INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

This first section was written Sunday 15 December 2024. I would ask you to bear in mind that I include paragraphs from university websites for the sake of clarity.

 

We went last night to a 21^st birthday party given by cousin Rebecca for her son, currently enrolled at the University of Glasgow. Also attending were some university friends and his flatmates. One of the young men was studying International Relations. I asked him whether he thought of a PPE degree instead, but he indicated that the PPE programme was in fact oversubscribed and therefore more difficult to get into. Rather than wait he opted for International Relations. In effect not a too distant course of study.

 

The Programme Structure at Glasgow states:

Like all disciplines in the social sciences, International Relations is a subject that is open to interpretation and debate. Our methods of teaching are based largely on classroom dialogue and debate. You will attend lectures that identify important themes in international relations and then explore these themes in depth during seminars.

You will think about ethical questions such as the role and limits of state power, conflict and political violence, and the obligations that one state has to another. You will also consider empirical questions such as: What are the causes of war? Under what conditions do states cooperate to address common problems such as climate change, human rights violations and development? And how influential are non-state actors?

YEAR 1-

Introduction to politics introduces the fundamentals of politics from core concepts and theories to the key components of political institutions and their relationship to individuals.

Introduction to international relations introduces you to key approaches to explaining and understanding key aspects of international order.

YEAR 2 -

History of political thought examines political thought from the ancients, primarily Aristotle, through Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke to Rousseau and Karl Marx.

Introduction to comparative politics explores and compares different countries to introduces you to the variety of political regimes that exist in the contemporary international system.

YEARS 3 AND 4-

If you progress to Honours (years 3 and 4), in year 3 you will take a core course on international relations concepts which will include analysing, criticising, and applying concepts and theories of international relations to real-world cases in order to better understand the complexities of historical and contemporary global politics. Topics may include the Coronavirus pandemic, Britain’s changing world role, immigration, the role of gender in global politics and ideas of national belonging.

During both of your Honour’s years (3 and 4) you can select from around 45 courses, including Politics of the EU, Politics of migration, Politics of terror, Postcolonial international relations theory, Global environmental politics, War and international security and Visual global politics.

SPECIAL GLASGOW FEATURE

Glasgow Q-Step Degrees

Studying International Relations at Glasgow can be taken in partnership with the Glasgow Q-Step programme to give you more opportunities to develop your quantitative research skills

The University of Glasgow's Q-Step Centre offers programmes which develop your quantitative skills, or in other words, your ability to handle data and use numerical evidence.

Developing quantitative skills and your confidence in using them, will really enhance your insight and understanding of the key issues you encounter in your chosen field of study.

The University of Glasgow Q-Step Centre offers five degree programmes that integrate quantitative skills training within the School of Social and Political Sciences. All of these programmes aim to engage you with meaningful ways of understanding the social world.

We will teach you how to understand and analyse quantitative results, as well as how to present your own, and how to discuss their substantive implications. These are essential skills for understanding quantitative evidence presented in academic literature, but also for interrogating data in public media and government reports.

Around one quarter of your study time will be devoted to quantitative methods. And our degrees also offer you the possibility to gain valuable experience by participating in internships with selected high-profile employers.    

 

I have highlighted in red a couple of sentences that indicate the desired outcome for students from this course of study. Ethics and the limits of state power, conflict and political violence. There appears to be quite a lot of that going around at the moment.

 

The young man I was speaking to was in his second year. He seemed very clear and committed to his course of study. Before starting University he had taken a gap year, not to go travelling, nor indeed volunteering at some worthy cause locally or abroad, but had taken a job in an office earning some £30,000 a year. Not too terrible for a young man of 20. His experience however was very clear. He worked the hours which he felt was not so much a learning experience for him as it was the for making of profits for his employer.  The sole function for him and his fellow employees was to provide money for the boss. An interesting take on his first experience in the commercial world. He was by no means left wing, although there was no doubt a leaning in that direction. Also I did not get the impression that he would remain an academic and he was paying his own way through university. There was something behind it all that led me to believe he had some political ambition in mind. Just what, how or where that would manifest itself in the future will be interesting to see.

 

So long as he keeps in mind the ethical questions and develops those essential skills for understanding quantitative evidence presented in writing and for interrogating data in public media and government reports, he night do rather well.  I could not really begin to guess just what end of the political spectrum he will end up supporting, but there was a hint that the motive behind it all was some form of public service.

 

There was something about him that put me in mind of Peter Buttigieg who is the current United States Secretary of Transportation under President Biden, and previously the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Buttigieg is a graduate of Harvard and Pembroke College, Oxford. Buttigieg also served in the United States Navy for 8 years in Naval Intelligence between 2009 and 2017. You might check him out on YouTube.

 

Monday 16^th December 2024 - Continuing the thread on International Relations:

 

Looking at the current state of affairs in the Middle East, ethics and the limits of state powers seem to have gone astray. The Israeli Prime Minister is on trial for corruption and tries to deflect any and all accusations by presenting himself as the defender of the Nation. He shows no sign of letting up on his oppression in Gaza, takes full advantage of the collapse of the Syrian State by encroaching further into the Golan Heights and bombing Syrian naval installations under the guise of protection. I know there are some who would say such expediency, owing to the circumstances, is ethical and is well within the limits of State power. That the actions are completely illegal in accordance with United Nations directives would open that to question.

 

As to Assad, the fact of his flight from governing in Damascus to exile in Russia, was clearly something that must have been foreseen by the various rebel forces. Some intelligence must have given the insurgents the information that the Russian Air Force, or military, would no longer interfere, and that the Syrian Army were more that disinclined to put up much resistance. In consequence the speed with which the Assad overthrow took place, from the moment Aleppo was overrun,  was a foregone conclusion. The dominos began to fall.

 

This has left us with a very confused state of affairs not only in Syria but in Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, Ukraine and Russia. Where and when does the rest of the world weigh in. Recognition of a Palestinian State of some description is apparently on the cards, and which of the various factions now celebrating in Syria will actually form a lasting government capable of negotiating and making treaties that will hold.

 

I have no doubt that the leadership of the various states, their spokespersons and envoys would benefit from this course at Glasgow University. Indeed, some may have already had some formal education in International Relations, but I would strongly advise them to take a refresher course. I would equally advise representatives for Syria, Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Russia and the Ukraine to at least peruse the reading list for Year 1 as described above.

 

None of this has anything to do with political systems, but with ethics and the obligations that one state has to another. We all want the same thing, recognition and respect. Why is that problematic? On the whole, political parties within individual nation states tolerate and accept differences of opinion, despite some rather severe criticism and accusations made against each other.  It is even possible on an international scale if one takes into account the various sporting events which take place around the world. Where the Olympic games is being held has been problematic but usually takes place without serious difficulties. There is the odd exception. Saudi Arabia as a choice for the 2034 World Cup has attracted criticism, but will probably go ahead without incident. So what can be done about Middle Europe and the Middle East?

 

Getting all the parties back to school might just shake things up. A little higher education could perhaps promote the kind of thinking required to bring about ethical considerations concerning the limits of state power, conflict and political violence as well as obligations of one state towards another.

 

The tools are there, in every university across the world that holds seminars and lectures on Ethics, Politics, Philosophy, Economics and International Relations. Everybody can be smart, so why is it not working?

CONTINUING THE DISCUSSION

I received the following response from Sam in respect of my request for argument over the possibility of exploring a PPE degree on one’s own, or at least looking at the matter of political systems in the current climate.  What is of course of greatest concern now is what will happen in Syria and the Middle East. The Putin Regime, because of its concerns elsewhere, have abandoned support for the Assad Regime, although they feel, clearly, the need to support him personally, and give him some measure of safety and respite in Russia.

The various factions now in control of certain sections of the country, will have to come up with some sort of interim government and provide stability and adherence to the rule of law. Just what law will rule is another matter. The indications given by the most prominent group is that a form of democratic and inclusive system of government will emerge under Shia law.  This, in my view, does not bode well. Strict adherence to Shia is not a good look. Indeed, mixing religion and modern secular digital politics is not a good idea and will lead to certain sections of society being discriminated against. I refer in particular to Islam’s usual subjugation of women. Likewise any religion that requires anyone criticising its most sacred beliefs should be put to death is not something that should form any part of government. So just how strict the application of religion will be in a future Syrian democracy is still up in the air. The current Israeli government has indicated quite forcefully it will not wait for the dust to settle and has consequently bombed and extended its perimeters to provide a buffer zone between it and what they believe is coming next. Tension and violence are still ever present.

The advent of Trump in the coming months is equally disturbing. His idiotic, infantile and poorly educated view of world affairs is hardly likely to benefit anyone save hard-line influencers and leaders.  Much to contemplate in the New Year.

In the meantime, if you can take the time, have a read of Sam’s view of the PPE question. All and any comments welcome.

Beatrice and Sidney Webb - Founders of the LSE in 1895

The similarities between religious and mythological themes throughout the worlds varied civilizations and attitudes to behaviour are not the only things that Jung posited about ‘The Collective Unconscious’; in ‘Memories Dreams and Reflections’, I remember him discussing the character of nation states reflected in their collective unconscious; especially in relation to the likely coming world war (2nd) and different countries fear and reactions to it.

I suspect that you’re implying that it doesn’t have anything to do with my reasons for the illogical voting of the American public, but I still think it has a place in relation to Jung’s theory of the characterization of populations of nation states and their collective opinions, relevant to voting patterns.

If the archetypes are present in the subconscious then probably so is everything else and although not directly provable in a theory; most of the theories of dualities in science show that when combined, most things show signs of duality; things like wave particle duality for instance. Maybe a bit far-fetched for a proof of the unconscious, but interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

I don’t think one needs to even go this far, and moving off topic.

If we think of American Culture, what is it; how do their opinions of their own culture reflect back on their own identity, then this already gives credence to a collective unconscious in culture, which like most things of the mind can be manipulated, think of hypnosis and other subconscious manipulation techniques as defined by Alfred C. Kinsey’s’ reports, the sections relative to advertising.

The American tech giants are known to use subconscious manipulation techniques, this is only really just coming out in the press’ awareness; of its full extent, but it’s there and provable if you look at the details of the Linux computer operating system (why wouldn’t people use a free operating system with free software that is better in many case’s than many of the packages the tech giants make)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/30/marietje-schaake-tech-coup-save-democracy-silicon-valley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution#Installation-free_distributions_(live_CD/USB)

And if all these things are reasonable to believe, then so to is the possibility that people do not want to believe the truth about the environment and what it means regarding population numbers and over consumption, especially with regard to America. Which becomes even more pertinent if you then posit that the loss of power of the rich is the only way to confront these issues as it is them that create the problem in the first place, but unfortunately many democracies are complicit in this, because economics dictates that profit needs to be made.

When you say that ‘establishing a political system or organizing a method which best co-ordinates the basic desires and needs of the group, is presumably what politics is about’; I feel that it doesn’t quite represent it’s fragility in relation to democracy and the effort that has historically and currently goes into the outcome of a country having a true democracy and which I would say; partially goes against the grain of the human condition in relation to its personal hierarchies in business and at home.

I don’t think politics & democracy have been formed (unless you mean formed by social evolution).

They have been fought over, usually to wrest control out of oligarchs and families, royal and otherwise. The road to democracy is paved in blood, I don’t think it’s something that forms naturally (although some might say that war is natural too, it does happen with other species, and the hierarchy of humans in all circumstances is always being fought over both sociologically and financially, interdependently, we; like all the animals, are creatures of desire and move in not necessarily conscious way to get what we desire, that is also partially the story of evolution, so in some-ways democracy is societies & humans greatest achievement.

I think for all the USA’s many institutions to balance and keep democracy in check; what ironically has been shown; unfortunately; is that in the end you need something, above the president; like the royal family (don’t tell anyone I said that, but alas, it is one of the things that a sitting prime minister does, they ask for permission from the head of state to form a government, can you imagine someone like Trump even being able to do that)

The reflection of the institutions that go into actually making up the American government is very interesting and does do a great job, but without the full support of the so called pillars of democracy; which is a reasonable simplification of the social structures that keep democracy afloat, on top of our animal instincts, but without mentioning the freedom of the press, the institutions of government by themselves can’t be maintained without bipartisan agreement, which as we know and can see is starting show signs of wobble and decay, this is partly because the press has started to also show signs that it is not free; especially on the right.

https://www.legit.ng/1172490-the-pillars-democracy.html

I really liked the details of the American and British bureaucratic systems of state, that I was not aware of; especially in relation to the independence of the States’ themselves, but worry that Federal law could be tweaked enough to erode that independence without effecting the constitution, with the sort cronyistic government make-up that Trump is proposing and currently making.

I think the four pillars of democracy is a reasonable way to state that the mechanics that were talking about is being eroded by Trump and his cronies; who don’t particularly like the idea of democracy, mainly because it means they might lose control of the mechanisms of power and some of their money, which is what you are saying.

It is very good to get a bit more detail on the houses and the legislation in relation to the constitution. I certainly wasn’t aware of each states independence in the way you are talking about it. I think that maybe the way the State react to his eventual disruptions will be very interesting, presumably the judicial system will throw a lot of filibusters into courts for the duration of his presidency to stop him dismantling too much.

Even though presidential power is limited by each state, in practice; does not federal law take precedence?

‘The Constitution is what keeps it all together, which is what the Civil War (1861-1865) was all about.’

Although I don’t believe a civil war will happen, it could be close, I think luckily the Army will always stand on the side of the institutions; as it is one (even when they are not allowed to)

But I think you are right that the previous balance between the left and the right is slowly toppling towards right extremism, extremism is everywhere; a sure sign of encroaching war.

In the original statement about the impossible conundrum of American consumption and its collective inability to face up to the fact that they are over cooking the engine of life and mother nature is choking and we don’t have anywhere else to go Mr Musk because that future is a few hundred years off.

The second world war never really finished; these are the final chapters; let’s hope it doesn’t finish us all off. I did once call Putin an Environmentalist when they invaded Ukraine (as an ironic bad joke, I hasten to add).

In the end no matter how much you reduce C02 output, it is our population level that relatively generates the most damage and as a bioproduct of Americas over consumption and their inability to see that they just have to stop consuming or reduce their numbers to balance the same equation.

And as much as Elon Musk thinks that continuing the capitalistic progress to Mars will counter these environmental conundrums; we are no way near ready to do that on the scales that are necessary, although I agree that it is something that we should continually aim for, but the time scales are all wrong.

In the end ‘The People’ hold democracy up in a balance with all the social institutions, which is why freedom of the press is part the four pillars of democracy. the countries collective unconscious is represented in those institutions not only in bureaucracy, but socially by the people that make the decisions to continually support and adjust it, change it; it’s also why there is a culture war, because some religious beliefs are so strong that they find it difficult to live under democracy as the final arbiter of right and wrong; but maybe they can beside it; they fear the power of democracy above any form social persecution; because losing their belief in their religion is somehow worked into this confrontation and that is what they fear most. Trump and Musk are zealots because of it in reverse and it does take two to tango. Any religion with monotheistic tendencies will find democracy very difficult to live within. But I think, even though personally I have suffered from this cultural confrontation, both sides have things to say that are beneficial to the whole, look at the world we live in, it’s a total mess and very unequal, with fundamental issues.

‘the party that seeks to provide as much welfare for the citizen as is deemed necessary for maintaining the overall health and safety of every member of society no matter what their circumstances. This is in keeping with the idea that any individual can become rich by being an entrepreneur or exercising their talent and expertise.’

Yes like humans, there are lots of contradictions in these processes, As much as I dislike the Windows operating system; if not least as the first of the tech giants monopolies that the American government failed to do anything about. But If you look at what Bill Gates did for global vaccine distribution and usage; he has saved millions upon millions of lives, and probably saved double that just for the world being partially prepared for Covid, especially when you look at the figures from the 1918 Spanish flu.

As you say in relation to the move to the American right, we hear about the odd state banning books for religious reasons, but your statement ‘there are also those who believe that the ruling party must regulate the behaviours of its citizens whilst at the same time supporting the most rich and powerful’ implies a whole different level of interference, but I suppose Margaret Atwood did image that America would get there; I might read it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid’s_Tale

‘Whether the tradition of States Rights keep the spirit of the Constitution alive is to be seen. The Federal Government could well be a lost cause, particularly in the light of a simpering and unresponsive supreme court which upholds criminality as opposed to anything approaching a check or balance on the executive.’ 

‘So grin and bear it is hardly in my thinking. This election is a disaster for the United States as it is for Western Democracies as a whole.’  

I do agree with you, but on another contradictory note; the decent into a third world war looks remarkably possible and although there are benefits to such things for the environment, it would cause an amount of suffering that is difficult to imagine; so maybe we need the chaos of an idiot, because there are no real answers to our problems other than strict oversight that goes against many of the freedoms of democracy, especially for American consumption, although that is where the Turnip won’t help at-all.

The next four years will be critical for many reasons, politically & environmentally; I suppose war is politically, everything is connected, maybe Lovelock’s ideas of Gaia are true; although he always hated that they became so religiously upheld by the environmentalists – nature will get rid of us if become too out of balance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Any approach to political policy begins with personal philosophy/ Why are we here? What are we here for? does it matter? and what are we to do about it?  There are any number of answers.

Separatists and Nationalists are not what is required, yet that appears to be all that is on offer.

Where do we go from here? Where does philosophy take us and whence the economic agenda to take us there beyond politics? 

I’ve not really come up with any answers, just counter points, I suppose the future described by Iain M Bank’s with his invention of a society called the ‘Culture’ would be my dream answer, but it’s a few 100 years away. Anarchism with the robots

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/24/trump-depends-on-the-eu-and-uk-to-act-as-peacemakers-more-than-he-thinks

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/28/the-guardian-view-on-nasas-next-frontier-exploring-the-hidden-oceans-of-uranus-is-worth-it

MORE ON LOOKING INTO PPE

I have been, as you know, contemplating the matter of a PPE degree or at least a self-imposed approach to the study of such a course. A political system, supported by a philosophy and an economic methodology seems worthy of examination. Some of it, from what I can gather from reading lists on the subject, is pretty basic stuff.

 

The idea that human beings’ innermost desire is to exist in a free association governed by particular norms or conventions is certainly supported by the actions of humans throughout the world. This is also reflected in most animal behaviour who exist in tribes or groups. So it is not too far-fetched to assume that this instinct is hard wired into our brains, as is our human ability to acquire and use language (sound and sign) as well as developing reading and writing.

 

Establishing a political system or organising a method which best co-ordinates the basic desires and needs of the group, is presumably what politics is about. So nations have been formed and developed over time to become the democracies we have today.

 

The various systems that have emerged suppose a leader who is mainly elected directly by the populace or by elected representatives of the populace. It also supposes that the general population (citizens) have a choice through an electoral system. Whether this electoral system is fair and free of corruption is another matter. The idea that each citizen has the right to vote has taken some time to develop, but that is what we have now in most democracies. Also, we have a universal doctrine of the rights of man and have establish a universal forum with the United Nations, the Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court. How effective these institutions are, depends on the resolve of the member nations.

 

The United Kingdom has developed a Parliamentary Democracy under a constitutional monarchy. There is a Head of State in the Crown, a Primary Legislative Chamber in an elected House of Commons, led by a government chosen by the majority party. There is also a second supervisory chamber in the House of Lords,  an historic concession to the existence of an aristocracy aligned to the Crown. This too is evolving. The government is also composed of a leader, or prime minister, who selects a cabinet, or groups of individuals to oversee the various government agencies which implement and regulate their various responsibilities (e.g.: welfare, education, health, employment, foreign affairs, security etc..) Each department will have a number of people who actually work on putting into effect the ideas of their minister or head of department. These are people with certain skills and training who are hired for the express purpose of carrying out the work required. They are the Civil Servants who have jobs that remain constant no matter which political party is in charge of the ministry as they guarantee a degree of stability in dealing with the transitions required at the time.

 

The cabinet is meant to operate on the basis of ministerial responsibility. These ministers are overseen by a ‘Prime’ Minister who is effectively in charge of the government overall but who is responsible to Parliament, which is part of his ministerial responsibility. The idea is that Parliament is sovereign above all. The decisions of Parliament, as decided by all the members, who are the elected representative of the electorate, are what rules the nation. 

 

The United States on the other hand has a more complicated structure in that it has developed a three pronged approach to Governing the country. There are three independent institutions who act as a check on each other. A system of checks and balances comprising an independent Judiciary, and independent congress, comprising two chambers (Senate and House of Representatives) and an independent executive. This sort of triumvirate operates with the consent of a federation of states who are governed under a similar system of checks and balances. Each state has a governor, a supreme judiciary and a legislative assembly, consisting of local state representatives and senators. Effectively each state is independent and has what are called States Rights which on the whole supersede Federal rights unless they infringe the overall rights imposed by the written Constitution of the United States. Indeed there are times when Federal Legislation is deemed unconstitutional vis a vis the individual States.

 

Each State will therefore have its own different ministries (education, defence or national guard, commerce, welfare, health etc..). The various departments of the federal administration are in respect of overall National matters such as Foreign Affairs, National Security, Armed Services, major disaster relief, overall health care and overall welfare. They provide overall legislation and assistance and finance to state institutions. Therefore the Federal governance of the United States is a much more layered system, and presidential power is limited within each individual state.

 

The individual states are or course reliant on the overall policies of the federal government in so far as they affect interstate relations in respect of the overall economy, security and welfare of the nation. So it is all intertwined, which can make things more complex in terms of the relations between federal and state civil servants, and federal and state legislators. The Constitution is what keeps it all together, which is what the Civil War (1861-1865) was all about.

 

Included in the Constitution, perhaps as an afterthought as they are defined as amendments, are the rights of individuals deemed as sacrosanct and inalienable. The first ten amendments are as follows:

1-    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2-    A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

3-    No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4-    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

5-  No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

6-    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

7-    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

8-  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9-   The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Some of these rights are now part of the constitutions, whether written or not, of most countries who profess to be democracies with free and fair elections.  

 

Operating within these political systems are a variety of individuals who purport to be best able to accomplish the desired requirements to keep the system in operation and preserve the rights and needs of the individual citizens. They form political parties and in most cases there appear to be two parties who tend to dominate the political landscape.

 

On the one hand there is the party that believes the state should function with the minimum of interference with the general population. This conservative body firmly believes that the market place and private enterprise is the best way for the state to function. In that way the state can operate on a smaller budget and therefore need not impose a heavy tax burden on the citizen. It will favour the rich and the so called entrepreneur who will provide for the welfare of the less fortunate in society as a matter of course.

 

On the other hand there is the party that seeks to provide as much welfare for the citizen as is deemed necessary for maintaining the overall health and safety of every member of society no matter what their circumstances. This is in keeping with the idea that any individual can become rich by being an entrepreneur or exercising their talent and expertise.

 

There is however another sort of party line, which is evidenced by the current trend in the election of authoritarians.  There are those who believe that the ruling party must regulate the behaviour of its citizens whilst at the same time supporting the most rich and powerful on the basis that minimal government expenditure is required for the state to function providing order is maintained. This form of governance requires every citizen to conform to a specific train of thought and to ostracize any citizen who does not conform to this idea. Hence the censorship of books, a restrained method of education, and a thoroughly conformist view of the state. Anyone who disagrees is vilified.

 

We have seen this already in the attitude of Trump to questions he deems fake news or contentious. His reactions are instant attack and vilification of the questioner. So to have we seen this with Kari Lake, who ran for Governor and Senator from Arizona. The exact same playbook. So long as you agree you’re ok/ If not “You need your head examined” So too the 2025 committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and any number of people who have got behind Trump. He is appointing people without any real knowledge or expertise in the subject of their ministry.  None of his team have any idea of running a government department, nor does he have any real idea of running a presidency.

 

He presents himself as the sole leader who can fix all the world’s problems and in particular those of the American people. He will do this putting American First and the rest of the world will follow in 24 hours by making a couple of phone calls.

 

The reality is that he does not care one jot about the citizens of the United States, only the photo op and the chant of USA, USA etc. He has an infantile view of the nation as depicted in Del and Marvel Comics and a strong adherence to making the wealthy even richer. Hence his references to fictional characters as if they were real and toadying to the likes of Elon Musk.   

 

So what will happen to education is anybody’s guess, save that it will have less funding. Indeed many things will have less funding, and some media publications may come under surreptitious attack. The EU and NATO will be under constant strain in relations with the United States State Department and foreign affairs will disintegrate into deals with dictators to the detriment of democracy.

 

Whether the tradition of States Rights keep the spirit of the Constitution alive is to be seen. The Federal Government could well be a lost cause, particularly in the light of a simpering and unresponsive supreme court which upholds criminality as opposed to anything approaching a check or balance on the executive.

 

So grin and bear it is hardly in my thinking. This election is a disaster for the United States as it is for Western Democracies as a whole.

 

Any approach to political policy begins with personal philosophy. Why are we here? What are we here for? does it matter? and what are we to do about it?  There are any number of answers. If one takes the view of Adam Smith, David Hume and others of the enlightenment, there are clear social implications and a social contract must be arrived at. The reasons behind the formation of the United Nations and European Union are not to be discarded and are still relevant today, particularly in this climate of war in the middle east and in middle Europe.

 

Separatists and Nationalists are not what is required, yet that appears to be all that is on offer. Where do we go from here? Where does philosophy take us and whence the economic agenda to take us there beyond politics?

 

The Constitution of the United Kingdom although unwritten as a specific document, has its own Convention of Human Rights which it has developed over centuries and those first ten amendments of the United States Constitution, created in 1787, are in effect derived from those human rights as developed in the United Kingdom. This in turn led to the Declaration of the Rights of Man emerging from the French Revolution in 1789. These rights are at the core of most democratic political systems. Providing those rights are very much part of the United Kingdom’s very existence and they do not come cheap. Health, education, employment, safety and security are the very much part of that agenda. Those ministries of government are vital for the welfare of the nation as a whole and not just for the few. There are 67 million souls and counting who are entitled by right to benefit from those ministries which must be supported or the whole thing falls apart. 

 

Because we live in a world that now requires funds to function, in order to obtain goods and services rather than barter, the citizen of necessity has to contribute in whatever way they can to the state, in order for all to have the goods and services require. The government is therefore charged, amongst other things, with the task of raising and distributing the funds required for each of the ministries concerned with providing those rights and necessities. How governments do this is what politics is all about. The various factions and parties put forward their ideas and the populace will elect those who they feel best represent the priorities of the nation. Depending on the political organisation of elections, it is not necessarily the majority who rule. This is most clearly evidenced by the United Kingdom whose electoral system currently allows for a large Parliamentary Majority from what is in effect a minority of the electorate.

 

Nevertheless that party in power must govern for all. This is not an easy proposition. Any party and indeed all current parties are struggling to get it right. None of us seem satisfied and there are as many points of view as there are column inches in the various newspapers and other forms of media.  I hope that what we have, at present, in the UK, is a government committed to the welfare of the people and all the concomitant features that implies. I hope.

 

More of this anon.

 

I would just like to add that Oliver Cotton’s play, The Score, will be playing at the Theatre Royal Haymarket Theatre from the 20^th February 2025. It is highly recommended.