ON BECOMING A CITIZEN 2

In yesterday’s blog I failed to deal with the matter of why my outrage against the Trump regime was  greater than my despair engendered by the Labour Party in the UK. Clearly I have lived most of my life in London; however, some of my formative years and most of my teenage years and early adulthood were lived in California, from 1956 to 1965.

Those particular years, from age 14 to 23 were of some importance in that they encompassed so many firsts in my life. Also, the transition from beatnik to hippy was a kind of evolution that many of my particular generation of American youth went through with gusto. We were, I was, very much influenced by the beat generation of Kerouac, Ginsberg, Cassady, Kessey and others, as well as even elder statesmen such as Burroughs, Miller and Ferlinghetti. During these later years in Los Angeles, mainly in Westwood, Santa Monica and Venice I encountered a number of influencers including Lawrence Lipton (who wrote The Holy Barbarians, a book published in 1959 detailing the lives of the Beats living on Venice Beach in Los Angeles) and Henry Miller (author of Tropic of Cancer and Quiet Days in Clichy et ors). Miller and Lipton were both regular customers at a bookshop where I worked, called The Book Fair, which was owned by a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade, Robert Klonsky.  He had joined up at age 18. He had fought at the Battle of Jarama from 6-27 February 1937, which resulted in 10,000 to 20,000 dead wounded or captured. Robert had many friends and acquaintance in the film industry who frequented the bookstore, including Albert Maltz and Herb Kline who had made a documentary film on the Spanish Civil War in 1937 called  The Heart of Spain. After the book store closed I had a job at a visual arts centre run by Herb.

Those years in Los Angeles were not without significance in terms of my experience and education. Indeed, one particular date which I, and many of my contemporaries, will remember in great detail, is the 22 November 1963. I was at work at the Book Fair having a chat with a French Journalist Olivier Todd when a woman came in and told us to turn on the radio as President Kennedy had been shot. It was 10:50 am and Kennedy had been shot about 20 minutes ago in Dallas, Texas.

So much of this was a very strong and deep relationship with America, It is not easy to let it go. On top of which my High School years were even more peculiar. I am still reasonably in touch with two friends from Beverly Hills High School. Both of whom are very decent, thoughtful and intelligent people. Not the typical Beverly High Student either. They have continued to live in Southern California, although, tragically, both were recently burned out of house and home in their 80’s which is not an easy age to begin again. They are fortunately  strong and resilient, but things are not easy.

When I say peculiar, I should supply some context. My family had been living in France and I was attending a Lycée in a suburb town near Paris . It was a pilot school in that it was the first co-educational lycée in France. The Lycée Henry IV, annex de Montgeron. The discipline was strict although not outrageously so, but one was expected to behave and pay attention. Failure to produce assignments and homework was heavily criticised. When the family moved back to California I enrolled at Beverly Hills High in the fall of 1956. I was just going on 14. I believe I had a very slight French accent when speaking English as a result of which I was given the nickname Frenchy, by some of the more down to earth characters, more akin to the kids out of Rebel Without A Cause.  

I was surprised by the ease with which boys and girls related to each other, as well as the social aspects one was expected to join. The first dance to which tickets were sold was the Pigskin Prom, to celebrate the opening of the football season, and there were many other social activities to take part in. There was also the social convention of dating to deal with. No such activities existed at the Lycée. Relationships with teachers were nothing like as formal. There was also a carpark for the Seniors and Juniors who were old enough to drive, which in California was 16. If you took the Drivers Education Course, something completely alien to the Lycée, you could obtain a Learner’s Permit at 15 and a half. I had never known such freedom and opportunities existed. To me, coming from a Europe still recovering from a war, this was truly a Disneyland. My academic performance suffered, but this was America. In the mornings and at various other events one pledged allegiance to the flag. A mild sort of indoctrination but subliminal through repetition. It was a very American High School experience. All in all, my Americanisation between 1956 and 1965 was complete.

The teaching was actually quite good and apart from the usual myths about pilgrims, thanksgiving, Father Serra, and Washington’s cherry tree, a reasonable appreciation of the constitution and system of local, State and Federal governance was acquired. The notion of the safeguards of democracy and freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill Of Rights were engrained. One developed a Mr Smith Goes to Washington naïveté about the whole thing,

Although much of that naivety has been eroded over the years, in particular through Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, the democratic process and the very safeguards of the Constitution helped expose the chicanery.

What is happening now is a complete destruction of that system. That a population can wilfully elect a convicted felon, a sexual predator and proven liar to the Presidency of the United States is unbelievable. That a psychotic narcissist and would be dictator struts about the world with seeming impunity given him by the American electorate, is an outrage. That his unelected unconscionable cabinet and advisers have been approved by the Senate is equally beyond comprehension.  Is it any wonder that watching my fond memories of America becoming excrement is upsetting.

So please forgive me if I am not as apoplectic about the difficulties encountered with the British Government. The British Constitution while unwritten is, in my view, still strong and, given the current failings of the American constitution to dispose of the felon, probably even stronger. Perhaps one that is enshrined on paper as opposed to one that is enshrined in belief and respect is not as enduring. The British have had 1500 years to develop it as opposed to 250 years on paper. 

ON BECOMING A CITIZEN

I do not really know to what extent the electorate of a country actually believes their vote influences  how their government performs. Indeed, to what extent do the citizens of a country actually feel they have a direct connection with how their country is run?

For the last 50 years I have been a citizen of the United Kingdom. I was effectively given sanctuary by the UK during the first 10 years of being in the UK, before officially becoming a British Subject. Having voluntarily become British, I was officially informed by the United States government, that my US citizenship had been withdrawn and that I was no longer entitled to the rights and privileges accorded to citizens of the United States. The pro forma letter sent to me read like a rebuke and a warning that my actions were depriving me of the very substantial safeguards and protections my being an American citizen provided.

At that time my country was seeking to prosecute me for failure to respond to the call to join up to the armed forces, under the selective service system. I was a draft dodger. It was not the most patriotic of decisions. There were obligations required by law to fulfil certain duties towards one’s country. I was, under the laws of the United States, breaking that law.  The only excuse I can offer is,  at the time I had made that decision there were several hundred thousand other young men who had made the same decision. Draft cards were being burned in public view at political demonstrations across the country. The United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War was being condemned across the world. From 1966 on, public opposition was growing and by 1968 anti-war demonstrations and general political unrest was rife everywhere. This went on through to April 1975 when that conflict officially came to an end.

I had left the United States in 1965. I had already been for a physical for induction into the armed services in 1962,  but at the time I was classified as being unfit for military service. Some time later, whilst I was in the UK (I think 1967) I had received notification to attend an induction centre for another physical for reclassification. I ignored the request. In 1972 I applied for British Citizenship which was eventually granted in 1975, at the end of the Vietnam War. The paperwork involved took time. Why? I’m not sure, but in 1975 I signed an affidavit of loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs and successors according to law. I did not swear by God, but truly declared and affirmed. It was after this that my US citizenship was withdrawn and I was still under threat of being prosecuted by the United States for my refusal to attend another physical for reclassification. So much for safeguards and protections. On January 21, 1977,  newly elected President Jimmy Carter signed a pardon for draft evaders of the Vietnam War. He apparently referred to it as the ‘single hardest decision’ of his campaign. So, I am pardoned. I cannot say that my decision not to return to the United States for reclassification was the single easiest decision of my life, as it was a decision made by default. I just ignored the letters. Too much else was going on.

I had voted in the 1964 general election in the United States. Lyndon Johnson, who had been elevated to President as a result of Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, was facing Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. On the back of the sentiment surrounding the assassination Johnson won 44 out of the 50 states, including the District of Columbia. He’d won 61.1% of the vote. The country was solidly Democratic. A huge endorsement from the public. At the time, very few of us knew just what was going on in Vietnam, but over the next four years, the escalation and the incessant news and television images, revealed an undercurrent of dissension and outrage. It was not just the anti-war sentiment but an entire cultural change that was festering all over the western world as well as behind the iron curtain.

There was a hardening of conservatism in much of America as well as an accompanying discontent among my generation of Americans. As a result of the war and persistent social unrest President Johnson withdrew from politics and Richard Nixon was the next elected President carrying 32 states out of 50. The country was seeking respite and the return of some kind of order. For some bizarre reason it was felt that Richard Nixon was the answer. Indeed, in 1972 Nixon garnered 49 states and over 60% of the popular vote, all the while trying to conceal his peculiar methods to retain power which amounted to an extraordinary abuse of power. He got his comeuppance and resigned. There followed vice president Gerald Ford’s ascendency to the presidency, and an extremely close presidential  election in 1976 bringing Jimmy Carter to office. The country was clearly exhausted. The war was at an end with a reluctant acceptance of defeat, a turning away from perceived corruption towards a possible return to decency and a breath of fresh air, in the guise of someone apparently guileless and willing to listen and compromise. “My name is Jimmy Carter and I’m running for President” was his constant refrain. Still, conservative America had a patriotic voice, hence his first most difficult single decision to pardon draft evaders on his first day in office. It was without fanfare, but a simple pardon with a view to reconciliation and healing of social wounds.

Now I had played no part whatsoever in the elections of 1968, 1972 or 1976. As a United States Citizen up to 1975, I could probably have voted in ’68 and ’72; however my vote would have been for nought given the swing towards Richard Nixon. As a voting citizen, during those ten plus years I felt no connection whatsoever with the government of the United States. I did not feel in any way that I was a fugitive who had broken the law. It was merely circumstance along a road less traveled by. The pardon in effect allowed me to pay a visit to Los Angeles in 1978 as a British Subject with an old fashioned blue British Passport wherein it was requested that I be “allowed to travel without let or hindrance” in foreign countries. I flew on a Laker Airways cheap flight which was not very crowded . I even had three seats to myself on the return flight, so I was able to stretch out. What ever happened to Freddie Laker? He was rather like a Jimmy Carter to air travel.

In the fifty years since I became a British Subject I have made four short trips to the US. Two to Los Angeles, one to New York and one to Sharon, Connecticut. I cannot say that these visits  instilled in me any desire to return to live in the United States. They were fun but and the people I frequented are lovely decent intelligent individuals, which is more than can be said for their federal government.

So why is it that I am more outraged by the  current assault on democracy in the United States than by some of the decisions taken by the Labour Party, which I support? I am upset by, or rather, dismissive of the Conservative Party and Nigel Farage and Co are deeply disturbing; however, none of that reaches the despair and anxiety I feel when it comes to the current administration in the United States. It is not as if there are no like minded people in the United States. One only has to comb through YouTube podcasts to find support.

I cannot say that anything I add to political and cultural discussion in the UK has any more effect than comment on the situation in the US. My vote here seems to be just as ineffectual as my no vote in America. Is a citizen’s life so completely separate from the government that administers their environment and their every day existence? Is it all down to us and them? How did we get here?

So far as the UK is concerned, the Romans came in 43AD and brought a bit of civilisation and governance of a sort. They left and various Anglo Saxon Kingdoms sprang up and governed from about 410 AD. Since then, over 1500 years, a variety of societies have governed in Great Britain culminating in the parliamentary democracy we now have under a constitutional monarchy. During that time the nation’s ups and downs have evolved into a multicultural country with an extraordinary variety of people such as native born locals, immigrants and refugees from all over. I suppose, in the light of my circumstances, I too became a refugee, allowed a fresh start and an education. I have personally never endured discrimination. Even during some dark times, I cannot claim to have suffered much. Do not get me wrong, the UK is not paradise. There is plenty of discrimination, bigotry and small mindedness to go around. The political right is every bit as insidious in creating as much disruption as possible. There are even those who willingly support the likes of Donald Trump. It is however the nation that produced the enlightenment and the very essential principles of the rule of law and human rights. There would have been no American or French Revolution without the likes of Hume, Smith, Locke, Paine et al.

Nonetheless the government is some other beast, seemingly separate from the population. Institutions have their own identity and independent existence which effectively makes them something apart.  Although made up of average citizens, who operate the civil service, are elected to local government offices, or employed in law enforcement, or the health service, the institutions seem separate from the public they serve. They behave, at times, as if in conflict with the people they are meant to serve.  It’s just people helping other people, yet once part of the institution the staff loose their personality and become part of the mechanism. How are we meant to connect if we are absorbed in the apparatus. When there are failings, committees are appointed to investigate and provide conclusions for lesson’s learned, which somehow are very rarely learned. The repetition of phrases like “institutional racism” I have heard over the last 50 years is ongoing.

I come back to my question, do the citizens of a country actually feel they have a direct connection with how their country is run? Is it through the ballot box? Or is it through demonstrations in Trafalgar and Parliament Squares or Whitehall outside Downing Street? Or is it now through campaigning on the Internet? Whatever it is, it causes me no end of anxiety. How foolish is that?

VOICES FROM THE PAST

This was recorded 59 yers ago in 1966. I had been in the UK for just under a year. The world cup was being played in England but there was a lot of other stuff going on all over the world, particularly in Vietnam and hence the United States. It all blew up in our faces in 1968.  

 

There is something happening here
What it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a gun over there
Telling me I’ve got to beware

 

TO DO THE RIGHT THING

Once again the world faces a very serious moral crisis. The concept of the rule of law, duty of care citizens have towards one another, compliance with obligations towards employers, and loyalty to the state, is being tested in seemingly solid democratic nations.  The Nuremberg trials revealed, in horrific graphic display,  that the justification “I was only following orders” was, in the face of the evidence of one’s own actions, not a tenable position. Criminal and immoral orders from above was no longer acceptable as an excuse of unacceptable behaviour.

It can, however, be extremely problematic and difficult for the individual to take action against those giving the orders. Indeed the whole concept of whistleblowing can, in many circumstances, be very self destructive or personally counter productive unless upheld by one’s fellow citizens or co-workers who may be adversely affected by the action taken.

The kinds of orders currently being given and acted upon in the United States of America have become far more serious and dangerous to the well being of a democratic state. Compliance with orders to deport and arrest innocent individuals and run roughshod over the rights of people whose liberty and well being is at stake is anathema; yet, clearly, there are huge numbers of people willing to comply with carrying out such orders without question, under the guise of “only doing one’s duty”.  Not only have most courts ruled many executive orders are outside the rule of law, but are most certainly in breach of the fifth and fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, amongst others.

Fifth Amendment:
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 offence 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.

Fourteenth Amendment:
SECTION . 1. All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Sections 2,3,4 and 5 deal with elections of representatives, disqualification for insurrection, public debt and enforcement. Section 3 would, in my view as well as others, most certainly apply to Mr Trump)

One has to imagine the difficulty faced by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officer  when carrying out his/her orders in the light of the current atmosphere created by Mr Trump and his acolytes. The arrogance and definitive position taken by his/her superiors and the barrage of misrepresentation of the truth and law, spumed out by various individuals in the Trump administration, make it virtually impossible for any  average right minded employee to shout out “Stop this, enough, this is wrong. I object. I will not follow this illegal order”.

It is all very well for Senators, House Representatives, politicians and pundits to take a stand for democracy, but for the individual actually expected to do the hands on part of the job, it is not so easy. To behave like a decent moral citizen, upholding a primary duty of care, in the face of a higher power or authority, is a tough ask. It shouldn’t be so, given what we are usually taught about decency and respect for others, but it is. Of course there have been examples of people who have resigned from positions where they have been told to take a certain course of action, such as lawyers refusing to cease ongoing actions, but there is always someone else to replace them. Therein lies the problem. There is always someone else. It is often said that one person can make a difference, but it usually takes a very long time and a lot of heartache for that difference to take effect. There appears to be some movement or backlash in the United States against Trump and his ridiculous administration. One hopes it is so.

The problem with blind nationalism throughout the world is that there are always people willing to do the dirty work and just follow orders. The things people do to each other is hard to come to terms with. We make laws about thievery and violence and take high moral positions, but when it comes to the actions of Nation States and the dangers of populism leading to dictatorship, somehow it all goes out the window. Political promises of a golden era to come, if only we do what we’re told, is the simple mantra. If only that were true. It comes back to the Eve Merriam poem I posted on 20th March, the last two stanzas of which:

Only we two, and yet our howling can
Encircle the world’s end.
Frightened,  you are my only friend.

And frightened, we are everyone.
Someone must make a stand.
Coward take my coward’s hand.

STAND UP FOR TRUTH TELLING

More about free speech. The Trump administration is forever claiming its adherence to free speech. The Vice President has even criticised other countries for their lack of free speech. The country now most actively seeking to curtail and control free speech is the United States of America.

What is going on, right now, with federal funding of universities is an outrage. Not only is the current administration seeking to get rid of the Department of Education entirely but it has blackmailed and bullied universities to change some of its programs the government thinks are critical. An article in the Guardian (from Reuters) reads, inter alia:

Columbia University has yielded to a series of changes demanded by the Trump  Administration as a pre-condition for restoring $400m in federal funding the government pulled this month amid allegations that the school tolerated antisemitism on campus.
The university released  a memo outlining its agreement with Donald Trump’s administration hours before an extended deadline set by the government was to expire.
Columbia acquiesced to most of the administration’s demands in a memo that laid out measures including banning face masks on campus, empowering security officers to remove  or arrest individuals, and taking control of the department that offers courses on the Middle East from its faculty.
The Ivy League university’s response is being watched by other universities that the Trump Administration has sanctioned as it advances its policy objectives in areas ranging from campus protests to transgender sports and diversity initiatives.
The Trump administration has warned at least 60 other universities of possible action over alleged failure to comply with federal civil rights laws related to antisemitism. It has also targeted at least three law firms that the president says helped his political opponents or  helped prosecute him unfairly.
Among the most contentious of the nine demands, Columbia agreed to place its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies department under a new official, the memo said  taking control away from its faculty.

In response to this Andrew Graham, political economist, former master of Balliol College, Oxford and former director of the Scott Trust has written a piece for the Guardian entitled, Academic freedom in the US is under threat – universities of the world, unite! which can be found at:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/09/universities-lies-truth-columbia-harvard-princeton

In his concluding paragraph he states:
The truth is almost always partial, debatable and context dependent. Yet, as Bernard Williams argued so convincingly inTruth and `Truthfulness, academics must be truth-tellers. We cannot be neutral with respect to fake news, misinformation or outright lies. No matter where these come from, they must be called out. If a university does not believe this and does not act accordingly, it does not deserve to be a university.
With Columbia having capitulated, and with Harvard and Princeton under pressure to follow suit, every university, not just across the US, but around the globe, must unite in standing up for truth-telling.

WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH

I have been recently puzzled by how the House of Representatives has succeeded in blocking legislation being put forward in the House. There is something to do with numbers of days. Somehow the House of Representative has turned one day into the length of a term. So if anyone seeks to introduce legislation they have to wait for the day to end. Since there is a never ending day, nothing can get done, unless some special rule is put in place. I confess I have no idea how that is meant to work What sort of fantasy land is this?

How fact and fiction seem to operate in the current United States Congress is beyond comprehension. It would appear that Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Truth has actually taken over the whole of Government in the United States. From the extraordinary deceptions and misrepresentations made by the President’s Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, openly claiming lies to be facts, with outright denials of visibly published texts. Nothing is real. Nothing of what one sees, reads or hears is real anymore. We are supposed to believe in bluster and bluff. Simply because a pronouncement is made by the President, or Secretary of State, Defence or Intelligence, we are meant to accept it as truth. The Press secretary is always stating that ‘The Secretary of Defence’ or ‘The Director of National Intelligence’ has  verified this or that assertion, so it must be true. She equates the Office with unimpeachable integrity. Never mind the truth or the outright denials by the individuals holding the office, in the face of actual text. Real words, visually displayed, apparently have no meaning.

As an example, Ms Leavitt has an extraordinary ability to reduce matters of actual import to absurdity. She recently asked (I paraphrase) “Why has the Atlantic downgraded their term War Plans to Attack Plans which are clearly not classified” Does she really not hear what she is saying? Does she really believe there is a difference in what we can see and hear, between the words and the context of ‘war’ and ‘attack’?

This is all in the name of free speech. The concept of free speech has descended into something almost entirely without meaning. Whereas once it meant the free flow of ideas and opinion, traditionally based on some knowledge, experience, evidence and veracity, it has now moved into the realms of free for all fantasy.

Free speech has long been held to be a human right and has accordingly been incorporated into bills of rights and constitutions in countries across the world. There are particular safeguards in the United States Constitution. The very first amendment incorporates all elements of free thought - religion, speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government:

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.

There are however certain responsibilities when it comes to exercising the right to speak, as we all have a duty of care towards each other under the rule of law. It is not considered correct to shout out ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. It is not considered correct to bully someone into believing a falsehood or to incite someone to commit an offence of any kind. It is not considered correct to insult, demean and disrespect any individual with hateful, harmful, racist, bigoted and sexist rhetoric. There are matters and views which are abhorrent to human interaction and accordingly various aspects of speech, oral or written, have been proscribed by law.

Fortunately those maters are few and limited. It is OK to have different opinions about politics, religion and personal preferences,  but not to the extent of doing harm, mental or physical, towards another. That is part of our duty of care. What is of concern at present is the lack of care exhibited by so many in responsible positions.

In my observations of the political makeup in the United States, under the guise of freedom of speech, never has this speech been so corrosive and divisive. The President is entirely self obsessed. He expects to be lauded and admired at all times. Any person disagreeing or offering objection is instantly vilified as a nasty person, of low intelligence and an enemy of the state. His behaviour is classic psychotic self aggrandisement. His acolytes perpetuate this view and support him in every way by constantly referring to him as an unerring brilliant leader who can do no wrong. This is done calculatingly and strategically in his presence. Whenever one of his team speaks within his hearing there will inevitably be some compliment and deference made towards him, with accompanying pointed gesture of some kind.

This adulation,  however goes further. Any criticism is viewed as an attack. Any opposing view is an attack, Nothing in apposition should be allowed. Freedom of speech is only for those who agree. Anyone who has the temerity to disagree has no right to free speech. Consequently all members of the Democratic Party are demons and anyone not it line must be vilified and ostracised.  This is a constant refrain.  Ms Leavitt has continuously referred to low level fake journalists. Equally she has referred to Judges, who have issued rulings against Trump and his administration, as low level democratic anti Trump activists. She has even included the wives of Judges in her vilifications, as democratic activists.   All dissidents are low level in her view.

The constant referencing of first amendment rights by Trump and his cohorts is as if it only applies to them and no one else. Indeed, it is as if the whole of the constitution is intended to apply solely to  his view. What is most appalling however, is that the Supreme Court, in its current rulings, seems to allow that view to prevail. Immunity and sidestepping due process are a diminution of the rule of law which does not bode well for the future.

As to first amendment rights, I wonder just how far any petition to the Government to redress grievances will get  in the current climate. There have been some demonstrations around the country and numerous hand painted signs calling for resistance against dictatorship an a return to democracy, as well as a number of broadcasters all over the media and internet. Whether any of this will bring about sanity and a return to the rule of law is a matter of some doubt. The separation and balance of powers seems to be fading away in the face of gigantic self interests.