelrod’s heart and you’ll see Chicago written all over it. The ‘Windy City’ is painted as a maddening, addictive, corrupt, idealistic place where politics can be brutal. ‘Axe’ grounded his skills as a Political Reporter in the Chicago Tribune. He writes movingly of his mother and father, an accomplished journalist/focus group pioneer and psychotherapist respectively. He barely graduated from the University of Chicago; he was spending so much time as a cub reporter. There is tragedy in his 20s when his father commits suicide. But instead of this breaking him, Axelrod somehow drew on his depths of resilience to start his climb in the Political Consultancy World. It was a journey that would take him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
And what a business to be in. Axelrod writes of the need for a candidate to be fundamentally sound; they must believe in something at their core. He rejects the notion of the Svengali, despite his own success, he can only do so much with the raw material he’s working with. He has some rough words for John Edwards and other candidates he believes didn’t hit the mark. He nearly got the senior gig in the Gore 2000 campaign; who knows how History may have been different if Axelrod had decided not to sit this one out (due to his daughter Lauren having a particularly acute form of epilepsy). His wife Susan is credited as a rock, providing balance and grounding throughout his high-adrenaline career.
The Obama-Biden 08 Campaign must rank as one of the greatest political campaigns in US Presidential History. A freshman Senator, up against essentially both the Clintons and a start-up beginning with nothing and raising hundreds of millions of dollars went on to win an epic political slugfest. Perhaps Axelrod saw Obama as a kindred spirit; a Progressive with edge, standing up for Main Street America and willing to be bold to achieve his goals. Only Barack Obama could have made such a commanding speech on Race as the Rev Wright controversy at one stage threatened to derail the campaign. Axelrod writes with a great sense of flair and pride about the time when Hope did seem to have won out over Fear.
But then we arrive at the famous Mario Cuomo maxim; we campaign in poetry but govern in prose. The First Obama Administration was a bruising Reality Check to the President’s belief that a bi-partisan approach could work in Washington. The Health Care victory and saving the US Economy from possible Depression are two enormous achievements but Team Obama had to fight tooth and nail for even small victories. The scorched earth strategy adopted by the Republicans, particularly after the rise of the Tea Party, meant that every compromise Obama was forced into was seen by his Left political base as folding in to GOP demands. Axelrod brings us into the White House tensions and triumphs. We get a fine sense of the sheer demands put on anyone working in the West Wing. Obama has many qualities, but he is only human and while ‘Axe’ shows the Commander-in-Chief to be mostly in control, he shows how even the great Calm One is prone to frustration when he is unable to steer events his way
Axelrod is on more comfortable ground discussing the 2012 campaign, where he was re-activated as Chief Strategist. This was a much more difficult call than 2008; the economy was barely recovering and Obama did not have the usual incumbent advantages. So while the Democrats campaigned on the electoral maths, they were fortunate to have an opponent who was a cartoon Rich Guy. Romney became the gift that kept giving; the ‘Mother Jones’ scoop on his deriding 47% of the American population as slackers was particularly totemic. Here was Mitt among his wealthy backers saying what he really thought and it was alarming. ‘Axe’ was careful to stroke the party base in 2012; play to the Centre but tilt to the Left. The strategy was brilliantly executed with Obama running out a comfortable winner, much to the shock of the Romneyites.
Axelrod’s autobiography is an excellent account of how elections are won and lost. While it’s undoubtedly extremely tough and sometime rough at the top in his chosen profession, he shows that the ‘Spindoctors’ who try to control the gears, engine and steering of modern campaigning are as important as the candidate with the message. But the candidate must have a message and ‘Axe’s President spoke clearly to the American people in 2008 and 2012. President Obama owes Axelrod no small amount of thanks for his electoral success.
‘Believer – My Forty Years in Politics’ – David Axelrod, Penguin Press, pp 490
The Axelrod Effect?
What is David Axelrod doing for Ed Miliband and the Labour Party? There have been some sceptics questioning whether he’s doing anything at all. He may be doing a lot more than people are crediting him for and he is more than happy for it to be seen that way. This writer has a theory and would not be surprised to see this confirmed after the 2015 General Election.
The 2012 US Presidential Election was a comfortable win for the incumbent. Yet, it was never a foregone conclusion. The riskiest strategy the Democrats used was what won it for them in the end. Obama is no Left-Wing Populist, as per Elizabeth Warren and much of his party base. But he green lighted the plan to run a campaign of ‘Us versus Richie Rich (Romney)’. This was risky because the Republicans tried to portray this as the politics of envy and class war. Ultimately, the GOP candidate shot himself in the foot with his ‘47%’ debacle. The Democratic strategy successfully painted their opponent into a corner. The 2012 Election became, in parts, a nuanced Left v Right battle; the dividing line drawn by Obama, with Axelrod’s help, allowed for a clear differentiation between the incumbent President and his hapless challenger. Romney was outplayed from the start.
Now, let’s look at what’s been going on in the past fortnight. Ed Miliband has been campaigning hard on the issue of Tax Avoidance and Evasion. The Tories are seeking to have Labour tarred with the same brush; this may not be effective. Look at the company Cameron keeps and you have a gift for Labour that keeps on giving. Tax Dodging Tory Supporters are coming out of the woodwork. It is the old, perhaps inauthentic, but public battle of who is on the side of the people; who is really on the side of ‘hard-working families’? (In the US, the battleground is for the amorphous ‘Middle Class’).If Labour can make the Old Etonians look out of touch and habitués of a Golden Circle, then it’s very much advantage Miliband.
So where does David Axelrod come in? It looks like he is either behind or supportive of the 2012 Playbook Strategy for the 2015 British General Election. The political systems in the two nations are sometimes as different as chalk and cheese. Fairness and notions of what seems right are universal concepts though. Sometimes the most obvious line of attack is the one to be played. Axelrod is an astute political observer; he knows Miliband’s real and perceived weaknesses. But he also knows a strong message when he sees one; the campaign maven from Chicago may give Ed that extra push to get him into 10 Downing Street. ‘Axe’ knows the British print media is disproportionately hostile to his latest client and will seek to reach over the newspapers on key defining issues. When the post-Election books are published, we’ll know the real contribution that David Axelrod made to Miliband’s ascension to power.
The election of Syriza has put it up to the austerity-fundamentalists. In the words of the new Greek Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, Greece should be able to negotiate a commercial bankruptcy just as any other commercial bankruptcy can be done. The country has been ravaged by years of counter-productive, swingeing austerity. Proponents of the slash and burn approach point to growth in the economy. This is of the old Vietnam War School of Economics; we have to destroy the village to preserve it. Of course there’s going to be growth once economic productivity has stopped falling; the only way is up.
There’s a strange, quasi-religious fervour to many of the austerity hawks; a moral judgement is being made on a whole country and peoples. Syriza face some really tough choices; it may come down to the country leaving the Euro. This could bring the whole house of cards down; Washington Consensus advocates will then really be hoisted on their own petards. As for the political leaders that have told Greece to go to Hell, they might do well to remember that the European Union consists as a social as well as an economic entity. The next few weeks will see if the austerity pushers are prepared to compromise and what could happen if they don’t.
The US President goofing around with a Selfie-Stick and mugging in front of a bathroom mirror provided some much-needed humour on the Internet last week. Obama was promoting Health Care Insurance registration and the people at Buzzfeed helped produce a funny video for just that. What was the (predictable) Republican reaction? The President is being Unpresidential! How dare he take time out of his busy schedule to promote his own policies! Who does he think he is, the President? Humour is the best way of undermining an opponent and if his critics just don’t get it, they don’t get it. In his own words, ‘Thanks Obama!’.
Freedom of speech outweighs the freedom to take offence: religious maniacs, terrorists and Jihadis have some gall to take protection in the West and then seek to destroy it from within. Their offence-seeking is pathetic if it weren’t so dangerous. What the Hebdo cartoonists did was offensive; if it offends you that your Omnipotent God is belittled by a drawing, and you think it’s acceptable to threaten to kill or then eventually murder your enemy, then you have no God, or at least you have a savage and vindictive one. Many international media organisations won’t reprint the most controversial cartoons out of fear of threats to their staff. On a basic level, who would you rather hang-out with: a bunch of piss-takers or a group of utterly ruthless zealots? Do we stand with the Mischief Makers or with the Jihadists? When it comes to binaries, there really is only one choice.
Islamic Fundamentalism is real. It is a minority point of view but growing due to compound malign influences; Saudi/Wahabbist-sponsored Madrassas pre-date both gulf wars and litany of hatred of Western values is pumped out from these ‘educational’ establishments. The recent BBC ‘Panorama’ episode shows that there is an alarming growth in extremism among young Muslim males in Britain. While the comparatively recent wars in Iraq and Israel’s shameful and degrading ‘war’ on the Palestinians are grounds for saying that events have radicalised a younger generation, Islamic Fundamentalist hatred of freedom of thought and expression was grounded in the Rushdie affair before the first gulf war. It is a longstanding hatred.
Which brings us on to the ‘Whatabouttery’ of the Cultural Marxists and Hard Left. Within a few short hours of pseudo-symapathy for the dead, the Hard Left started switching the blame away from a coterie of murderous thugs to, variously, the French themselves, Western Leaders in general, Racism (the concept) and the US in particular. These relativists looked increasingly more ridiculous with each new pivot; it seems they would rather the chaos of cultural and political collapse than the solidarity of Democrats uniting in opposing religious intolerance and barbarism.We can all go back to Cain and Abel to uncover the roots of violence but we need to accept responsibility for our actions, now. A Popular Front is always stronger in combating racism and intolerance than the sectarian strife supported by some on the Left.
Which brings us to France itself. The French state has a proud tradition of human rights at home, and a disastrous and – that word again – shameful – colonial past, But there is a democratic consensus that can and has come out strongly against intolerance, racial hatred and ‘balkanisation’ of race and religion. They can do this by upholding the values of the Republic; this includes respect for diversity, from all sides. There needs to be a further shunning of the National Front by all the mainstream parties; fascism and Islamic Fundamentalism need each other to thrive, both are repugnant to democrats.
The recent attacks show how precarious a democratic state can be. Two or three days of madness can have citizens asking fundamental questions about what holds them together.Voting is one such mechanism that keeps us joined at the sinews; we can all complain about a vote not making a difference or that they’re all the same or that the power structure can’t be properly changed from within. But if you don’t vote, they get in. In France, there are serious issues that can only be addressed through democratic consent and assent. French citizens need to, and will, stand by the Republic now more than ever.
We still have more that unites us than divides us; basic needs, altruistic aspirations and a higher evolved belief to do onto others as we would do onto ourselves.The ‘golden rule’ unites all religions and none. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights evolved out of the terrible destruction of two world wars. There is a strength in democratic solidarity; let’s not let the dividers win. Charlie Hebdo stood up to bullies and paid the ultimate price. Let’s stand up for their memory and their legacy. Vive La Revolution, Vive La France!