THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE

When Abraham Lincoln delivered his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1861, he made a plea for unity and reconciliation during a time of deep national division over issues like slavery and secession. The United States Civil War broke out just five and and half weeks later on the 12th April 1861. In his final paragraph he said:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

His optimism was clearly misplaced at the time. So too is any feeling of optimism in the present. Why is that? Do we still not know the better angels of our nature? Are we not, in fact, facing the same difficulties over unity and freedom? Would we not all like a united world, free of rancour,  violence, greed, deviousness and corruption? 

I read the works of certain modern day thinkers and philosophers, mainly academics (where else but in academia could they survive) who are also occasionally trotted out in the media for a point of view about the state of the world in relation to the situation in Ukraine, Middle East, United States, Europe, Africa, United Kingdom etc; but little of what they say, although intellectually significant, offers actual solutions. Indeed, until we are actually touched by the better angels of our nature, things will continue as they are.

The simplicity of that is just as self evident as the truths outlined in the preamble to the declaration of independence of July 4th 1776, “….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.” This declaration was a preamble to a political constitution that was established “in order to form a more perfect union” which is coming up to its 250 year of existence. It is clearly now at a crossroads as to whether it will survive.

It is however, not the only country going through political upheaval. There are problems galore facing most of the western democracies. We have yet to see what will become of Hungary now that it has disposed of Victor Orban. Who will be coming forward as the next President of France in one years time? Will the wars in Ukraine and ghe Middle East  come to an end? Will the European Union manage to stay together? Will the United Kingdom finally rejoin the European Union? The problem of Unity within each nation, let alone across the globe, is still very out of focus.

In the United Kingdom, with all its very significant challenges, we are preoccupied with what amounts to umbrage and pique concerning the Prime Ministers previous choice of appointing Peter Mandleson as Ambassador to the United States. Why has it become such a problem so has to, possibly,  cause a change of leadership? Why the furious calls for resignations?

I ask for perspective. The previous Ambassador to the Court of Donald Trump was disliked by this dangerous dictatorial madman over remarks made. In my view perfectly accurate. Nonetheless, a replacement had to be found. Someone with whom the President could relate and who could schmooze and cajole this narcissist towards a more workable accommodation with the United Kingdom, despite Trump’s trashing of the so called special relationship. Indeed some kind of reconstructed relationship had to be found.  On looking around at possible candidates, who better than an arch machiavellian schmoozer, with an impressive honorary title,  Lord Peter Mandleson. Trump will like the title, will have already met him, as well as having a number of friends in common. You may think a perfect choice in the circumstances.  After all he was a former Labour tactician, a Member of Parliament and an ex Secretary of State. Indeed as a former Secretary of States he would surly have had a security clearance of the highest degree. He would be perfect for the role. Despite being ‘iffy’ and probably loathed by many politicians in Parliament he was just the right devious climber to deal with the likes of Trump and his sycophants. Lord Peter would fit right in.  So any additional examination was surely be redundant. Some people had misgivings, but the in house political advisers and tacticians thought it a very strategic choice. 

I do not think that I am wrong in that assessment, and Sir Keir, a very trusting soul whose most likely believes that his fellow politicians have the same notions of integrity, went along with it. I am sure, at the time, it was considered a very astute choice. But of course, as luck would have it, the continuing Epstein scandal at the Court of King Donald exploded with the release of thousands of pages of notes, letters, emails and photographs from Mr Epstein’s archive.  It revealed that the United Kingdom’s Ambassador was more connected with the President’s social circle that had been thought. What had seemed a clever and maybe audacious appointment backfired. The fawning, greedy, flattering, Uriah Heepish character was revealed in all his guises. What might have been an ideal appointment has come to naught and left Mr Starmer in difficulties as well as those who had supported him in the decision

And it was his decision. He can only apologies for that and has done so. Whatever explanation he has for making that decision is probably more difficult to explain, although the circumstances over the vetting procedure has to some extent given him a sort of excuse. It is unfortunate that his explanation to the House for taking that decision was incomplete and unintentionally  incorrect. Is that acceptable to the House? Is an incorrect statement, such as it is, a requisite for resignation? 

What with everything else in the world to deal with, in particular the affects on the British economy, its welfare system and national security, is it wise to remove Mr Starmer because of opposition party politics? I cannot believe the British public would be so stupid as to return to the Conservatives or turn towards Reform. That would clearly be insanity. In any event the Labour Party should be moving on and tightening its resolve. Closer unity is required and more thought put in to getting the message across that it’s not so much change that’s needed, as improving the current situation. If a change means making things work better, than make that clear. A more efficient NHS. Better values and conditions of employment. A healthier and productive economic climate. Improved social housing. Appealing to the better angels of our nature as citizens is what’s needed. We might just all step up.

WHAT ABOUT HUNGARY

I am in a quandary understanding  the political choices that are being made round the world. The very recent Hungarian elections are an instance in point. In last Sunday’s general election, Mr Orban’s Fidesz Party has lost its majority in the Hungarian National Assembly, a unicameral assembly consisting of 199 members. Since 2010, Mr Orban’s party, which was initially viewed as a centre right party, has consistently moved further right on the political spectrum.  It was also backed by the MH, or Mi Hazánk Party (Our Homeland Movement), a far right political party which had only 6 seats in the previous assembly. They still have their 6 seats whilst Mr Orban’s party has been reduced from 135 to 55 seats. A loss of nearly 60%. Whilst eight parties and ten independents were represented in the assembly, there are now only three left. The Tisza party with 138 seats, the Fidesz and alliance Party with 55 seats and the MH with their 6. 

It should be noted that when Mr Orban came to power in 2010, there were 386 seats in the assembly which represented a population of 9,979,128 which means each elected member represented about 25,852 people. In 2014 Mr Oban was again elected, however his government had changed the constitution and reduced the number of assembly members from 386 to the current 199. In that time the population had reduced to 9,862,842 and each seat represented 49,562 citizens. That population has reduced even further to around 9,585,818. Indeed the population of Hungary seems to be reducing by about 24,500 per annum over that last 16 years. Nearly 4% of the population has left the country in the last 16 years. Indeed the percentage of 30-34 year old citizens has gone down from 8.2% to 6.4% of the population and the 40 to 45 age bracket has gone down from 6.9% to 6.5%. In effect a lot of  of the 30-34 year olds from  2010  may have left the country.  There must be a  reason for this exodus.

So far as the new prospective Prime Minister, Mr Péter Magyar, is concerned, he was formerly a member of Mr Orban’s party from 2002 to 2026, when he became president of the Tisza party which is classified as a Centre Right party, as was Mr Orban’s in 2010 when first elected. So, I ask myself just how far has the Hungarian electorate actually moved? And will the population exodus begin to decline? Also, have the political parties previously on the left completely disappeared or have they been absorbed into Tisza? The socialist and social democrats previously had 25 seats.  The centrists and the conservatives had 16 seats. The independents had 10. That’s 51 seats that seemed to have changed hands or completely disappeared. Was there ever a left or left of centre political group at all? Will Péter Magyar go the way of Victor Orban? How far has Tisza moved away from Fidesz.

At the moment, it’s all smiles and congratulations from the rest of the European Union, as it is believed that Mr Magyar is a firm believer in the European Union, and the cries of ‘Russia go Home’ from the jubilant crowds on election night are very welcome to Mr Zelenskyy’s ears. Is this really a change of direction and will the Tisza movement, with its supermajority, actually restore greater representative government in the Assembly? Will the younger Hungarian citizens remain to find out? 

Is this a move away from right wing movements around the world or just a local reset for conservative parties across the globe? Does the outcome of the Hungarian election have any impact at all on a world view? Or is it just a local European election from which one can draw no conclusions at all? Does it have any real effect on  or within the European Union? These are things that give me pause. On the whole, I welcome the ousting of Mr Orban from any further influence on the political stage, or am I thinking too soon? We can only wait and see. 

 I am informed by Celia that the population decline is not unusual in that most European societies are in decline, but the Eastern European nations are particularly declining, Hungary being among the top countries with a declining population. Birth rates and death rates are changing although emigration is a large factor. In most Western European countries and North America the population in increasing although the growth rate is declining. Populations across the world clearly vary. In Hungary the population is in decline and the median age is rising.  In 2010 it was 38.9 and in 2026 it is 44.2. It would seem younger people are leaving and going elsewhere. Whether this is a good or bad thing is debatable. We can only wait and see.

As to the ousting of the current leadership, one can only be thankful the orange man child might feel the disappointment that his endorsement carried no weight.

PLUS ÇA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST LA MÊME CHOSE ? or PLUS C'EST PIRE ?

I had intended on posting a completely different type of entry, one more focused on the autobiographical; however, in the light of events I was reminded that on the 24th June 2025 I wrote a blog entitled “Have we given our hearts away”. In it I included the following, but I have highlighted some phrases in bold:

“The world is too much with us, complained William Wordsworth in 1802, just after the turn of the 18th and 19th century....
In effect much was going on then as now. There certainly was a continuous level of violence going on, and the recognition of human rights was being determined all over the globe. Revolutions and hypocrisies were rife, nonetheless we have established, in more than one area, a human rights convention and an International Criminal Court to oversee flagrant breaches of a rule of law that we are all meant to observe. So as Wordsworth cried out in 1802 against a disappearance of decency, so we cry out now that the world is indeed too much with us. Relief from this insanity of nationalist imperialism and violent religious bigotry, would not come amiss. Must leaders of democracies be tyrants in the making? Is arrogance and narcissism a prerequisite to governance? Why do so many cling to people of such colossal ego with extravagant and amoral prejudice? Is it necessary to create a bogeyman on whom to heap vile insults, such as Hitler on the Jews and Trump on all immigrants? Is it essential to so obviously twist the truth? 
For goodness sake, there are pictures and recordings of events, clearly illustrative of appalling actions and criminality, which are turned on their head. Why is that accepted? Are the populace so totally mesmerised as to be made deaf, dumb and blind?
When will the congress of the United States step up and reassert its powers to uphold the rule of law? When will this Orwellian horror show be over?
One should normally be respectful of other people’s views, no matter how difficult they may be. To have divergent opinions is a healthy thing. We are individuals and not all alike. We may seethe inwardly, but honest opinion is to be respected. Honest opinion, not one founded on mendacity, bigotry and ignorance. With the likes of Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Lukashenko, Orban et al, it is a calculated and pernicious obsession to retain power. Any lie and appeal to ignorance is acceptable. It is strategic condescension, as defined by Pierre Bourdieu, used to maintain that power. Is it any wonder Trump claims to “love the poorly educated”?
I sometimes feel at wits end and deeply troubled by an inability to act. It is all very well to rant at my MacBook Air screen, but it changes nothing. I know I am not alone in my point of view. It is irrational, but I loath the poorly educated. I do not speak of the ignorant, or the intellectually challenged,  as they are for the most part able to distinguish truth from lies. I loath the people who claim education and knowledge when it is, in effect, based on deceit, duplicity, lies and fabrications. Believing in myths and ghosts is harmless, but calling on people to obliterate those with whom we do not agree, and calling them scum, is a crime against humanity. This is what our current leaders seem to do, and want to do. It is who we have elected. How sad is that?”

So, having said that nearly a year ago, the situation has become even worse. The crass, crude and rude uncivilised behaviour of the current President of the United States is beyond redemption. His acolytes are no better. How has the world order let such stupidity reign for so long? Now, even some of Trump’s previously staunch supporters want to see him removed as soon as possible. His clear lack of control over his own speech as well as over his supposed ally, Netanyahu, has imperilled the world. Under the guise of his approach to making America safe, he has exacerbated a tragic situation in the Middle East by making it not only a death trap of horrifying proportions, but an equally catastrophic economic disaster. 

I am sorry to be so repetitive, but there is no other way. The same crap seems to be occurring again and again. The nightly news is just as stuck, amplifying the same story over and over again since the 21st January 2025. There is no such thing as “What’s new?”. Perhaps there is a change, from “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose” to “plus ça change, plus c'est pire” 

Can this be fixed at the ballot box? I sincerely hope so. 

ANOTHER VIEW

We are, once again, being led into a tangle of distractions away from the catastrophe that is the Trump administration. Millions of Americans came out on the streets across the country to protest the very idea that the United States should be run by autocracy. 

Nonetheless, the attempt to divert focus to the journey round the moon and the live movie script that is the rescue of a downed US Airforce serviceman, is ongoing. It is a continuation of the comic book approach to governance that consumes Trump, Hegseth and other sycophants. What is going on is far from a game. Other influential figures have no hesitation in condemning the violence. The newly seated Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope in Rome have made their views quite clear. Would that the political leaders of all European countries, and other members of the United Nations, condemn the United States, Israel and Russia in no uncertain terms, for their illegal and criminal actions in Middle Europe and the Middle East. Netanyahu has already been indicted, butTrump and his entire Cabinet should be facing the same scrutiny by the International Criminal Court. 

The latest moment of braggadocio from Trump and Hegseth “We got him”, costing over a billion dollars, quite apart from the two billion a day, is a confusion. Whilst it is laudable that such an effort should made to extract a fellow serviceman from harms way, he should not have been put in that position in the first place.  Heroic acts are really distractions from the corruption that engulfs the entire Trump administration. One must not let the Hollywood style theatrics divert from the condemnation and law enforcement required to bring this venality and dishonesty to book. 

Here a clip from the Rachel Maddow show which gives an overall of what is going on at present.  Well worth a look and listen. If the video is not available go to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI36Z5otlrQ

EXPLORING THE MOON

In the light of the present journey around the moon and back, here is a little vignette from 13 years ago with Bill Nye the Science Guy and some reporter on Fox News