The Democrats can't afford to underestimate Palin as they did Bush. Not because of the candidate herself is anything special, but because the RNC knows how to frame the debate, and they don't.

What a disappointing debate. Far from the walk-over that many Obama fans were taking for granted, Biden and Palin seemed to demonstrate just how little the Democrats have learned in the past 25 years.

If we look at the debate in strictly intellectual terms, Biden did as well as everyone would expect. He clearly and concisely defended Obama’s positions on the major issues- most impressively in regards to Iraq and the issue of taxation. Palin, to her credit, appeared to have come a hell of a long way since her disastrous CBS interview earlier this week, showing at least an awareness of what McCain’s positions were. Her answers consisted largely of pre-prepared talking points and soundbites, and were a long way from the grounded, systematically explained arguments put forward by Biden. In intellectual terms, the candidate with the superior experience, background knowledge and education won unequivocally.

But both Al Gore and Kerry were beaten by Bush. And as Biden stood there, reeling off lists of arguments, statistics and policy positions- even going so far as to number them for us on several occasions- Palin stood there smirking, just as Bush did in ‘00 and ‘04, and as Reagan had done 15 years before that.

Despite what the political junkies who have the benefit of background knowledge might think, all those facts, arguments and policy positions just bounced right off her. You could see Biden getting more and more exasperated, desperately searching for a knock-out statistic that might elicit a gasp from the audience or an ‘oooh’ and an ‘ahh’ and send Palin dashing out of the room in tears. And poor guy- he just kept repeating himself; wondering why that killer fact didn’t have the desired impact first time round and saying it again, just in case nobody had heard him clearly.

And know-nothing Sarah, who had been drilled to parrot slogans, stood there smirking. When it got to her turn, she barely talked about the issues, and she certainly didn’t waste time explaining her ticket’s reasoning for holding those positions. Instead, she told us stories.

At every opportunity, she told us little details about herself which made her look human, like a normal person rather than a politician. Sure, both candidates engaged in the ‘When I was in Smallville I met superman and he can’t afford to fill his gas tank/ pay for an operation’ rhetoric, but Palin perfected the art of Bush and Reagan, and took it 10 miles further. “Is it all right if I call you Joe?”, she asked loudly as the candidates appeared on stage.

She constantly hammered home the idea of her and McCain being Washington outsiders, on several occasions completely ignoring Biden, the audience and the moderator, and, the down-home outsider she is, talking directly at the camera, and thus to the American people. For those that understand the seriousness of the debate, it’s easy to scoff at these kind of stunts- after all, they’re pre-planned hogwash, about as far from being spontaneous as it comes. But for a nation which prides itself on defying formalities and talking straight, and which is fed-up with Washington convention, they were stunts that resonated.

When Reagan won his first election, the polls indicated that something funny was going on. The majority of people actually disagreed with his stance on many issues, but intended to vote for him anyway.

They voted for him because, while the Democrats gave them lists of facts, Reagan (a man who, it must be said had little more time in Washington than Obama) sold them a dream- a world-view – a set of ideas. He spoke about a country restored from the ignominy of Watergate and global recession, in which the American spirit of free enterprise and self-reliance would be restored, evoking the spirit of the frontier.

Whilst bare logic said that they didn’t necessarily sign up for Reagan’s platform on the immediate issues- his ability to connect with voters, to communicate a more abstract set of values and a character the voters trusted and could relate to meant that, while they didn’t agree with him on everything, they nonetheless had confidence in his ability to handle the unforeseen.

People like (and vote) for people who are like them- even if they don’t always agree with them. The empirical, rationalist model which says that people will naturally vote along the lines of their own self-interest has been proven to be wrong, time and time again. The human brain is more sophisticated than a mechanical instrument of narrow, self-interested logic, and is designed to make decisions based on more than the facts before us. People will ignore facts that don’t fit into the frame they have chosen to view the World through.

Earlier this year, the Obama campaign, almost uniquely for a Democratic candidate in a long time, showed signs of understanding this. He beat Hillary, not because they differed substantially on the issues, but because voters bought into a story- a wider narrative of a little skinny kid who, from the most unlikely of backgrounds, had forged himself an identity in America, the nation of opportunity, and who would once again restore that opportunity to the nation as a whole. Presidential elections are about selling characters, not issue positions. If the electorate believes in the character, they’ll trust them to handle the issues.

The Obama campaign- as the Bush and Reagan campaigns did too, ran on the reasoning that if voters responded and bought into the ‘Obama dream’, and the values and principles implicit within it, then agreement on the facts and policy positions would follow. Palin, and John McCain, by presenting a story of a pair of mavericks taking on the World, are doing the same thing. The two most successful Democrats of the 20th century- FDR and JFK, did it too- not by setting out specific plans for economic renewal or for winning the cold war, but by embodying the concepts of renewed confidence, youth and vitality, thus winning the confidence of the American people to handle the challenges facing the nation.

Over the past few months though (I suspect due to the increase in the DNC’s influence since he became the official nominee), the Obama campaign seems to have lost its nerve. They came under attack for not talking about the issues enough, and while it was definitely time to have some plans prepared in more detail that could be referred to in rebutting some of McCain’s more outrageous claims, they’ve done this at the expense of abandoning the key ideas and narrative that won Obama the primary.

Which is the reason why Palin could stand there and smirk, ignoring the issues whilst hammering home her personality, life story and what she (at least pretends) to represent. And Biden was doing half the work for her- did anybody count the number of times he said the word maverick? As George Lakoff predicted an in an excellent article at the beginning of this month, the more the Obama campaign uses the word ‘maverick’- even if in order to negate McCain-Palin’s claims to be one, the more they unwittingly re-enforce the concept.

Nixon standing before TV cameras to say ‘I am not a crook’, simply made us all think of him as a crook. Same principle. Yet Biden stood there and repeatedly said that ‘McCain is not a maverick’, and we all sat there and thought of McCain as a maverick. Use any other phrase- call him a ‘Washington insider’ as Lakoff suggested, a ‘friend of lobbyists’, ‘yesterday’s man’ or any other phrase you like- but got goodness sake, Biden should know better than to fall into line and obediently parrot McCain’s own choice of (largely positive) language to describe himself.

Looking towards Israeli border post in Golan Heights

200m away, I can just about make out a Blue Star and the words ‘WELCOME TO ISRAEL,’ painted in bold, capital letters across the roof of what appears to be a gas-station type construction, here out in the middle of nowhere. A tarmac road runs from where I stand right up to it and continuing, I guess, all the way to Tel Aviv eventually. Physically, there’s no reason why I can’t just duck under the horizontal bar and walk across. Politically, it’s lethal.

I can faintly hear grasshoppers chirping across the waves of fields ahead of me. “It is ok to use my camera? I ask, employing the ancient art of comic pantomime to reinforce the message. My Syrian police escort nods his head disinterestedly. I have interrupted his conversation with the army-uniformed border guard. From the looks of things, they’re old pals who only get to chat when tourists such as myself stray into these parts. Everyone knows their neighbor down here.

The camera is aimed deliberately, poised to capture the scene from all angles. I must record it as I said I would- capture it so that I remember it exactly and can describe it to you accurately. I am, after all, standing amongst living history.

And so I will chronicle all angles of this anonymous place- except for the border post behind me. My chaperone has made it pretty clear that photographing Syrian military installations isn’t allowed, and I’m not about to find out what the penalty might be.

The enemy encampment and UN and Red Cross installations in between however, are fair game. Still, I try to be discrete as the last thing I want is to be spotted and subsequently hunted by Mossad as a Syrian spy.

The final border Syrian border checkpoint in the Golan- Al Jolan, is a strange place, but curiously, doesn’t feel like the flashpoint of modern history that it is. There isn’t that sense of tension or precariousness I was expecting. There aren’t rows of tanks here, or the thousands of men staring each other down just a few metres away, as there are, apparently on the 39th parallel in divided Korea.

Instead, on the Syrian side at least, a bored 19 year old in fatigues and a Kalashnikov sits on a stool in a shed trying to make his last cigarette last. The WELCOME TO ISRAEL sign, of course is just propaganda- either a taunt or wishful thinking, depending on your point of view. Nobody has crossed this border in at least 40 years, save a few dozen Druze brides whose people, split between the two countries, are prohibited from marrying outside of their community and thus were allowed to exchange Syrian passports for Israeli ones several years back.

The overwhelming emotion here isn’t of fear, tension or (perhaps as part of me hoped) the thrill of standing in the epicentre of a major geopolitical quake zone. Rather, it’s one of sadness. This is sodding ridiculous I find myself muttering under my breath.

We’re not in a war zone- this is the countryside. By all rights, tractors and pickup trucks with farm kids piled in the back should be working their way back and forth along this road right now, with nobody in the next town, let alone anywhere else in the World, taking the slightest bit of notice. Instead, 40 years of deadlock and political posturing give us barbed wire and bored sentries, and if I were to walk 100m further down the road, I’d probably be covering the last 50 in a body bag, courtesy of the Syrian Army and/or the IDF.

This strip of land has had so much invested in it, given so much value, that it’s easy to forget that, at the end of the day, it’s just a tragic waste with very little in it.

For most Israelis, this scrub land is just a buffer zone, although for some this is just the beginning of a larger, all-encompassing ‘Greater Israel’ across the Middle East. It represents security, a check against neighbours with whom it has never come to terms, a water supply, and, at the most mercenary, a bargaining chip for when the time eventually comes- at American urging- to make a deal.

For the Syrians I have spoken to, Al Golan is their nation’s pride, embodying a self confidence so rudely lost in 1967 and never fully recovered. The years since have offered little but economic difficulties, political isolation and further military humiliation by way of consolation.

For decades therefore, regaining the Golan Heights has been the cause célèbre of Syria’s political classes, and held as a precondition of any deal with Israel. Grandiose speeches and even threats are still sometimes delivered too. With the USSR gone though, the days when Syrian tank columns and flocks of fighter jets might threaten to rumble across the border are long past, and however ruefully, every Syrian knows it. Besides, president Al Assad has other priorities- economic development above all. He’s no fool- foreign investors are scared off by too much sabre rattling.

And so the routine continues. The Golan may be an open sore in Syria’s side and a generation of its residents removed by Israeli soldiers may still reminisce of homes and memories lost, carrying their old house keys with them in the hope of one day returning, but nonetheless, the routine will continue:

Some rhetoric but not too much, Israel and the World’s attention diverted from this quiet place to fires in Gaza and the West Bank, and quiet and creeping acceptance of the status quo.

And when the time finally comes to make peace, the Golan, and the people tied to it, will become mere symbols- trophies to be bargained with, prioritized against other demands and concessions, traded and dealt.

The battle for this place, whether played out with tanks or around tables of negotiators, is about lots of things- pride, security, economics and perhaps, if some have their way, even arcane matters of religion and history. The argument over this place is about just about everything- except the land itself, and least of all the people who have fallen through this tarmac crack across it.

And everyone instantly, regardless of their opinion on the affair, involuntarily thought of him as a crook. According to the linguist (hold in here, this is actually quite interesting!) George Lakoff, this is because every word or statement carries with it a ‘frame’. Frames are a little like connotations: ideas, things or concepts that come to mind when you mention a word. Frames go a little further though- they’re sets of connotations which, combined, represent an entire worldview, a system of logic, a way of seeing the world or a particular issue, and a way of reasoning our way through it.

You can endorse or negate a frame; Nixon could just as easily have said “I am a crook”, but simply by using that frame, you bring into the conversation all of the baggage it implies. The implications of this for politics are huge. When arguing, don’t use the other side’s language. Their language has been constructed to evoke a specific frame- a worldview, framework of values, that supports their argument- a framework in which the ‘common sense’ evoked by that frame will mean that you cannot win the argument. Paranoid conspiracy theory it is not. It’s a fact for the record that Radical Conservatives (yes, they exist too), have put millions of dollars over the past few decades into framing the terms of political debate, and, through sheer numbers, getting it out through the media and into the minds of millions of people. Don’t believe me? Look up the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and, here in the UK, Policy Exchange, all of which employ linguists to continually frame the day’s news and get themselves invited onto TV interviews and talk radio to disseminate those frames. It’s a huge operation, and something I’ll hopefully discuss in a future article.

A classic example of framing of this kind, raised by Lakoff, is the phrase ‘tax relief’, coined by US conservatives to describe proposals to cut taxes for the super-rich, and thus blow trillion-dollar holes in the US federal budget as a prextext for slashing social programmes.

What does the word ‘relief’ evoke? It evokes a victim, an affliction and an afflictor. By using the frame ‘tax relief’, regardless of whether you say you’re for or against it, you’re invoking a logic which casts the super-rich as the afflicted, the government as the villain-afflictor, and the conservatives who support the cuts as heroic liberators and champions of the common man.

Beyond US politics, the global justice movement is particularly terrible at ignoring frames. Each time protestors arrive at the G8 waving banners that say NO TO FREE TRADE AGREEMENT’, the sweatshops win. How can a global ‘freedom and justice movement’, be opposed to something which is ‘free’, or an ‘agreement’? As far as the general public is concerned, there’s an implicit contradiction there, which, of course, leaves the protestors wide open to attacks of naiveté, or worse, dishonesty. The protestors don’t agree that free trade is free at all, nor that the things signed at these international summits are even real agreements, given that developing countries are often coerced into signing them- that’s their point- so why accept the opposition’s attempt to describe it in such inaccurate terms? Similarly, the movement is one of the most internationally coordinated in history, and yet many happily accept the label of being ‘anti-globalisation’…..why not just wear a sign that says ‘kick me’ and be done with it?

If we’re going help the World mobilise itself towards a carbon-free future, then frames are more important than ever. At the moment, by using the other side’s language, environmentalists shoot themselves in the foot- we should be against ‘hidden-cost’ flights, not ‘cheap’ ones. They’re not cheap at all- that, again, is our point! They have an incalculable cost in terms of environmental impact which isn’t included in your ticket price. If we were to use ‘hidden cost’ flights frame instead, we’d not only reject the false notion of cheapness, but also build on an existing frame. The ‘hidden-costs’ frame is one that air passengers are already familiar with; they’ve long complained about hidden taxes, luggage charges and booking fees which lay behind the attractive looking prices on the billboards and newspapers. By taking advantage of an already well-established frame, those who recognize the urgency of climate change can, very quickly and effectively, link their arguments to existing dissatisfaction, rather than having to establish a new frame from scratch.

Frames aren’t propaganda terms; you’re not calling apples oranges, you’re simply making the decision to employ language that doesn’t just communicate naked facts, but also implicitly clothes them in your own wider ‘logical framework’, ‘values system’ or ‘world view’, rather than those of the opposition. Everything we say is framed in some way; all language carries, at least subconsciously, a reflection of our own particular worldview or prejudices. Rather, political framing is about being aware of that process and ensuring that the frames we evoke are the ones we believe in, rather than those of the opposition. Propaganda, on the other hand, is the act of framing something known to be patently untrue for the sake of political control. Manipulative framing isn’t just immoral; it also has a habit of backfiring sooner or later.

As all the examples show, whether you like it or not, frames trump facts. A frame, once established in the mind, contains a logical framework. Once the phrase ‘tax-relief’ has become established, it follows quite logically that the taxed become victims, government the aggressor, and so on. Someone opposed to those tax cuts can quote as many statistics as they like in order to refute it, and to point out that super-rich people don’t need tax cuts, but, within the ‘tax-relief’ frame, ‘logic’ will refute the facts every time. People ignore the facts if they don’t fit the frame through which they view the issue. Because Bush & Co were able to argue for the attack on Iraq using the same narrative frame used to justify Afghanistan, then facts and objections did not matter- the war was the next step in an accepted storyline; it made logical sense to a majority of intelligent, rational, honest Americans.

It’s not enough to refute facts, therefore. Progressives need to deliver those facts within their own frames, ones which suggest a coherent system of values and which accurately describe their beliefs. If you establish a frame, the facts that fit that frame are accepted, and the conclusions in regards to policies etc. follow quite naturally.

For example, instead of saying something stupid like “I oppose tax relief for the rich”, say something that you actually believe, rather than doing your opponent’s dirty work for them. What is tax? Tax is what we pay to live in a civilized country, with roads, courts, police, ambulances and clean streets. It’s what we pay for the opportunity and democracy of a civilized society, and to use the infrastructure paid for by previous taxpayers. So say it. A tax isn’t an affliction- spent wisely; it’s an investment in your own, and your country’s future.

Bill Gates only got rich by successfully building upon the investment made by previous generations-; an educated workforce, a secure and prosperous market in which to sell his products, courts to handle disputes with competitors, police to uphold anti-piracy laws- whatever we do in our society, we’re building on the achievements of our fellow citizens, and it’s our duty to repay that debt. That’s not to say people on either side of the political divide enjoy being taxed, and certainly nobody wants to see tax money wasted or to be taxed more than is necessary, but there’s a big difference between something oppressive and inherently bad, and something which, like homework, is a pain in the ass, but which we know is a worthwhile investment in our future.

If you were to discuss tax in this frame, the gap between your progressive and your Conservative neighbour doesn’t seem so wide. After all, he supports a strong military and the principle of social obligations, and believes that, by virtue of being born into this country, we all have a duty to invest in our country’s future by serving it and safeguarding the achievements of previous generations. He’s already accepted that we have an obligation and interest in serving our fellow citizens through military service; if framed correctly, consistently and in a coordinated way, the need for a fair system of taxes and other progressive issues such as climate change and trade justice can be argued for and accepted in quite similar terms.

****

The idea of ‘political framing’ is one I’ve picked up from the rather good ‘Don’t Think of an Elephant’ by linguist, George Lakoff, and elaborated on a little. Much of his work is focussed on the American political system particularly, and so I’m interested in how those principles might apply to politics here in the UK, particularly in the fights against poverty and climate change. I’ll be posting more observations, ideas and other stuff as I keep reading more from Lakoff and others, and we’ll see what comes of it. Have a great week! >Ben

From the Democratic debate in New Hampshire last night, it’s now clear that the contest between the candidates has effectively come down to two key characteristics which, in 2008 will matter the most to voters. These are experience and change. The third, electability, is an equally important issue likely to be on the minds of New Hampshire’s Democrats, but one which is typically discussed only behind closed doors. Faced with questions on an array of topics ranging from healthcare to nuclear proliferation, candidates’ replies consistently returned to firstly why they felt they had the experience to handle it, and secondly, why they were best placed to offer a significant break with the past on that particular issue.

Hillary Clinton, above anyone else, has worked to make experience the central theme of the campaign. Asked about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal last night, she jumped to draw parallels with a similar incident which occurred under her husband’s administration. When queried about her ability to work with congress, she pointed to her ‘35 years of experience’ in national politics, as well as identifying rival candidates from both parties as good friends and colleagues. The way the she speaks, you’d think that Bill Clinton had spent 8 years in the White House as a yes-man.

This is all part of her chief advisor’s ‘incumbent strategy’, the plan being from the beginning to form the Hillary campaign to look as much like a government in exile, ready from day one to take the reins, as possible. Few now doubt that the current administration is one of the least competent ever to hold office, whilst even fewer doubt that when it comes to competence and experience of how Washington works, Hilary is difficult to beat. The flip side of the ‘incumbent’ strategy, is that is was also designed to make mincemeat of younger, unforeseen opponents standing in her way, Obama particularly by exposing their lack of experience. Over the past few days, we’ve seen her attacks get increasingly nasty, as she tries to convince Democrats that not to give her the White House would be, quite simply, irresponsible

Employing the same politics of fear and cynicism which have characterised the White House for the past 8 years, Bill Clinton has repeatedly wondered out loud if America can afford to ‘take a roll of the dice’ on a candidate such as Obama with only three years in the Senate. Hilary, on the other hand, has openly questioned whether anyone but her is fit to go into battle with the infamous Republican attack machine, seasoned warrior that she is. Last night, she even tried to compare Obama to George Bush, helpfully reminding us of what happened last time America voted for a guy ‘they’d like to have a beer with’, throwing caution into the wind and relying on intuition over intellect. After Iowa revealed that competence wasn’t enough, and that the ability to affect change was something that actually mattered to voters, Hilary last night was at pains to incorporate it into her own message, arguing that, as the most experienced candidate, she is the one best placed to affect change and to go into battle with Republicans to achieve it, reeling off a list of legislation she had fought for over the years.

But change is more than a legislative program, it’s also more than a change in the party to hold the White House. The victory for Obama (and, yes, Huckabee) shows that Americans are looking for something more fundamental than that. Even if viewed as incidental, the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton pattern that would result from a Hilary victory is symptomatic of a much more fundamental malaise in American politics.

People are waking up to the realisation that lasting change doesn’t come about from switching from one party to the other every eight years on a razor-thin percentage of the vote, just so the new administration can reverse the programme of its predecessor and institute its own. When Clinton talks about her experience in politics, that’s the game she’s referring to. When she talks about competence, all she’s saying is that she can hit the Republicans harder, knocking them out of the White House for perhaps twelve years, rather than the customary eight. That’s not change, that’s business as usual, and a game of merry-go-round politics which Americans know they can no longer afford.

Hilary’s second mistake is to underestimate Obama as a pretty face who gives a good speech. She’s repeatedly underplayed this, referring to him as the man who ‘talks about change’ implying that she, the gritty realist, is the only one who can deliver. The fact is though, despite being the best orator in the contest, Obama’s charisma and personality aren’t the only things which Clinton lacks.

The role of the President of the United States is not just that of Commander-in-Chief, nor confined to that of Chief Executive. The inhabitant of the White House also happens to be the Head of State, too. Despite what Hilary would like you to believe, Presidents are rarely judged on their legislative programme alone, and their office constitutes far more than a prize to be won on behalf of their party. Indeed, in a Federal government, which, in comparison to European countries, still has a relatively indirect role in the lives of its citizens, the President’s ability to bring change directly through legislation is quite limited. Few, for example, would look back half as fondly on the years of FDR, Kennedy and Reagan if judging them on their legislative record alone.

What makes presidents go down in history as great, within the United States, and overseas, is far less tangible- quite simply, the ability to inspire. The United State’s recovery from economic disaster and restoration of self-confidence almost overnight owed just as much to Franklin Roosevelt’s positive attitude, amiable character and fireside chats as it did The New Deal or anything it achieved. Similarly, in his short time in office, Kennedy achieved relatively little. Nonetheless like a breath of fresh air, the youngest president in history succeeded in embodying the self-belief and faith in progress of his age, just as Reagan, (whatever your view of him), restored faith in the Presidency in the wake of Watergate. As for George Bush, as it turns out, he’ll be remembered less for Iraq or the Patriot Act than the fear and loss of self-belief he exploited and grew in the wake of 9/11. However much Clinton would like to deny it, personality matters, a lot. A president’s ability to inspire people to change can bring far wider consequences than a decision to sign a bill into law.

If it ended there, you still might have a good reason to vote for Hilary. After all, given the mixed results of men like Reagan and JFK, it is questionable whether Americans can afford to chase a potentially ‘great’ president at the expense of playing it safe and putting into the White House a merely ‘good’ one for 8 years. But Obama’s personality, and Clinton’s lack of it, will not just be an asset on the campaign trail, but, once in office, a political one too. The same charisma and eloquence that inspired young people to turn out in droves in Iowa can capture the imaginations of young people across the World. From the streets of Gaza to skeptical Europeans such as myself, the story of how the ’skinny boy with a funny name’, became the most powerful person on the planet has the ability to capture imaginations and re-ignite their belief in a nation built not by kings and aristocrats, but the dreams of the dispossessed and the underfoot.

At home too, Obama’s character can stand for far more than Clinton’s ruthless ambition and technocratic competence. She may be the expert warrior, steeled in the bitter partisan battles of the 1990s, but it is precisely her husband’s inability to win the country wholeheartedly that made those battles a necessity. Ever since the hapless Kerry lost by the single state of Ohio in 2004, ‘Ohio plus one’ has been the mantra of the Democrat establishment, of which Hilary is central. To people for whom the White House is simply a prize, the nation divided into irreconcilable ‘red states’ and ‘blue states’, only a few states matter. As long as enough votes are won to tip the balance and deliver their man (or woman) the presidency, that’s just fine. Small wonder, then, when those same marginal states deliver to congress individuals of the opposite party, that they demand the president be ready to battle. A Democrat President fighting, as Bill Clinton did, tooth-and-nail against a Republican congress may, if he’s lucky, achieve change in a trickle, but nothing that a few hanging chads in Florida can’t reverse overnight.

Achieving the kind of lasting, genuine change that Americans of all political stripes desire will mean more than just ‘winning’ a few marginal states, which, with her vast negative ratings, is the best Hilary can expect. At the very least, it will require a sympathetic Congress with more than a razor-thin majority. But it should also go further than that. It’ll mean a fundamental shift of the nation’s political landscape and rely on the ability of a Democrat president to reach out beyond the traditional base. They’ll have to be willing to venture into states such as Mississippi and Alabama, states which, as the poorest in the nation, have much to gain from the Democrat message, and who have been written off as irrevocably ‘red’ for too long. It’ll require framing our arguments in language that evokes not Hillary’s battles of the past, but which builds, as FDR, JFK and LBJ did, a consensus amongst wildly diverse groups of the need to overcome the special interests blocking the corridors of Capitol Hill.

Once in the White House it will also- and Hilary won’t like this- mean relying on more than the winning candidate’s own experience, and beyond a clique of advisors belonging the last party grandee to hold the job. Far more important than such narrow ‘experience’ , will be the humility to listen, as the current administration so often failed to do, to outside experts on foreign and economic matters, to govern in the interests of more than just 51% of the electorate, and the frankness to restore faith and trust once again in the United States and its President. Barack Obama can, and is doing, all of these things. I know who the underqualified candidate is, and it certainly isn’t him.

Active support wasn’t really crucial, passivity is always enough. Whilst Hitler personally enjoyed tremendous personal support, you need to remember that despite their personal devotion to him, Germans were initally very suspicious of the Nazi Party as an organization. So much so that there was no real desire for it, in and of itself, to be running the country. Hence the need for the Night of the Long Knives, in which Hitler purged the party of its more anti-establishment, radical elements, such as the thugs in the SA under Ernst Rohm, and in doing so, gaining the support of establishment figures.

Fascist rises to power, in contrast to leftist ones, typically don’t take the form of revolutions, per se. Unlike a typical leftist revolution, in which the old establishment is largely displaced and replaced with a completely new (but usually just as bad) ruling class, Fascist takeovers tend to me a more orderly handover of power, more to do with backstairs intrigue than barricades.

In Germany, the Nazis had the support of old establishment figures such as Hindenberg, Ludendorff etc; solid old war heroes, and symbols of the proud Imperial Prussia of the Kaiser. With economic chaos and social disorder (actively encouraged, though, perhaps not directly initiated) by the genuinely revolutionary elements of the Nazi party, these old guards viewed Hitler, and the conservative face of Nazism, as means through which stability could be brought – breathing new life into the established state, not destroying it.

Once Hitler had established himself as a figurehead which appealed to the German people, and he, and the conservative; ‘respectable’ wing of the Nazi party had secured the support of the old elites and business leaders, he was free to dispose of the revolutionary element of the Nazi party and take control via effectively constitutional means.

It was only as time went by, and very gradually, that the Nazi party was able to break down the old organs of the German state bureaucracy. Examples such as the marginalization of the Foreign Ministry by Hitler’s pal Ribbentrop, gradual absorption of the old German police and internal security services into their Nazi counterparts at the Gestapo, the gradual subordination of the army into the SS over the course of the war…the Nazification of the state itself was still ongoing in 1945; it was an evolution, not a revolution, built on the existing foundations of the German political system and civil service, its capacity and expertise.

Because of that, a Fascist America might not have required anything nearly as radical as one might expect. I use the past tense there, because my own view is that Fascism, in the sense that we relate it to Hitler, Mussolini etc. is a primarily 1930s phenomenon. It was never an independent ideology, and was largely based around the unique circumstances of that period in history. What we might describe as ‘Fascism’ in 2007 would have to be something almost unrecognisably different. In the 1930s, however, it doesn’t seem impossible.

Roosevelt’s New Deal, despite being a triumph in terms of the precedents it set and the psychological impact it had on the American mindset following the hammer-blow of 1929, actually achieved very little concrete in terms of economic recovery. It’s generally agreed that by 1937, the programme had all but ended, having been wound up by the Supreme Court, and otherwise was facing popular disillusionment and savage opposition from resurgent business leaders. If it had not been for Roosevelt’s ability to switch political attention abroad, it’s perfectly possible that he would have found himself in a similar position to his social democrat counterparts in Germany and Italy prior to Fascist takeover.

The Liberty league, made up of the Rockefellers and all the other business leaders, (which Prescott Bush and Joseph Kennedy, were, at least to some degree, also associated with), did in fact discuss the possibility of some kind of political re-organization to remove FDR and put in place someone favourable to their interests.

I find it interesting that Jon Ston assumes that Middle America would have necessarily opposed this orderly handover. Fascism, although usually driven into power with the collusion of conservative elites, also typically maintains at least a populist pretence, specific to each circumstance. The strongly anti-communist elements of Fascism which had been around even before the ‘Red Scares’ of the early 1920s were well established in the US. The desire for a homogenous sense of national identity and national culture was also extremely prominent; very few underestimate the isolationist tendencies of middle America, right up until Pearl Harbour. Consider the Quota Act which effectively halted immigration, the tariffs which sought to achieve economic independence in a similar manner to Mussolini’s ‘Autarky’.

There are also parallels to be made between the way in which Latin America was (is) viewed as lying within the US sphere of influence and Hitler’s view of Eastern Europe as a resource to be harnessed for Germany’s benefit. Even the elements of rascism which set Nazism apart from other types of Fascism are present; 6 states had, at this time, in place laws which authorized the sterilisation of ‘undesirable’ social elements (including the rural poor in Tennesee and West Virginia), as well as, of course, your run-of-the-mill segregation throughout the South. Indeed, one Prominent Eugenicist in Tennessee went so far as to complain to state education officials that the Nazis were in danger of overtaking them in their study of the subject.

I agree that Fascism could not have simply been transplanted into the American heartland direct from Germany, Spain and Italy, but something home-grown, framing Fascist core beliefs in language and political terms already part of the political discourse does seem possible. There’s no reason why such an American Fascism would have been linked to Hitler or Mussolini any more closely than the two were linked to each other. After all, Fascism is a fundamentally nationalist phenomenon. However, if aided to some extent by European counterparts, it does seem that it might well have taken hold without too much of a change in circumstances.

In terms of leaders, your imagination needs to stretch slightly beyond a carbon-copied Hitler figure with a mid-western accent. He would have been a home-grown, wholesome, charismatic small-town-hero-made-good from relatively humble origins, a popular hero who’s appeal went beyond politics. Charles Lindbergh, the aviator, is often mentioned in these circumstances. Although I’m not sure about him and how strong those links are, he does seem to fit the mould. A kind of white, typical, all-American hero viewed as representing the WASP’s conception of national identity. A family man, but with the elements of racism and willingness to depart from the political traditions (e.g. the Constitution) of a democratic society, but in a subtle, gradual way, with everyone so transfixed on his promises to make the nation great and powerful once again, that nobody really notices.

I can’t see a figure such as Huey Long, the southern hell-raiser who was assassinated, being able to do it; he was too recognizably radical and militant in a nation which had too long an experience of political continuity to embrace such a divisive figure, the same applies to Father Coughlin, the most recognizably Fascist of the three…

Either way, however, in the 1930s at least, Fascism in the US was certainly a possibility, albeit with an all-American face.

And beyond it out in the harbour
Jerusalem’s lights still twinkle
as they have always done
freedom, liberty and hope
for everyone-
twinkle twinkle little star, rest at my shores whoever you are
she lies.
And the tourists at her feet file past in rows
trays in hand staring as the lady glows
on flouresent screens with hot dogs fries and drink
freedom from want, land of plenty, freedom to devour
in huge quantities the flesh
of desert flower
diverted, damned irrigated fell,
trees and indians to create this
hell in clound nine donchaknow
would you like cwafee with that
watch hades glow.

And yet- a silent chaos fills the sky
as the low dark clouds too file by.

And yet- The streets pause in breathless wonder
the streams of yellow thrown asunder
the engine’s roar broken by joyous thunder
and the dots on the ground stand in awe.

The nameless coat on the corner of 74th emerges from his shell
The 5th avenue plastics will stay in this hell
The sky turns red
-and who can tell-
The skyscraper shadows set alight.

The Hudson flows as it as it would on any night
a dark long gouge in the city light
and the traders trading stop and pause
wondering what they do it for
they stand and clap
drunk with love
for this city on a hill.

But out in the harbour the old hag weeps
her tears echoing throughout the recalcitrant streets
and the green metal sheets will encase her no more
the rivets are broken amongst the neon whore
and when the lady stirs you will once again see
of the things she- and we- came here for.

In fact, it’s hard to underestimate the importance of, and to a large extent reliance on Roe vs. Wade to the American Right, and in explaining middle-America’s dramatic shift from the moderate progressivism of the New Deal and Fair Deal, which has seen states such as Kansas -once seen even as a hotbed of progressive politics- become one of the most reliable red states in a matter of decades. Whilst middle-America used to gripe about being screwed over by the GOP: the Rich-Man’s Party, the Friends of Big Business, these days they enthusiastically rally against increased spending on healthcare, education, in favour of tax cuts for billionaires, blaming America’s ill’s on the so-called East and West Coast ‘Latte-drinking Liberal elites’, all whilst their jobs disappear off to China and their small-towns are laid to waste.

So the question which follows is, why has so much of America wedded itself to a party and an ideology which clearly does not represent them or their interests, and which has clearly failed to fatten their wallets, failed to secure their livelihoods, and failed to protect their way of life, resorting to the crudest of persuasive methods, the butt of a gun? The answer, is ‘values’.

The Democrats simply don’t stand for anything anymore. Their election strategy for the past 12 years has been to simply cherry-pick the issues which election agents and polls say matter to people. They present election promises almost as a menu, for all the various bases of support to pick something which appeals, and to vote for them accordingly. “Something for the Latino vote”, “Something to keep the Afro-American lobby happy”, “Something to keep the contributions coming in from business”- there is simply no coherence. The Democrats can talk in details about their policies until they go blue in their faces, and often what they have to say makes a lot of sense- but, thanks to the short-term electioneering of ‘flexible’, ‘middle of the road’ politicians such as the much-sanctified Clinton, any kind of ideological basis or narrative underpinning all that has gone out the window.

The Republicans, on the other hand, don’t need complex statistics about tax bands, median rates of income, national product, domestic growth rates or anything else to get their message across- it’s pure and simple. “We’re about values” they say, speaking in broad, all-encompassing terms such as “protecting life”, “upholding the American family”. While it’s often extremely unclear which policies these vague soundbites describe, the soundbites themselves are jarringly clear. The GOP knows what it believes, we are told. Unlike all these intellectual, head-in-the-clouds East coast elites who speak in statistics and with mountains of evidence to support their argument which nobody bothers to read, the GOP speaks the common man’s language; the word on the street. They are, it would seem, now the ordinary man’s party.

So let’s get back to Roe vs. Wade. If we are to see the rise of the popular American Right as part of some kind of ‘backlash’ against these so-called Liberal elites betraying ‘traditional American family values’, then there really can’t be any clearer symbol. You see, Roe vs. Wade didn’t legalize abortion; it was legal in many states already. What it did do, however, was take the decision out of the hands of individual states, and instead forced onto them a decision made, with no vote, no debate- a decision made by a bunch of presumably out-of-touch, arrogant, anti-democratic amoral liberal ‘activist’ judges up in Washington. Whether you agree with that verdict or not, that’s how it looks to the guy on the street, and when the traditional Democrat support rally behind the decision, making it a key part of their platform, that view is simply confirmed.

In terms of abortion rights, Roe vs. Wade has actually achieved very little. All the states which have always opposed abortion continue to do so, and whilst thanks to the Supreme Court no law can prevent you from having an abortion in the Mississippi Delta, in practice, obtaining one there would be little less problematic than 34 years ago. Violence against those who carry out and receive abortions remains, cultural attitudes towards the practice remain unchanged, while states such as Mississippi continue to pass all the legislation they can to make the process as difficult as possible. In effect, Roe vs. Wade, whilst a symbolic victory, has cost the pro-choice lobby considerably more than it has gained.

On the other hand, Roe vs Wade has become the talisman of the American right’s revival. “Forget your economic woes, your lost jobs, your dying towns and floundering small businesses, put your selfish concerns to one side”, the Right need only call, “This is about values!; America’s soul, things much larger than any of our day-to-day concerns”. By appealing to the moral and religious consciousness of Middle America, focusing them on broader issues such as homosexuality, the death penalty, and, at the very top, abortion, -matters which, while not having a direct bearing on your average voter, are nonetheless ‘matters of principle’- the much more personal, ‘bread and butter’ issues of financial security, education, healthcare – all of the Democrat’s traditional issues- become almost irrelevant.

It’s time to call their bluff. It’s time to shift attention back onto the real political issues; the issues which directly affect your average voter, questions like whether they have a secure job without having to look over your shoulder to China, whether they can send their kids to college, whether they have enough money to retire. The question of whether it is right for one man to marry another, or for stem cells to be used in medical research are not political issues which have a direct bearing on the lives of the vast majority of Americans, they are moral ones; matters for prayer and critical thought, resolved through calm, careful consideration and conscience, not the havoc of endless rhetoric, frenetic lobbying, disagreeable disagreement and shameless electioneering.

As long as American Politics is haunted by the ghost of that decision in 1973, it will be impossible for us to move beyond these questions onto the real ones affecting America’s future and that of much of the Western World. By allowing such pressing matters to be eclipsed by the ’smallness’ of the political discourse, Americans are, allowing the Right wing to get away with this, the greatest steal in decades. A steal in which, with the nation transfixed on abstract issues, matters of principle, rather than of politics, unresolvable by any law or politician, they are able to walk off with other people’s money, pollute our cities, ship your jobs abroad, and pawn off your futures to the highest bidder, all without a murmur of dissent.

What has our action in Iraq accomplished, other than to give Al Qaeda time to regroup following our botched escapade in Afghanistan? It has split the nations of the free world, destroying international relations on a scale not seen in decades, disuniting us, and tearing apart the institutions that, however inefficient and weak, offered us the best opportunity of bringing the world together around one table. Saddam Hussein is gone, but where is he? Freedom has been brought to Iraqis, which I agree, they will one day thank us for, if they survive the anarchy and chaos, which, under the leadership of the United States, Britain and 25 other nations (mostly from the developing world, enticed or threatened for the sake of lucrative trading agreements), shows no sign of abating.

Iraq is becoming a Mecca for terrorists. Where Saddam Hussein brought tyranny and security (at dreadful cost), anarchy is prevailing. With the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime gone, and security on the streets a distant prospect, Iraq is fast becoming a place for any young aspiring jihadist. Just as Al Qaeda learned their line of work in the Mountains of Afghanistan in the war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Iraq is becoming the training ground for the next generation of terrorists. With American soldiers out in the streets, in heavily insufficient numbers, a resentful population, and with no security, Iraq is the ideal target for any young radical who dreams of jihad against America.

The Irony of Iraq is that despite its’ almost self-defeating consequences, it was never a haven for terrorism or a hotbed of Islamic radicalism. Saddam Hussein was not sympathetic to Bin Laden and his religious motives, rather, like most dictators, he was merely motivated by a dangerous lust for power, and all the wealth, guns, and women that came with it. He was the ‘godfather’ of Iraq, running it along much the same lines as a gangster. Iraq was the ‘family business. Besides, Iraq was on America’s agenda long before 9/11, and although I agree that it would have been necessary to confront it at some point, It is wrong to convince ourselves that Iraq ever posed any significant threat through links with terrorism, or to equate the cold, intelligent, ideologically driven Osama Bin Laden to a corrupt, inefficient, and merely power-hungry dictator that remains in Iraq (as far as we know), having it seems, deluded himself into thinking he can one day reclaim power.

At home, too, the War on Terror is having a disastrous effect on our society, as law after law such as the Patriot Act is introduced allowing the government to spy on US Citizens and detain them without trial, slowly threatening our civil liberties, and the very freedom we aim to protect. Our treatment of those suspected of terrorism in Guantanamo Bay has shown how easily the terrorists can corrupt our principles and rights, which apply to all, even terrorists. Even our right to protest against the actions of our governments are being eroded not by the law but by our societies, as our of fear shock, and insecurity, we are being reduced to nations of flag-waving Chihuahuas, forced by those around us to stay silent, to wave our flags and support our government, lest we be accused of support for terrorism. Religious intolerance, one of the causes of 9/11, is being fuelled by our reaction to the war on terror, bringing suspicion, hatred, and fear into our communities of all Muslims and those of Islamic and Arab heritage. We seek to protect our freedom by suppressing it, to fight intolerance while becoming intolerant, to bring democracy while suppressing those who speak out against us, and to destroy those who hate us while caring nothing of what others think of us.

Those that suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order. – John Lindsay

While America, with or without its allies, can destroy all those that hate it, no amount of guns, bombs, and missiles can make people love us. As long as people hate us, there will always be terrorists no matter how many we kill. The War on terrorism is only escalating this hatred, spreading the pain and destruction of downtown New York all over the world. It can win a war anywhere, kill anyone it wishes, and destroy any regime is disapproves of, but as it is painfully learning in Iraq, one thing it cannot do alone is win peace.

Global turmoil, destruction, and resentment should not be the legacy of those that died on September 11th, 2001. Further hatred, war and destruction will only multiply itself, the consequences of which we will have to live with for years to come. Two years of this has brought little that we can be proud of, nor a safer world. The cost of this global crusade is costing Americans more than money, for our future will be shaped less by the events of 9/11 than by our response to it. The future, freedom, and standing of America in the world is being destroyed by reckless decisions made by a government that seems committed not to peace and true security for Americans, but the implementation of policies that prior to September 11th would have been unthinkable. Next year it is time for a new direction, something that only Americans can provide, and for which the rest of the world can only hope.