by the Political Idealist

New York Chooses A Dash of Liberalism

The US has had its first spate of elections since the Presidential vote in 2012. The governorships of New Jersey and Virginia were contested, as was the Mayoralty of New York City. There were no great surprises: the moderate Republican Chris Christie (who is to the GOP what Ken Clarke is to the Conservative Party) was comfortably re-elected in Democratic-leaning NJ, whist the Democrats secured victory in Virginia.

But, as the title suggests, this post is centred on New York, where Bill de Blasio (D) defeated Joe Lhota (R) with a majority of about 45%- that’s right: de Blasio has won an astounding 72% of the vote. What makes this even more surprising to an outsider is that de Blasio is about as leftwing as it is possible to be in American politics, described as an old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberal. Although genuine liberals are all too often out of fashion in the Democratic Party, it seems that de Blasio’s positions on issues such as the eye-watering inequality that exists in his city (and a police force that’s slightly too trigger happy with its anti-terror powers) have struck a chord with New Yorkers.

In my country, New York is seen as a city of glamour, towering apartment blocks, busy and often aggressive people, and a bustling metropolis where millionaire bankers and the downtrodden working class live and work in startling proximity. In many ways, NYC is simply a reflection of London twenty years or so into the future.

(By the way, the original York is infinitely better than both its namesake and London: it’s a leafy, people-shaped city in which there is a calmer approach to life.)

So when de Blasio talked of “two cities”, communities of rich and poor who share the same physical space but live entirely lives, he has identified an awful trend which is fracturing our societies as they have never been divided in the modern age. It’s the sort of ‘soft segregation’ that will make harmonious democracy impossible if we allow it to grow and reinforce itself unchecked.

Of course, there are severe limitations to the powers of the Mayor of New York, and the progressive tax rises de Blasio has pledged will need the approval of New York state in Albany. Even then, the “two cities” cannot be bridged by fairer taxes and homebuilding alone: no, the national and international corridors of power will have to be stormed to tackle inequality. But we have to start somewhere, and where better than the Mayor’s office?

08.19.13

by the Political Idealist

Republicans Shoot Themselves in the Foot (Again)

The Republican Party is making itself look more stupid than ever. Its childish protests at two broadcasters’ plans to produce dramatisations and a feature-length documentary about Hilary Clinton for airing next year have failed, resulting in the party resolving to boycott CNN and NBC for the next few years. The party will not allow debates between candidates for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential election to be hosted by the networks, nor will it spend any of its vast political advertising budget on airtime on those channels during the election.

According to the Republicans, the mere act of making a documentary about Clinton is proof of bias (Ha! The party in the pocket of Fox News is accusing rival broadcasters of bias!). These documentaries, we are told, are no better than free advertising for the Democrats ‘just’ two years before a presidential election. I’m sorry, but I have to admit the Republicans have a point. American news channels carry hours of coverage about Democrat politicians such as Obama and Kerry, claiming the laughable excuse that they are “the government” of the United States. Really, the Republicans should boycott every media outlet which dares to even mention a Democrat- such free advertising must be unconstitutional!

But seriously, it says a lot that the Republicans are so scared of Hilary Clinton that they are trying to blackmail the media into blanking her. They have good reason to be scared: she’s very progressive, popular and charismatic. Polling suggests that she could beat a Republican presidential candidate even in Texas. Clinton has the potential to permanently reshape American politics; re-orientating it away from Reaganite conservatism.

I don’t think the party has done itself any favours by dismissing any media coverage of Clinton as biassed without even, as the broadcasters suggested, watching the finished production to test the claim. They have now committed themselves to not reaching a considerable chunk of the electorate- especially the Hispanic community who are served by a Spanish-language TV channel owned by NBC- and made themselves look completely hypocritical to boot.

My suggestion to you: sit back and look forward to the TV programmes next year!

03.02.13

by the Political Idealist

Congress Fails To Prevent Cuts

English: Newt Gingrich at a political conference in Orlando, Florida. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Fiscal Cliff of New Year’s Eve was fortunately postponed for two months, in what was supposed to be a move to give the Republicans and Democrats another opportunity to reach a sensible deficit reduction solution. Of course, we observers made a naive assumption that any deal involving the modern Republican Party would ever be reached without intolerable demands for regressive spending reductions. Yesterday, the “sequester”, a package of $85,000,000,000 worth of cuts came into effect as no deal was reached.

President Obama has previously warned that such an outcome would mean that GDP growth will fall by 0.5% and the loss of 750,000 jobs across both the private and public sectors. It is hugely unfortunate that we are only likely to see more automatic cuts coming into effect until 2014, with Republican majority in the House of Representatives forcing through austerity against the wishes of the President. I feel it is no exaggeration that the Republican party, which is unashamedly undermining the Government, will push the US economy into a second recession, which makes it essential that Obama does all in his power to underline whose fault that will be.

The Democrats are in an impossible position. With every budget, sequester, debt ceiling, and cliff, they lose more ground to the regressive opposition, and this is inevitable with the balance of power in Congress being what it is. We risk a repeat of the 1990s in which Newt Gingrich and his Republican conspirators became the de facto government, forcing Bill Clinton to face questions about whether his presidency was still relevant. The difference this time is that it is everybody in the US, not just the poor, who are set to lose out. However, I have already railed at the absurd constitutional make up of the US government several times, so I need not labour the point.

If so many of the world’s major economies are to continue with the myopic austerity agenda, we face a “lost decade” of economic decline like the 1970s or 1930s. It is painful to see that our unpopular political leaders inflicting this mad policy on us in the name of “prudence”.

RT: Obama signs sequester bill (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points — When Universes Collide (huffingtonpost.com)
Obama signs order activating deep spending cuts (myfox8.com)
Loopholes, where Republicans continue to fail (jbsanctuary.wordpress.com)

12.08.12

by the Political Idealist

It’s Progress

It is easy to fall into the trap of being permanently negative about events taking place in the political world. After all, any believer in social justice in the “Age of Austerity” will inevitably have a lot to complain about. In the United States, the Democrats are engaged in a potentially devastating chess game with the Republican-controlled legislature (and the Senate, though part of the legislature, can only do so much) in an absurd situation under which the two parties are trying to look as if they’re trying to reconcile the position that the richest 2% of the population should cough up more tax before Medicare, Medicaid and education should be touched, with the position that not only should these budgets be cut, but they should be cut even further than needed in order to fund more tax giveaways to the richest 2%, as advocated by Paul “Granny Starver” Ryan. And of course, in reality, many in the two parties are not even trying to look as if they’re trying to look as if they’re trying to reconcile these two contradictory positions.

In Britain, our government has just announced a series of real-terms cuts to benefits and tax credits going to hard-working families in order to fund a Corporation Tax cut- not only that, but only large businesses (or those that bother paying it, at least) will benefit. Some in the Labour Party, which has taken a few shaky steps in the right direction, are wavering on whether to oppose it. The false Tory rhetoric of “benefits scroungers sleeping in with the blinds drawn” has become so ingrained into the political scene that the disabled forced to undertake taxing and sometimes humiliating assessments; the conscientious job seeker on £71 per week in a barren employment market; and the families with parents on the Minimum Wage, struggling to meet the costs of housing, energy and childcare, will all have no political voice left for them.

Centre-left governments in Australia, Brazil and the more spirited one in France are constantly running into problems, and the forces of globalisation present a constant threat to social progress in nations rich and poor. Climate change has fallen off the radar altogether, though environmental, social and economic disaster creeps ever closer.

Nevertheless, I have always had little patience with the narrative that the modern world is in some sort of decline. Though I am hardly an optimist (or, come to think of it, an idealist) I take the view that overall, human life in the 21st Century is the best it’s ever been. The massive inequality and damaging austerity that is taking place today will affect society for decades to come, and many lives will permanently be shaped by it. However, austerity is causing sufficient anger that the development of a progressive alternative that the permanent legacy may well be a transformation of our politics for the better.

The Occupy movement benefited from and still enjoys widespread sympathy, even if this did not translate into sufficient political pressure. Today the public have a much more realistic approach to big business, and now lack patience with firms avoiding their tax liabilities in these times of hardship. Starbucks has just buckled to pressure from the public (in part) by agreeing to pay at least £10,000,000 per year in tax in 2013 and 2014. Yes, it’s people power, and we are going to see a lot more of it in the future. Google, however, safe in its near monopoly of the search market, has made it clear that it doesn’t care in the slightest. Dear reader, please consider Everyclick (UK only) or Ixquick as tax-paying, socially responsible alternatives.

Speaking of which, the United States has had a spot of good news: Apple is going to move a lot of its production back to America from China. Perhaps attempts to maintain viable industry and thus a self-sufficient economy are not doomed to failure after all. And again, the move is down to public pressure after hearing about the Foxconn (the name says it all, doesn’t it?) scandal. True, I am no fan of Apple (Personally, I prefer high-spec and reasonably priced electronics to overpriced, low-performance brushed aluminum that people often buy just to prove they’re well-off) but it is good to see just a little re-industrialisation- and something that will reduce the airmiles attached to electronics.

Things aren’t looking quite so bad (in the long run) after all.