Trump's hanger speech

I actually watched the Trump speech last night. Two thing struck me about it. A, it was a brilliant innovation for a leader to go back to his base and say this is what I’ve done, Now though I’m not a big fan of it, surely that is what democracy is. B, and far more important in the middle of his speech, Trump indicated character of his true ideology – that of a rejection of civic cultural values defining a society, in favour of a philosophical pragmatism. This is made obvious by his statement about the nation-state. For him, the nation is not a cultural entity, but literally a physical geographical box where you and me just happen to live and pay taxes. Hence Trumps’ security mantra and travel ban is just that – a post-liberal rational view of security. What is missing from this is a normative view of politics. But that is just his point, society isn’t underpinned by moral values, but choices. This is why we, the left, don’t get him, we still want to believe in ideas.

Donald Trump and the Future of the Left

Recent events in America have shocked the world. The inauguration last week of Donald Trump was a significant in world history: world politics has been turned upside-down and people are looking for answers. Yet for the Left this also presents an opportunity to highlight an alternative to the current system. The election of a sexist, and some would say, racist businessman has left many people thinking - How? Why? Yet the immediate post-election analyses was rather timid and poor. The general sociological tone, the rush to check the educational standards in states that voted Trump. Sure these do say Something: but not as much as people want. Not everyone who voted Republican endorsed his position. Instead he gained support from all across the diverse makeup of America. So what’s going on? This did not happen over night, one way to view this is as a result of the financial crises of 2008, in which, the role of the market within the public sphere played along with the loss of occupational identity meant that you no longer have an unionised society. Instead you have individuals looking for an alternative identity in the face of the emergence of post-industrial society. Here Trump appeared to offer a new sense of collective identity – a patriotism founded on the idea of belonging. Yet this notion was false because it substituted practical cohesion (workmates) for a temperamental form of cohesion (the man on the TV can lead us). This shift was not caused by anyone, but the Left’s failure to respond to it did hamper their chances at winning the election. Furthermore, one way to see the 2016 American Election is through the term the ‘politics of fear’ a point which encapsulates both the similarities and differences of the two candidates. For Trump, fear was central to why he won, with his campaign targeted fears over migration, Islam and economic insecurity. These anxieties were used by him to win over the majority. With Clinton, fear played a more complicated role. Back in 07-8 Obama drew on the idea of hope to persuade American people to vote for him, offering a liberal vision of America. For Clinton, fear was one based on that the progressive dream of liberal America was in crises. Thus the arrogance of her campaign was that the idea that the fear of Trump would be enough to win. However uniting Clinton and Trump’s two campaigns was the way the fear of the future reflected an agreement that the western model of politics was in crises. Whilst attempts have been made to link between Brexit and the rise of Trump, arguments concerning the breakdown of normal politics do not quite capture the issue at hand. An alternative explanation for both events, but particular Trump’s victory, lies in the fundamental crises occurring within liberalism itself. This crises concerns the very way politics and wider social relations are conducted, and how they appear to be failing to meet contemporary expectation of what is possible. What is emerging out of this is a post-liberal account of civil society, in which it’s very structures and rules are being called into question. An example of this is the call to make Nigel Farage UK Ambassador to America. Overlooking the immediate concerns raised so far, the idea calls into question the nature of interstate diplomacy, replacing institutional cooperation with personal ties, undermining the very idea of the neutrality of the structures of government. The problem is that liberalism has no response to this. If it go along with the Ambassador Farage idea, it will undermine the functioning of the liberal democratic state: if not it will appear to reject the apparent democratic will of the people. Compounding this crises of ‘liberal v democracy’ is the liberal appeal to ideas of ’engagement’ and ‘grassroots’ politics as a panacea for this existential crises. So how should the left respond? In the U.K. current ideas for creating a post-liberal left in the British Labour Party have come in the form of ‘Blue Labour’, and looked to the right and ’borrowed’ the rhetoric of national identity and patriotism. So far the results have been pretty poor at best, with members sounding like UKIP ideologues. Yes the Left does need to face up to the realities of industrial decline and the issue of job insecurity, but not by rejecting tolerance and fairness (Two ideas which liberalism has been overwhelmingly successful in articulating). In doing so, the Left have to realise there is already an alternative to the current argument for post-liberalism, it’s called social democracy – and it is highly successful. By fully embracing the social democratic agenda of public services, tolerance and community, the left in the UK and US can meet the genuine concerns over free market globalisation, without resorting to exploiting the vicious politics of immigration. It can create a far more cohesive society, defending and promoting real solidarity through strengthening trade union cooperation with private enterprise. It can acutely engage with people by treating them not just as economic agent, but as social actors. In 2016, post-liberalism is here to stay, the left’s answer must be to accept and embrace the new feature of western politics and use it to underline the values of social democracy.

Top Three Books of 2016

Top three Books of 2016 1. Liberty and Empire Duncan Bell (At a moment when the world seems to be falling apart and Liberalism is coming under pressure, this collection of essay’s argues that in order to preserve the liberal order we need to acknowledge it's controversial relationship with Nineteenth Century understandings of empire. Each chapter works as a stand-alone piece, but there are some genuine points of innovation. In particular, Chapter 3 ‘What is Liberalism’ unpicks and highlights liberalism's own attempts to write a history of their own history. As a critic of liberalism, I was struck by their over simplified version of history, and their deliberate mishandling of Locke. Yet, throughout the book what Bell highlights is the need to challenge this ‘Whig’ view of the history of liberalism, a call that must be answered in order to give a full account of the liberal project.) 2. Britain's Europe: A Thousand Years of Conflict and Cooperation, Brenden Simms (A very neat and enjoyable account of the historical roots of Anglo- European relations. Part of Simms genius is his revisionist interpretation of the way Britain has engaged with our allies. Rather then seeing Europe as encroaching on British sovereignty, Simms argues Europe needs the type of political structure on offer in the UK. In doing so he understands the uneasy relations between the two entities as being complicated by this issue of the correct organisation structure for the European Union.) 3. Empire and Revolution: The Political Life of Edmund Burke, Richard Bourke ( Possibly one of the most significant books written on Enlightenment politics ever written, this should be on the reading list of PhD students embarking on any aspect of the Eighteenth Century, if only for the incredible footnotes. To read this it from cover to cover at just over 1000 pages, this book demands a lot of time and energy. Yet, as one reviewer noted, Bourke calls on us to rethink Burke’s understanding of the events of 1789 not as a marker in the development of conservatism, but as a concern for the unforeseen consequences of unreflective dogmatic politics.)

Mr Nuttal's Turkey, and a defence of history on a Saturday

How so it possible for a party that claims to be pro academic selection to permit its education spokesman to come out with such drivel. Especially since he says he taught history at a university, according to Wikipedia. Lets just turn to his comment on Turkey; "I will say it again: Turkey is not culturally European and it should never be allowed to join the EU." Now over looking the irony of Ukip’s defence of ‘Europe’ which isn’t that ironic, on one level, the tweet refers to the idea that Turkish society is alien to European society, but how true is this? We know that historicaly, it has been at the forefront of the continents cultural identity well before 1483, being central to the Byzantium Empire, which our intrepid historian would surly claim is part of European history. Then there is the small thing of the fact that the Ottoman Empire was a major player in the diplomatic scene in late 19th, early 20th century Europe. Is our historian trying to deny BASIC empirical evidence on Turkey’s relations with its western neighbours, to advance a political point? Why does this matter? Well in one way it doesn’t, it’s ONE tweet from ONE politician. BUT in fact it DOES given that UKIP claims the third largest support of any political party, and yet its deputy leader, who contantly emphasises his background in history, can legitimately come out with a bastadised interpretation of history, and no one gives a toss. How serious this is can be gaged from the local election results in France this week. There, the populist Right’s re-emergence in Europe presents politicians with a situation where the use of history for the purposes of political argument is precarious at best. The fact is that within the history discipline, real practitioner’s work extremely hard for ages on a particular thesis. They certainly do not just ‘tweet’ a given historical argument as if it were law. Just slamming some conjectural narrative filled by a concern for a particular contemporary issue on to a historical explanation would fail at GCSE History level, so why does it pass for politics? The real role of the historian therefore today , must be to demonstrate the fundamental difference between academic discourse and political rhetoric. They need to show that the craft that they engage in is not just about adavancing any old argument, it is concerned with explaining how the apparent truth of historical facts in reality as reflecting a particular kind of logic.

Poppy Populism and the Militarisation of British Society

Over the last decade the celebrations surrounding Armistice day in Britain have been the subject of intense nationalist sentiment. Prior to this November the 11th was a day of reflection and marking of the end of WW1. Part of this change has been down to the nature of history itself, and the passing of ppl who served on the front line during the period. But a second reason is to be seen in the way the event is now being ‘managed’ by the Royal British Legion. In the process the RBL have sought to press home a quasi-nationalist interpretation of the event, with the poppy ceasing to be used in memory of the fallen of WW1, and more as a emblem of British patriotism and the socialisation of an idea of ‘Our Boys’ into public consciousness. As has been noted, the RBL’s recent conduct over Armistice Day has been characterised by a shift towards commercialisation and a authoritarian attitude in terns of how the poppy is worn, and how it deals with those who did not share it’s views on the act of Remembrance. It is this latter point which has resulted in RBL being accused of participating in the militarisation of the Poppy Appeal. Such a move has been even mooted by the RBL themselves in terms of their attempt to ‘embed’ themselves into ordinary society – making the Poppy Appeal part of everyday life. A significant context for this is that of the emergence in the last decade of a populist political discourse centred on ‘nationhood’ and identity. But it is also the case that the current economic model underpinning British capitalism, whilst atomising the individual, paradoxicaly formulates an account of ‘One Nation’ that draws on the instinct of both self sacrifice and self-interest simultaneously. The RBL is using this structural occurrence to refashion patriotism from a civic concept to one in which loyalty and commitment are conceived as ethics stemming from an individual’s choice. Thus Armistice Day has gone from being an act of collective memory, to a parade of the militarisation of solidarity, aimed at highlighting those ‘who do their bit’ in contrast to those who apparently do not. Good intentions founded the Poppy Appeal, but in 2015 it is in an existential crises. Stemming from how the RBL understand patriotism, Armistice Day has ushered in a military ethos into British society which is threatening to disrupt our very public sphere and our democracy which sustain are very way of life. Wear the poppy if you want, pay respect to the past, remember and honour the casualties of war. But do it as civilians - for that surely is what Remembrance Sunday is truly about.

Paddington: a review

The film adaptation of Micheal Bond’s Paddington sees a talking bear subsequently called Paddington, forced to leave ‘Deepest, Darkest Peru’, where he has been living with his aunt and uncle. Due to an earthquake his uncle is killed. Prior to his birth, they are visited by one Montgomery Clyde, an explorer from the Geographers Guild in London ( pretty much the Royal Geographers Society) who invites them to visit sometime. The film sees Paddington embark on an adventure in order to seek a new life in London. Once there he meets the Browns (a middle class family, consisting of amongst others Hugh Bonneville and Julie Walters,) who take him in. However on his arrival he is face with the threat of Millicent (Nicole Kidman), a taxidermist and the daughter of Clyde, who wishes to literally stuff Paddington in order to avenge her furthers reputation. Clyde’s refusal to document the talking bears lead to his mission being admitted from the records of the Geographers Guild. Thus this embarrassment for Millicent leads her to seek revenge against Paddington. Central to the films story is the idea of refuges, and the status of Paddington as a refugee. whilst this topic has already been covered from an asylum law perspective (see Colin Yeo, Dec, 2014), it is worth noting the way the film depicts London, and by extension Britain. Throughout the film London is shown to be bright, cosmopolitan a multicultural. Indeed the cameo of a calypso group every so often out to be read as a sustained defence of a progressive, liberal Britain. Indeed the Brown’s strange, withdrawn, neighbour of Mr Reginald Curry (Peter Calpaldi) is adamant that he has deep reservations about Paddington, he maybe just the start of a flood of bears into London. In this way the film functions as a parody of contemporary discussions around immigration. Yet what also interested me was that it also attempted to portray Britain as facing a dilemma in terms of understanding itself. Whilst the majority of London was depict in light bright colours, the exact opposite was the case in 2 instances, the Geographers Guild and the Natural History Museum. With regard to the former, its depiction was that of an conservative reactionary institution whose workings are show to be old and archaic. Somewhat interestingly the film was produced by Paul King, who did the Harry Potter series. This is significant in terms of how the scenes in the guild compare to the depiction of Diagonna Ally, with emphasis being placed on the elitist, mechanical nature of the organisation. Yet, in this context this is seen to it in opposition to the organic liberal 1cosmopolitan portrait of suburban London . Such a contrast is also on show in the depiction of the Natural History Museum. Like the seen in the Geographers Guild, dark colouring is used in the film. But here the emphasis is on the way in which the Museum represents British ideas of superiority and imperialism . But the fact that the villain (Kidman) is a taxidermist suggests that the film seeks to highlight the significance of colonial exploitation in Britain’s past. In the portable of the idea taxidermy, the film depicts activity as a way to justify and narrate historical progress . thus the museum and the idea of historical collections itself is portrayed as a relic of British imperialism. So is it any good? Yes. But its success is in part as a result of the fact that it not only defended and extols the idea of 21st century multicultural Britain, rooted in a liberal cosmopolitanism. but it highlights a paradox at the heart of contemporary British conservatism . That it, the fact that the colonial exploits and expeditions so central to the narrative of British history lay the ground for the multicultural society we have today, a point which gives certain political parties major headaches. In the end Paddington is superb because it is funny and delightful, but if I am honest it made me proud to live in a country that welcomes anyone and allows them to feel at home.

A quick notice about an event I am co-hosting

The 2nd Annual Climate Change and The Humanities Workshop On the 16th October 2014, the Centre for Social and Political Thought and the Centre for World Environmental History at Sussex University will be hosting a one-day joint workshop on how the humanities and social sciences have and can engage with issues around climate change. The intention of the workshop is to demonstrate how the humanities engage with climate change, one of the most significant occurrences in our contemporary world. It is clear that research on this question within the humanities whilst significant has been largely under-represented in the existing literature and although certain humanities disciplines have confronted climate change, there has been a lack of inter-disciplinary approaches. We hope to address this lacuna through a workshop that show-cases the work that is currently happening across the humanities, to explore different approaches to the understanding of the climate change phenomenon, with a view to further enhancing the inter-disciplinary approach to the subject. Thus, this workshop will provide an opportunity for, among others, social theorists, environmental historians and philosophers to come together to exchange ideas about how to understand the ‘climate change phenomenon’. Speakers Dr Kate Soper (Brighton) ‘The Humanities and the Environment: contradiction, crisis and the politics of prosperity’ Dr Richard Staley (Cambridge) ‘Understanding Climate change historically: What can history bring to a science in debate?’ Dr Dr Jenneth Parker (Schumacher Institute) 'Interdisciplinarity and Climate Change' Dr Jane Hindley (Essex) ‘What Would Descartes Say? Social Imagination and the Challenges of Climate Change’ Dr Paul Davies (Sussex) ‘Another Future: Investment without Return’ The workshop will run from 11:00-17:00 Room: BSMS 1.13 There is no fee for the workshop but registration is important as space is limited. To register please email Alex Elliott at aje28@sussex.ac.uk or jamescullis@hotmail.com by the 12th October. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cweh/ http://www.sussex.ac.uk/aboutus/findus