There were three regional elections in Germany on Sunday. The right wing anti-immigration party Alternativ fuer Deutschland (AfD) made significant gains achieving around 10, 15 and 25% of the vote in the three regions.
Of the voters who chose AfD almost 10% of the total votes were from people who had not voted previously through apathy or disinterest. Upward of 85% of the AfD voters said their vote was an anti-immigration vote. Around 60% mentioned their fear that Germany was being overrun by Islam and a similar amount were concerned about increases in crime.
Now the AfD started off as an anti-Euro party and then morphed into an anti-immigration party. One of its major figures was recently quoted as saying what a god-send the immigration crisis was as before that they were not really getting anywhere.
Taken individually the fears are not necessarily grounded in reality, but as we all know, perception is a form of reality. The AfD had no qualms about feeding those fears and happily took advantage of the reluctance of the major parties to engage entertain the fact that even if the fears being voiced were exaggerated, they still need to be addressed.
Enter the AfD.
A party that wants to build walls around Germany to keep out immigrants and advocates the use of arms to beat back the men, women and children at the gates. This is a party that condemns all Muslims and nonchalantly blames a perceived increase in crime on immigrants without any information to support their accusations.
It is a party that wants women back in the home rather than in the workplace. Perhaps they will reintroduce the Mutterkreuz. They want to cut benefits for single mothers, lower the minimum wage, and in general return to the cultural mores of the late 19th century and more recently under the 1000 year Reich....
I can only hope that all of the "protest" voters come to their senses and realise that they have let a wolf in sheepskin in the door.
Wednesday, 16 March 2016
Friday, 11 March 2016
Notes From a Federalist or Back to the Future
Everywhere I look I see the world retreating from the Age of Enlightenment back to the Dark Ages. Reason is losing out to emotions where everything is secretive, mooted, superstition and instinct.
The strong leader is sought out as the simple solution to seriously complex questions.
Human frailty in the face of crisis is reflected in the support for the Leader who will stamp their authority on the situation, for the Leader who through platitudes promises to remove all the evils from the world relying on xenophobia and ignorance to feed their angry and resentful audience.
Globalism is the root of evil to the thinly veiled National Socialists on the right in their appeal to the narrow-minded bigoted nationalists as portrayed by Donald Trump, the National Front, Alternative for Deutschland and all the populist parties of Eastern Europe.
Not far behind this group is the discussion of the UK's plebiscite to decide whether or not to leave the European Union.
Britain has traditionally played the spoiler in European politics. Whenever a continental power looked like it might achieve hegemony in Europe the British would pile in on the other side to force a stalemate/treaty that would keep Europe a divided continent.
There are two major themes underlying the Brexit supporters.
The one is a realisation that through economic strength there is actually a European hegemon. It is Germany. There is still much done to try and keep the image of a consensus driven EU but in reality Germany has the power to essentially impose its will on the Union.
Bizarrely, and luckily, the leader of Germany is a committed European. She comes from East Germany and is a committed democrat. Although not without her faults- she does know how to play power politics-her motives are by and large driven by a deep seated moral and ethical ethos and a belief that a united Europe is vastly superior to a divided Europe. She is a rational, moral and intensely intelligent woman who will not stoop to populist rantings to support her policies.
So how does this fit into the Brexit camp?
They realise that there is no real continental heavyweight to counterbalance Germany, and they also know that the British are not in a position to play that role so under the guise of any number of myths and excuses around cost, sovereignty, balance of payments and the ability to become another "Switzerland" the Brexit group is actually throwing in the towel and saying we will retreat to our island fortress and won't play with the rest of the class.
The second and more disturbing driver is actually the more sinister Brexit "myth". Immigrants are accused of taking jobs away from the British and so leaving Europe will get rid of all those job taking immigrants and the British Empire will rise again.
Actually, after a few pints, the average Brexit supporter will admit that given the choice between having immigrants and a growing economy and not having immigrants and a shrinking economy they would choose the latter.
So much for a rising empire...
The strong leader is sought out as the simple solution to seriously complex questions.
Human frailty in the face of crisis is reflected in the support for the Leader who will stamp their authority on the situation, for the Leader who through platitudes promises to remove all the evils from the world relying on xenophobia and ignorance to feed their angry and resentful audience.
Globalism is the root of evil to the thinly veiled National Socialists on the right in their appeal to the narrow-minded bigoted nationalists as portrayed by Donald Trump, the National Front, Alternative for Deutschland and all the populist parties of Eastern Europe.
Not far behind this group is the discussion of the UK's plebiscite to decide whether or not to leave the European Union.
Britain has traditionally played the spoiler in European politics. Whenever a continental power looked like it might achieve hegemony in Europe the British would pile in on the other side to force a stalemate/treaty that would keep Europe a divided continent.
There are two major themes underlying the Brexit supporters.
The one is a realisation that through economic strength there is actually a European hegemon. It is Germany. There is still much done to try and keep the image of a consensus driven EU but in reality Germany has the power to essentially impose its will on the Union.
Bizarrely, and luckily, the leader of Germany is a committed European. She comes from East Germany and is a committed democrat. Although not without her faults- she does know how to play power politics-her motives are by and large driven by a deep seated moral and ethical ethos and a belief that a united Europe is vastly superior to a divided Europe. She is a rational, moral and intensely intelligent woman who will not stoop to populist rantings to support her policies.
So how does this fit into the Brexit camp?
They realise that there is no real continental heavyweight to counterbalance Germany, and they also know that the British are not in a position to play that role so under the guise of any number of myths and excuses around cost, sovereignty, balance of payments and the ability to become another "Switzerland" the Brexit group is actually throwing in the towel and saying we will retreat to our island fortress and won't play with the rest of the class.
The second and more disturbing driver is actually the more sinister Brexit "myth". Immigrants are accused of taking jobs away from the British and so leaving Europe will get rid of all those job taking immigrants and the British Empire will rise again.
Actually, after a few pints, the average Brexit supporter will admit that given the choice between having immigrants and a growing economy and not having immigrants and a shrinking economy they would choose the latter.
So much for a rising empire...
Thursday, 3 March 2016
The Snake Wins
A couple of days ago on Frau Merkel was interviewed on German TV by Anne Will. As most of you know Ms Merkel has fallen on hard times trying to manage an immigrant crisis of monumental proportions.
She remained calm despite the numerous attempts to shake her from her measured responses. She snapped twice: once when she said the equivalent of "watch yourself", and once when she emphasised that she had already answered that question a number of times. Otherwise she took everything that was thrown at her and responded with a rational, concise analysis.
The best, and to my eyes the worst moment of the evening was when Ms Will asked if Frau Merkel felt that we were perhaps entering a Weimar Republic stage of history.
Not for the first time the right wing populist parties are once again using their bully pulpits to incite their thug followers to violent self-justice in voicing their disagreement with the government.
Frau Merkel's response was hard and cold. The Bundesrepublik Deutschland is not the Weimar Republic.
Two days ago I wrote about Donald Trump and the fable of the Snake. My interpretation was that he was using the snake as a metaphor for immigrants.
A good friend pointed out to me however that my interpretation just might be off the mark.
As Martin Wolf wrote in yesterdays Financial Times "Mr Trump is a promoter of paranoid fantasies, a xenophobe and an ignoramus". Mr Robert Kagan of the Washington Post went on to call him "Frankenstein's monster".
But the most damning is Mr Wolf's comment that Mr Trump has threatened to round up and export (11) millions of people.
Donald Trump has repeatedly revealed his willingness to ride roughshod over the American system all the time claiming he is doing it to save America, to make America great again. He has appealed to every base instinct of the mob and actually said some very frightening things.
Upon reflection since Mr Trump only seems to think about himself and he has done nothing to hide his reptilian side I think my friend might be right.
And maybe, just maybe, Anne Will's Weimar question should have been directed to Mr Trump.
He's already sided with David Duke.
She remained calm despite the numerous attempts to shake her from her measured responses. She snapped twice: once when she said the equivalent of "watch yourself", and once when she emphasised that she had already answered that question a number of times. Otherwise she took everything that was thrown at her and responded with a rational, concise analysis.
The best, and to my eyes the worst moment of the evening was when Ms Will asked if Frau Merkel felt that we were perhaps entering a Weimar Republic stage of history.
Not for the first time the right wing populist parties are once again using their bully pulpits to incite their thug followers to violent self-justice in voicing their disagreement with the government.
Frau Merkel's response was hard and cold. The Bundesrepublik Deutschland is not the Weimar Republic.
Two days ago I wrote about Donald Trump and the fable of the Snake. My interpretation was that he was using the snake as a metaphor for immigrants.
A good friend pointed out to me however that my interpretation just might be off the mark.
As Martin Wolf wrote in yesterdays Financial Times "Mr Trump is a promoter of paranoid fantasies, a xenophobe and an ignoramus". Mr Robert Kagan of the Washington Post went on to call him "Frankenstein's monster".
But the most damning is Mr Wolf's comment that Mr Trump has threatened to round up and export (11) millions of people.
Donald Trump has repeatedly revealed his willingness to ride roughshod over the American system all the time claiming he is doing it to save America, to make America great again. He has appealed to every base instinct of the mob and actually said some very frightening things.
Upon reflection since Mr Trump only seems to think about himself and he has done nothing to hide his reptilian side I think my friend might be right.
And maybe, just maybe, Anne Will's Weimar question should have been directed to Mr Trump.
He's already sided with David Duke.
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
Donald Trump and the Snake
I am always amused when right wing politicians revert to fables and fairy tails to get their point across. Invariably it is to illustrate an idea such that even a child could understand it. And, like most fairy tales, their explanation will invariably be binary- good versus bad.
So Mr Trump has taken to reciting the story of the Snake which for those of you who don't know is the simple story of a woman who while walking home sees a frozen snake which asks her to help him. She takes him home, warms him up, and by the end of the day he is fit as a fiddle. She picks him up to hug him as she is so happy to have saved his life and he promptly bites him. As the poison slowly kills her she asks him how he could bite her after she took him in and nursed him back to health. The snake's answer- 'don't blame me foolish woman- you knew I was a snake when you picked me up'.
Of course the snake here is the great mass of immigrants who risk their lives to enter (in this case the USA) and then of course, following the fable, will turn out to be terrorists and bite the hand that feeds them.
Let's think about this. With one fell swoop Trump has just turned all immigrants into terrorists.
It is the same ploy that the right wing in Europe and the Euro-Sceptics in Britain use.
Make the world black and white, good and bad, and it's easy to make a decision. Turn difficult decisions into instinctual one's rather than taking the time to analyse what's going on. Promise simple answers to complex questions. Appeal to the individual's self-interest at the expense of the community. And then appeal to their sense of community through a xenophobic rant against the 'others'.
We have seen all this before....just not in the USA.
.
So Mr Trump has taken to reciting the story of the Snake which for those of you who don't know is the simple story of a woman who while walking home sees a frozen snake which asks her to help him. She takes him home, warms him up, and by the end of the day he is fit as a fiddle. She picks him up to hug him as she is so happy to have saved his life and he promptly bites him. As the poison slowly kills her she asks him how he could bite her after she took him in and nursed him back to health. The snake's answer- 'don't blame me foolish woman- you knew I was a snake when you picked me up'.
Of course the snake here is the great mass of immigrants who risk their lives to enter (in this case the USA) and then of course, following the fable, will turn out to be terrorists and bite the hand that feeds them.
Let's think about this. With one fell swoop Trump has just turned all immigrants into terrorists.
It is the same ploy that the right wing in Europe and the Euro-Sceptics in Britain use.
Make the world black and white, good and bad, and it's easy to make a decision. Turn difficult decisions into instinctual one's rather than taking the time to analyse what's going on. Promise simple answers to complex questions. Appeal to the individual's self-interest at the expense of the community. And then appeal to their sense of community through a xenophobic rant against the 'others'.
We have seen all this before....just not in the USA.
.
Wednesday, 20 January 2016
Ich Deutsch, nix verstehe!
I have written in the past how important I feel learning the language of one's new homeland is if one wishes to integrate and participate in the society at large.
My title today is the by-line of a joke in Germany which literally means "I'm German and I don't understand you" spoken in pidgin-German. It's the polite version of "We speak German in Germany!". It was from the 80's and was a response to the prevalence of Turkish heard on the high street in major cities.
Today many of those Turks are second if not third generation Germans and have become relatively well integrated into German society.
So I was mildly surprised when the British Prime Minister Mr Cameron came out with a new rule on Monday January 18th that if a woman is participating in the 5 year spousal visa program she will be expected to take an English language test after 2.5 years. If she were to fail the exam it could have negative consequences for her visa status.
Here was a main stream politician suggesting that there is a native language in their country and that people should learn it.
Unfortunately, although I think there is a definite need to have immigrants learn English Mr Cameron shot himself in the foot by specifying Muslim woman in his speech announcing the new requirements. This has nothing to do with religion. It is a language question which is a door opener to integration.
Mr Cameron did try and defend his stance by saying that not only does the state have responsibilities to immigrants, but immigrants too have responsibilities vis-a-vis the state although singling out Muslims suggested that he was either stupid or bigoted, or quite possibly both.
That being said I agree with his call for responsibility, but wish to apply it to immigrants regardless of race or creed. Indeed I wish to apply it to Citizens and visitors alike, whether they come for a day or forever.
Our society should be predicated on a Social Contract between the State and its Citizens. Both must adhere to the tenets of that contract, and one of the most basic requirements is to speak the national language of one's country.
Now I am aware that language and culture are significant markers for self-identity and so there will be many that will interpret this requirement as an attack not only on one's language but as an assault on their independence and by extension on their sense of self.
I disagree.
Language is like religion.
What you choose to speak in private; what religion you choose to follow, in private, is one's private business.
But just as secular states demand adherence to the rule of law as prescribed by the state's legislature firmly placing secular law above the demands of any non-secular requirements, the state is also correct in expecting, no demanding that a nation's citizens speak (read and write) the language of the country in which the live.
Not to leave the US out of the discussion I don't understand why as a native-English speaker when I call information I am always asked whether I would like to speak Spanish or English.
I will even go so far as to say that I disagree with Jeb Bush electioneering in Spanish.
It is great marketing (as is the offer to speak Spanish when I call customer support), but it avoids the fact that English is the native language of the US.
And anyone who suggests that over time it just might be that Spanish is the native language of the US- just look at the demographics- is missing the point.
I am not anti-immigrant.
But welcoming immigrants shouldn't require one to lose their national identity.
It begins with language.
And it ends being grateful every day that we are a secular nation.
My title today is the by-line of a joke in Germany which literally means "I'm German and I don't understand you" spoken in pidgin-German. It's the polite version of "We speak German in Germany!". It was from the 80's and was a response to the prevalence of Turkish heard on the high street in major cities.
Today many of those Turks are second if not third generation Germans and have become relatively well integrated into German society.
So I was mildly surprised when the British Prime Minister Mr Cameron came out with a new rule on Monday January 18th that if a woman is participating in the 5 year spousal visa program she will be expected to take an English language test after 2.5 years. If she were to fail the exam it could have negative consequences for her visa status.
Here was a main stream politician suggesting that there is a native language in their country and that people should learn it.
Unfortunately, although I think there is a definite need to have immigrants learn English Mr Cameron shot himself in the foot by specifying Muslim woman in his speech announcing the new requirements. This has nothing to do with religion. It is a language question which is a door opener to integration.
Mr Cameron did try and defend his stance by saying that not only does the state have responsibilities to immigrants, but immigrants too have responsibilities vis-a-vis the state although singling out Muslims suggested that he was either stupid or bigoted, or quite possibly both.
That being said I agree with his call for responsibility, but wish to apply it to immigrants regardless of race or creed. Indeed I wish to apply it to Citizens and visitors alike, whether they come for a day or forever.
Our society should be predicated on a Social Contract between the State and its Citizens. Both must adhere to the tenets of that contract, and one of the most basic requirements is to speak the national language of one's country.
Now I am aware that language and culture are significant markers for self-identity and so there will be many that will interpret this requirement as an attack not only on one's language but as an assault on their independence and by extension on their sense of self.
I disagree.
Language is like religion.
What you choose to speak in private; what religion you choose to follow, in private, is one's private business.
But just as secular states demand adherence to the rule of law as prescribed by the state's legislature firmly placing secular law above the demands of any non-secular requirements, the state is also correct in expecting, no demanding that a nation's citizens speak (read and write) the language of the country in which the live.
Not to leave the US out of the discussion I don't understand why as a native-English speaker when I call information I am always asked whether I would like to speak Spanish or English.
I will even go so far as to say that I disagree with Jeb Bush electioneering in Spanish.
It is great marketing (as is the offer to speak Spanish when I call customer support), but it avoids the fact that English is the native language of the US.
And anyone who suggests that over time it just might be that Spanish is the native language of the US- just look at the demographics- is missing the point.
I am not anti-immigrant.
But welcoming immigrants shouldn't require one to lose their national identity.
It begins with language.
And it ends being grateful every day that we are a secular nation.
Monday, 18 January 2016
America for Sale
Despite the fact that I reside in the UK I am a committed citizen of the US and as such have not only followed the campaigns this year but have donated to the candidate of my choice.
Simultaneously I am a member of a Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)which is a code word for an environmentalist group- not all of which I agree with.
By donating to the candidate of my choice and by being a paying member of the Massachusetts PIRG I invariably find myself on other groups mailing lists ranging from gun control to saving grizzly bears to grass-roots organisations angry about almost anything you could imagine in between.
But what worries me about this, above and beyond the fact that my personal data is obviously being sent/sold/purchased/stolen to/by a whole raft of groups is that they are all tied together by one overriding request- DONATE.
Granted I left the US in 1986 and the "Selling of the President" was written in 1969 and so the writing was on the wall I am still disturbed by the undertone of every request I receive. Their overriding message is that with my money they will be able to get this law through or block that law or elect this candidate, block that one- basically that with enough funding they can get anything done.
I think it starts with campaign finance.
According to the New York Times there are 158 families in the US who essentially are bankrolling the primary campaigns split about 85/15 Republican/Democrat. In addition to these big spenders there are super-PACS that now have the protection of the 1st Amendment and the right to remain anonymous although why I would be willing to fund a candidate but not be willing to admit to it is somewhat bewildering.
But what I don't understand is that besides the occasional throwaway line about campaign finances no-one really seems to be all that riled up about this.
I have been accused occasionally about ranting on these pages. Perhaps I have been overseas too long and what I consider to be rightous indignation is now classified as a rant. But I am sure that if Americans were aware of similar economics in the electoral process in foreign countries they too would be indignant, if not boiling over with self-righteous indignation.
Simultaneously I am a member of a Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)which is a code word for an environmentalist group- not all of which I agree with.
By donating to the candidate of my choice and by being a paying member of the Massachusetts PIRG I invariably find myself on other groups mailing lists ranging from gun control to saving grizzly bears to grass-roots organisations angry about almost anything you could imagine in between.
But what worries me about this, above and beyond the fact that my personal data is obviously being sent/sold/purchased/stolen to/by a whole raft of groups is that they are all tied together by one overriding request- DONATE.
Granted I left the US in 1986 and the "Selling of the President" was written in 1969 and so the writing was on the wall I am still disturbed by the undertone of every request I receive. Their overriding message is that with my money they will be able to get this law through or block that law or elect this candidate, block that one- basically that with enough funding they can get anything done.
I think it starts with campaign finance.
According to the New York Times there are 158 families in the US who essentially are bankrolling the primary campaigns split about 85/15 Republican/Democrat. In addition to these big spenders there are super-PACS that now have the protection of the 1st Amendment and the right to remain anonymous although why I would be willing to fund a candidate but not be willing to admit to it is somewhat bewildering.
But what I don't understand is that besides the occasional throwaway line about campaign finances no-one really seems to be all that riled up about this.
I have been accused occasionally about ranting on these pages. Perhaps I have been overseas too long and what I consider to be rightous indignation is now classified as a rant. But I am sure that if Americans were aware of similar economics in the electoral process in foreign countries they too would be indignant, if not boiling over with self-righteous indignation.
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
No Fairness Doctrine in the Media Here...
Today, tucked away on an inside page of the Metro which is a Russian owned newspaper of sorts that is distributed for free in Bath, Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff, Derby, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Nottingham, Newcastle and Sheffield was a little article allowing the Minister of Health Mr Hunt to comment on the strike without a response from the Junior Doctors.
From the beginning much of the media has supported Mr Hunt trying to drive a wedge between the Junior Doctors and the public as opposed to highlighting the attack on the NHS which Mr Hunt has apparently been given as his mandate.
In this instance the article focussed on blaming the Junior Doctors for the strike which was called off at the last minute rather than explaining that Mr Hunt finally agreed to drop his longstanding demand – albeit temporarily – to impose a punitive new contract on England’s 45,000 junior doctors if agreement was not reached.
His unwillingness to negotiate and his willingness to spread misinformation and outright lies resulted in the Junior Doctors voting overwhelmingly-98%-to strike in protest.
So rather than Mr Hunt being called out as the cause in this debate and being responsible for the strike all that could be reported was that the operations and the doctor's appointments which had been cancelled and could not be rescheduled were strictly the responsibility of the Junior Doctors.
Hunt, whose handling of the dispute caused huge concern in the NHS and medical establishment, must surely no have to answer questions over why he took so long to, in effect, stage a climb-down.
It seems quite obvious to me that if Jeremy Hunt were really concerned with client safety, with the welfare of junior doctors and the continued existence of the NHS he would have agreed to independent talks when it was first put to him.
Rather than give him a platform to blame the Junior Doctors the paper should have led with an apology on his part to those patients who had been inconvenienced by his actions.
But that would imply that he actually cared.
From the beginning much of the media has supported Mr Hunt trying to drive a wedge between the Junior Doctors and the public as opposed to highlighting the attack on the NHS which Mr Hunt has apparently been given as his mandate.
In this instance the article focussed on blaming the Junior Doctors for the strike which was called off at the last minute rather than explaining that Mr Hunt finally agreed to drop his longstanding demand – albeit temporarily – to impose a punitive new contract on England’s 45,000 junior doctors if agreement was not reached.
His unwillingness to negotiate and his willingness to spread misinformation and outright lies resulted in the Junior Doctors voting overwhelmingly-98%-to strike in protest.
So rather than Mr Hunt being called out as the cause in this debate and being responsible for the strike all that could be reported was that the operations and the doctor's appointments which had been cancelled and could not be rescheduled were strictly the responsibility of the Junior Doctors.
Hunt, whose handling of the dispute caused huge concern in the NHS and medical establishment, must surely no have to answer questions over why he took so long to, in effect, stage a climb-down.
It seems quite obvious to me that if Jeremy Hunt were really concerned with client safety, with the welfare of junior doctors and the continued existence of the NHS he would have agreed to independent talks when it was first put to him.
Rather than give him a platform to blame the Junior Doctors the paper should have led with an apology on his part to those patients who had been inconvenienced by his actions.
But that would imply that he actually cared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)