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.