More haste less speed might be the right motto for Dublin City Council in future

Bob Geldof handed back his freedom of Dublin in a very ungracious way and the city council could not allow itself to be treated in that way. Although you mightn’t think it because of the way they behave, there is a dignity to government or there is meant to be. A meeting of the Government in Government Buildings is meant to be more formal and dignified than a meeting of the same group of people in a pub. Hence the formality around the event, the formality of the agenda and the preparation of the necessary documents, the building in which it takes place and so on. Form follows function, as they say, but form is also the way in which the seriousness of government is conveyed. It must be careful not to tip over into arrogance and aggrandizement but if the city’s highest honour is rudely thrown back in the city’s face (more or less literally) the city council can’t let it go.

Geldof and Bono would be better off tackling the real evil contributing to poverty and suffering in many parts of the world: the obscene level of spending on arms by the West much of which ends up in the deaths of very large numbers of people (although the “developed world” has recently experienced some blow back). They are, however, very careful not to "go there", as far as I can tell. A reduction of 3% in US defence spending would end world poverty, something that Geldof and Bono could publicize to good effect. I’m not sure, incidentally, that the good people of Ethiopia appreciated being patronized by Geldof and the rock world in 1985. There is another side to that story but I don’t think we ever heard it. 

  

There is an excessive number of prizes for everything nowadays - literary, film, drama, man of the year, freedom of the city, turnip grower of the year, etc. The Economy of Prestige (2005) by James F. English, one of the most important books on culture published in recent decades, is a study of the impact of prizes on literature. The number, nature and politics of literary prizes (which incidentally keep on growing and keep devaluing existing prizes) are now the key to literary success rather than talent. There are now so many books being published that authors know they must be on a prize list to be able to stand out from the crowd. Not surprisingly, the proliferation of prizes and their importance in determining the success or failure of a book is now influencing what people write and how they write. The prize culture is shifting the balance of power from publishers/editors/the world of literature (the sort of people who should determine what gets published) to (my old profession) bureaucrats, in this case the bureaucrats of the literary world. They might know their way around intrigue (always a useful skill) but might have the artistic sensibility of a sod of turf. I gather that some old hands – like the Nobel people – are very “iffy” about being dragged in to the tsunami that is now the world of prizes and keep their distance from all the prizes hoo haa in an attempt to avoid the devaluation of the Nobel Prize for Literature (which should be awarded three or four times a century – no more).

English’ book is superb but I doubt if you will find it referred to very often in literary magazines, newspapers, etc. It’s the old story: who guards the guardians? How can we curb the rivers of books, most of which didn’t need to come out of anyone’s pen, if the people whose job it is to guard against this – the media, the publishing industry, the public square essentially, have a vested interest in not curbing it?

To finish where I started: while I can understand why Dublin City Council might wish to award its highest honour to someone the Council believes to be of outstanding character, the devaluation of literary prizes is arguably being mirrored by the devaluation of other prizes/awards, including the award of the freedom of the city. Dublin City Council possibly rushed in where others would have waited a little longer only to subsequently find itself with egg on its face. I can't help feeling that there is an element of the city council promoting itself and Ireland's progressive values in making awards of this kind. If the city is progressive (and with its housing problems it is hard to make that case) such gestures are not necessary. If the city is not progressive awarding the freedom of the city won't fool anyone. And, as I say, it can end up with egg on its face. More haste less speed might be the motto for the city council in future.

Current Affairs: Trump and Jerusalem

Trump and Jerusalem

US religious fundamentalism has nothing to do with religion and never has had (although it has a lot to do with values). Most commentators forget (if they ever knew) that the original emigrants to America in the 17th century (who became the bedrock of the US' civic, political and religious culture) were English Puritans and the like. They, likewise, weren’t religious although no doubt they thought they were. They were radicals who wanted political rights to go with the new wealth being created from trade and pre-industrial development in England, which was largely a consequence of the closure of the monasteries in the previous century (which released a lot of capital for economic purposes) and slavery. Puritans and other religious radicals objected to Anglicanism. They wanted, say, their own bishops ostensibly for religious reasons but in fact because they rejected the King’s religious (and therefore) political control over their lives. The language of political radicalism (“one man one vote”) (“universal suffrage”) did, remarkably, exist in the 1640-1660 period of the English revolution (the most interesting period in English history) but only in the most advanced circles. Most people didn’t have access to the political language they wanted or, if they did, knew it would be certain death to use it so they resorted to religious language (the right to their own bishops, say) to make a political point. The King and the establishment knew exactly what they were talking about but, if they didn’t, they found out in the English civil war.

Religious fundamentalists in the US today are the descendants (political and in many cases literal) of the people who left England for America in the 17th century with the emigrants from the north of Ireland, who left in the 18th century, being more of the same. They, like their ancestors, continue to use religious language for political purposes and everyone knows it, including Trump.

Trump is accused of not being a politician but he is enough of a politician to know that by giving the religious fundamentalists something on Jerusalem he will keep them on side for 2020. What religious fundamentalists really believe in (and what the coded religious language they use is all about) is a set of values that include making a lot of money, keeping the US Judaeo-Christian ethos as the fundamental value system of the US [i.e. making sure WASPs continue to control the US] and keeping a certain distance from black America). At its essence, what they are worried about is losing control (political, economic, cultural, religious, etc.) of the country they stole from the native Americans. They won’t say it in plain language (a) because English 17th century political culture largely used religion rather than lay language to express its wishes and (b) because US political correctness rules out any form of plain speaking anyway but everyone knows what they want.

Moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is seen as a cynical move by Trump to keep his supporters on side. And it is. What the chattering classes haven’t realized, however (or won’t admit), is that Trump, like all heads of government, is capable of operating on many levels. It suits Trump, for many reasons, to let everyone say it is all about keeping the religious fundamentalists on side but Trump has progressive views on geopolitical issues, which I suspect (certainly hope) he has put aside for the moment. I believe that Trump wants to end perpetual wars for perpetual profits but he needs more time to get the military industrial complex (MIC) on side, including through his tax changes, which could rebuild America’s economic base, which is necessary to continue underpinning its military strength, before he challenges the MIC about their endless wars. Commentators in the past understood these kinds of subtleties in the way government behave but they don’t any longer. 

Trump almost certainly knows that by sending the US Embassy to Jerusalem (which, incidentally, he doesn’t have to do; all he has done is say that he is sending it to Jerusalem) he is killing off the two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem, which means that a new solution must be sought – a one state solution (i.e. like post apartheid S. Africa but hopefully without the corruption). His decision is a potentially progressive one. I suspect Trump knows that but, all all good statesmen, is not saying so, at least not yet. 

From his body language, I suspect Netanyahy is not as comfortable with Trump's decision as he pretends. He must know that it signals the beginning of the end of the (fake) debate about the two state solution, which every  government knows the Israelis have killed off. However, through "cowardice and laziness" (as someone said to me the other day) most governments continue to promote it although they know it id dead in the water.

Channel 4 News acts as a spokesman for Ford

Channel 4 News led last night with a story by Ford that Brexit would cost the company $1bn a year. It might indeed. Their business correspondent, Siobhan Kennedy, demonstrated how Ford cars are partly made in Britain and are then shipped to Germany to be finished after which they come back to Britain as imports. All without any cost to the poor company because of EU membership (tariffs, etc. although they presumably pay for the transport of the half-made cars to Germany and for the transport of the completed vehicles back to the UK), whatever about the cost to the poor British manufacturing base. Kennedy also demonstrated how the components of the cars partly assembled in the UK come from various EU countries. As no doubt they do. All this, Ford says, would be put at risk by Brexit and the poor company would lose money. Did it not occur to Channel 4 News that it is not their job job to worry about a US multi-national company (or to speak for them) or that after Brexit the components might be made in Britain and the car assembled entirely in Britain? It was as stark an example of stakeholder capture as I have ever seen. No attempt to critique what Ford was saying. No comment from an opposing point of view. No attempt to see the plus side from the point of view of British manufacturing. Quite extraordinary.

It was a classic demonstration of the liberal media backing global capital: something that would have been far less likely thirty years ago. Except, of course, today’s “liberal” media are not liberal. They are about as liberal/left of centre as Harvey Weinstein is a genuine supporter of women’s rights. They are supporters of the new global ruling class, which has contempt for states, democracy, people and their rights. However, they continue to be portrayed as liberal.

Trump and Trump haters

Marian Finucane interviewed a Trump supporter, an Irishwoman living in Virginia, who is a member of the Virginia Women for Trump Group, on her RTE radio show this morning. The woman, a well-heeled Dubliner, by the sound of her, who is not a teenager and will have seen US Presidents come and go, was rational and reasonable. She was very conservative, as you would expect, intelligent and articulate. And well capable of arguing her case. I was particularly impressed by what she said about Trump and the widow of the army sergeant killed in action recently. She didn’t blame the widow for the row (fully empathizing with her grief, as Trump, in his blundering way, also tried to do) but was very critical of the Congresswoman for her involvement. Spot on. 

I think I heard her saying that Hilary Clinton won 58 counties in the Presidential election and Trump won 3,000 but I might have got that wrong. Ms. Finucane asked her about Trump’s tweets. Her response was that, before Trump, everyone was complaining about a lack of transparency in government. Trump uses Twitter, she said, to tell people what he thinks. True, but that doesn’t mean he always has to. A good leader keeps 90% of what is in his head to himself.

 

What was really interesting was the response of Ms. Finucane's panel when asked, by Marian, to comment on the woman’s views. The first member of the panel described the woman, to her face (as it were), as ignorant. She dealt with that. Another member of the panel said something even worse (I half missed it) forcing Ms. Finucane to step in and say “hold on a moment there”. It was vintage debate, Irish style – ignorant and intolerant although not by Marian, who did what an interviewer should do, ask the questions and let the interviewee answer without being insulted. Marian did say that the views the woman expressed are not normally heard on this side of the Atlantic, which is true. Some panelists extended the basic courtesy to the woman that is meant to be applied in debates but is absent where Trump is concerned (and indeed increasingly where elites are challenged). Trump is usually blamed for that but his opponents have matched him all the way. The intolerance of the elite is something we all have to live with whether it is forcing EU treaties down our throats whether we voted for them or not or coming up with parliamentary committees, whose decisions are made before they meet, to force through abortion. 

The arrogance and contempt of the US elite for ordinary people is what catapulted Trump into the White House (what will happen here, I wonder?) but there is no sign of the establishment here or anywhere else reflecting on that.

 

Pride comes before a fall

The Hollywood crowd should have spotted the omen at the last Oscars when Bonnie and Clyde made a mistake in announcing the winner of an Oscar. It followed an evening where they had all been having fun at Trump’s expense with Meryl Streep (who mistook Weinstein for God on another occasion) playing a central role. The lights went out at the Oscars, if I recall, that night, which should have been a signal to dial down the arrogance but they didn’t take the hint so now they have got fate’s response full on. Not to mention that a Hollywood actor doing anything other than acting is a complete bore. A bit like Bono .... [Memo to Streep and Bono: there is no law against silence and there is no law against keeping it simple when you do speak.]

 

It’s hard to say whether the Weinstein business will shut Hollywood up when it comes to lecturing Trump and the rest of us or whether it will all blow over in a week or two. There is no question of Hollywood and sex separating. If you take sex out of Hollywood you might as well take the cameras out too. Hollywood, like the theatre from which it emerged, is all about sex. However, a scapegoat is required every now and again, I suppose, and Weinstein fits the bill perfectly. I’d never heard of Weinstein until last week but he makes Trump look like a charming, handsome, JFK-type figure ....

 

I suspect that Weinstein is Jewish, which must have given the NYT a headache or two before they went to print. No doubt they will do a major piece shortly on a bad boy Catholic bishop to get Weinstein off the front page.

George Hook falls foul of McCarthyism

The case of George Hook is a classic case of someone falling foul of McCarthyism. He may be “colourful” but he is entitled to his opinion. The world is, to be blunt, over-sexed, hyper-sexed in fact, and the sex industry (all the way from suggestive photographs every Sunday on the cover of the SINDO magazine to hard core pornography) is now one of the world's most powerful industries. 

Once money – on a vast scale – becomes part of any industry it becomes a very powerful industry and very difficult to challenge. Anyone wishing to challenge the sex industry is going to have to be smarter than George Hook. They are going to have to find a way past the moral policemen of the Iveagh House Bulletin, Crown Forces Times and Whatever You’re Having Yourself Matrimonially- Speaking Newsletter. They are going to have to find a way of saying that the male of the species is like the male of any species - always looking for sexual encounters. They are going to have to find a way of saying that women need to be aware of the raw threat from the male of the species in how they comport themselves and in the situations they get into. That has implications for everything from fashion to film and from education to social life. We will have to wait for something to happen, some trigger that will allow rational argument back into the debate about the sexual mores of our time.

 

It’s a bit like Trump: the forces that Trump threatened (globalization, perpetual war for perpetual peace [profits], the abortion lobby) mobilized the world media industry to try to stop him. They failed but the military industrial complex and the secret state have – for the moment at any rate – crushed Trump’s efforts to re-engineer US foreign policy away from war-making and naked imperialism. By the same token, powerful vested interests are able to ensure that anyone who challenges the sex industry will be crushed. You would think that someone like Fintan O’Toole could spot that and see what Hook was trying to say in his muddled fashion but they don’t seem to be able to. Smart people are being manipulated by powerful forces and they don’t even know it. Plus, there is, I think, a natural urge to McCarthyism, a natural desire to seize any opportunity to silence the opposition if you can. All the better if you can dress your intolerance up as something else.