ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW

I recently sent an article from the Guardian Opinion page by Robert Reich to various friends who might find it of interest. It is headed ‘History will judge Republicans who stray silent about the big lie’. The Guardian describes him as:

Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labour, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com.

 

The Guardian piece is at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/11/trump-big-lie-republicans-democracy-election

 

There are a number of persons he mentions who are running for office in the 2022 midterm elections. I have no knowledge of these people, but on looking up their names on Wikipedia there is a common thread of hypocrisy running through the each and every one of them. I single out, in particular, Mehmet Oz, running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. He is another Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz. He has adopted differing positions prior to his aligning himself with Mr Trump. From Moderate Republican to conservative Republican. Once inspired by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Theodore Roosevelt, he is now fully committed to the Trump narcissistic world view. He is clearly a man without any moral code whatsoever.

 

All the others seem to be much in the same place as Mr Oz. The power for the sake of power, with no heed to any concept of human rights. This is indicated with some clarity by Mr Oz’s comment about the right to health care. He claims citizens "don't have a right to health, but they have a right to access, to get that health." Gosh, we only have a right to visit or call a doctor? Who knew?

 

Both the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the constitution indicate otherwise;

 

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

 

Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Right to life and general welfare in my view indicates the right to health care. In addition, the World Health Organisation and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights, in their publication on The Right to Health states:

 

The right to health is a fundamental part of our human rights and of our understanding of a life in dignity. The right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, to give it its full name, is not new. Internationally, it was first articulated in the 1946 Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO)

 

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights also mentioned health as part of the right to an adequate standard of living (art. 25). The right to health was again recognized as a human right in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

 

I believe the government of the United States is signed up to the United Nations Charter. In any event, he is not only wrong, but alarmingly misinformed, as well as being in breach of human and civil rights legislation. So how this man claims to be eligible to run for a seat in the Senate of the United States of America is beyond me, and should be beyond the voters in the State of Pennsylvania. There are many other issues in relation to this man and the others named by Mr Reich.

 

The 2022 midterm elections in the United States are a great import, not only to the United States, but to the entire world. What with the growing political right wing in Hungary, Poland and now Sweden, possibly Denmark and the United Kingdom, there is a desperate need for the United States to show that the finer principles of freedom and good governance of the people, by the people and for the people as set out by the founding fathers in the Constitution of the United States, is well and truly preserved and protected. This is especially so in the face of Trumpian Republican opposition.

 

There is in the United Kingdom, right now, great change taking place. The Head of State, for so long an office of Government hovering above the political fray, and standing for civility, unimpeachable integrity, decency and common sense (albeit sometimes antiquated and conservative) has changed hands. At virtually the very same moment, the first minister of government has been replaced. A number of things are changing rather dramatically.

 

The new head of state has been ‘in waiting’ for some considerable time. Although it would seem from his background and upbringing, that he would favour a Conservative parliament, he has over time exhibited a close association with what was once considered a non-political issue; protection of wildlife and of the environment. He has long been a supporter of organic farming, methods of conservation and preserving the planet. He has also had a close eye on architecture and design as they affect the well-being of the populace in the cities and the countryside. He has also run charities to assist and aid young people into better lives.

 

All these endeavours have very much come to the fore of political thinking, what with the rise of extinction rebellion and the likes of youthful activists such as Greta Thunberg. As a consequence of this impact on the political stage, the now new head of state has had to relinquish any thought of what could be viewed as interfering political comment.  He gives an oath to continue in the same fashion as his mother to preserve the continuity of the state.

 

It is surprisingly evident, from the reaction of heads of governments across the world, that they placed great value in the presence and conduct of the late Queen of Great Britain and Norther Ireland. The professed admiration coming from governments of great divergence is indeed an indication that the United Kingdom has a place in world affairs. It would now appear that is mainly down to her. I confess I am surprised. For a Frenchman like Macron to say “For you, she is your Queen, for us she is THE Queen.”  That is quite an accolade.

 

Coming back to King Charles III, how, after so much effort put into his projects, can he let go and take a back seat in the hope that others will carry on the work, particularly as he now has an even greater platform from which to speak his mind. In addition, given the current deep divisions that are emerging in Britain, the serious threat to democratic freedoms from the current Conservative Government’s prospective legislation, the even deeper divisions caused by Brexit and the possibility of serious pubic unrest, he may well have to take a more vocal position. On top of all that, there is the immediate problem of the current Prime Minister’s wish to scrap the green levy on energy and allow fracking to continue, both issues that will push back any commitment towards cleaning up the environment, so dear to the King’s heart. How can he stay silent?

 

The United Kingdom is once again in limbo. After the lying in state, the funeral and public mourning is over, where shall we be? A fractious parliament, with a singularly lacking in vision prime minister and a frustrated and silent head of state, is about all we have to look forward to. I am sure there is a better way ahead. It could possibly be resolved with a serious general election. Let us have all the ideas and projects discussed in full in front of the electorate, with as much truth telling as possible in the circumstances, and let the electorate decide. This is, after all, meant to be a democracy. Let the King then live his remaining time in peace and keep up the good work his mother seemingly so impressed the world with.