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.