politics: November 2004 Archives

I've been mentally connecting a few things together in my mind over the past few days, all of them pointing at a question about sense of worth, recognition or achievement, each article comes from a different stance, yet I see them pointing to the same place.

The first is the New Statesman essay from the 8th November issue, this is about the lack of other measures of public value, save money that our culture promotes. Celebrity is just another aspect of this, many people are famous for money or association, Heat is full of them.

Sunday evening, last week, there was an episode of Panorama on the notion of a Winner takes all Britain, exporing the consequences of following the commercial model to its fullest extent. The website for the programme contains a mine of interesting facts and some interesting opinions on the type of society this will create, I think I side with Professor Robert Frank.

Lastly in this triptych of prompts there is the new report from Demos, Tom Loosemore drew my attention to the report on the new ProAms. These people are the groups who in their spare time make offerings to the world of professional quality, but not as part of their full time employment. There is a launch event hosted by Demos on the 30th November. A short overview by Charles Leadbeater in Fast Company is available, prior to publication of the full report, at the end of the month.

I'm all for this rise of the amateur again, it reminds me of a more egalitarian view on the gentleman explorer or scientist of the late 1800s, with not only the rich men allowed to participate. One drawback is that you do end up working all the time, I'm often seen on the train with my powerbook perched on my lap hacking away at some template code or some blog post.

The people that Demos highlight, the ProAms, are key to changing this view on the world and moving the point of recognition from wealth to a more rounded view of achievement. The competition is strong though from the tabloid and celeb-based press and the notion that someone is "worth" an amount of money. Both of these mitigate against a wider definition of the achievement of an individual.

On the whole this philosophy is about using your talents and abilities for personal satisfaction and for the benefit of others, rather than for pure personal gain or for the benefit of some shareholders. Those of us lucky enough to be able to work and play in the same areas have a small advantage, but there is no reason why we cannot all participate. It is only a small step beyond the volunteer of the past, just a more focused participation.

To tie all of this together a bit, perhaps if we all did a bit more ProAm work then we'd see less of the world being about money and worth. Perhaps a bit more about what people did or contributed to local communities and interest groups. There is also an interesting aspect of this about how those in their 60s and older can contribute their skills and experience, hopefully in a manner that gives them consultancy income, but to the benefit of all. Mentoring small companies is something that I know Lucy's Dad and mine both do. There is something beyond working in a charity shop that the generation who went to university in the 60s can offer.

It is very idealistic, but I'd certainly prefer to live in a world where value was placed on contribution and knowledge rather than on brand labels and conspicuous consumption.

So, it looks very likely that Bush has won, all down to Ohio today. It was 2000 all over again, Democrat win seemed likely early on, then one by one states reporting with no change. I went to sleep at 2:30am and was feeling dimly optimistic, by 6:30 when I woke the writing was on the wall. I do believe in democracy and so, as Bush has won the public vote, he should be the President. The increased turn out at least might see a long term lift in the numbers of people participating in politics, which can only be for the better.

Lucy and I chatted about the outcome this morning and some things we came up with were, as follows

On the plus side, Bush now has to sort out Afghanistan and the mess in Iraq. Also within the next four years, something will have to happen with the prisoners in Guantanimo, at least you'd hope so.

There is also the question of the enormous debt he has run up, by offering tax cuts and fighting expensive wars. The faltering US economy is a key issue for him to address, more of the same will ruin the US, health care provision was a strong issue in the election and perhaps he'll come under pressure to address this. On that note, the huge debt means massive foreign capital is needed to fund it, this means a likely medium term discounted dollar, so the dollar looks set long term to fall 30 percent, so cheaper Canon cameras and Powerbooks...

A Hillary Clinton win is looking likely in 2008, she is a charismatic Senator and if she stood, might well do better than any future Republican candidate, certainly she'd not need to establish a reputation with the American people.

Finally it seems more likely that Europe will unite to respond to a second Bush term, which might lead to a ratified constitution and a stronger future for a coherent Europe.

On the other hand, it is likely to lead to a more insular US, focusing on scaring the life out of its inhabitants and securing its borders, by fighting wars "over there". I think the Artic and Alaskan wilderness is screwed, the climate with Cheney in charge is likely to be more ruined. Kyoto looks like a distant hope now, even with Russia looking likely to ratify it.

Movements to build a collaborative democratic set of world institutions like the International Criminal Court and a revitalised United Nations will have to take a back seat, as Bush is unlikely to want to engage.

A more faith based conservative right in charge will darkens the outlook for gay rights, abortion, immigration. Virtually all the states voted against gay marriage for example.

I'd along with many others like to see a US which will stop wanting to "lead" the world and sit down and collaborate with the rest of the world. All this talk of the world superpower only feeds into this sense of the USA as an aloof different entity. I'm not sure what it will take to make them realise that working with others is better than going it alone. The damage Bush has pent up in the national debt he has largely amassed might change things, he needs other countries money.

Moving more locally, in the UK, it seems likely a third Labour term will happen, a result the other way might have put some pressure on Tony Blair, however it means the party will still have Bush on the Oval office reminding the Labour rebels about the war and making Tony continue to seem George's pet, though that might change in a second term. Some further analysis from BBC News

I have been avidly following the US election, Guardian, BBC, Independent. I do want a Kerry victory, mainly as I do not believe that Bush is good for America and as the dominant power in the world, this is not a good situtation for the planet to be in. Many issues are going by the way side for this President who cares more for the lifestyle of the rich and the dominance of American commerce, than he does for American's role in the world. I'm thinking of Kyoto and drilling for oil in Alaska, amongst other issues. In terms of world politics, I cannot understand the intentions of a man who seems to just want to pick fights with the world and then move onto the next country, before he has done his duty on clearing up the first.

Today I found that George Soros in the Independent put it in a manner that made sense to me. This is an election between those with faith and those who are prepared to reason with the world. It is almost medieval in nuture, between the fervent belief that George W Bush instigates in his followers, versus the rationalists who are prepared to address the complexity of the world today. America is often depicted as two countries, all the recent maps have shown the coasts as Democrat and the interior as Republican, the flux is the mainly the upper mid-west, plus other costal areas. I only hope that those people who can see beyond the borders of the USA get out and vote. I want an America that is prepared to talk to others and engage with the issues that are essential for building a world for all of us.

You cannot impose democracy by cruise missile and helicopter gunship, you can only hope to engage and encourage the majority view in any country that working with others is better than going alone. Water shortages, poverty, Aids, global warming, peace in the Middle East, the former southern Soviet Union and countless other places will only come about through dialog, not military tough talk and absolute unquestionable belief.