Richard [K] Morgan's News and Views

50 Comments:

Amen. :)

-JRS

By  JRS, at 05 November 2008 18:33  

bounce, bounce, obama pounce!

cheers to you, RKM!

By  Lander, at 05 November 2008 19:00  

Richard,

"Anti-9/11": Love it! Going to pass this quote along to my friends.

Brought a tear to my eye as well.

From Americans who care what the rest of the world thinks about us--thanks for your comments.

Linda

By  Anonymous, at 05 November 2008 19:15  

it was emotional day- i kept remembering when I was 5 years old in 1965 stood in line with my mom when she voted for first time- twbd

By  Anonymous, at 06 November 2008 01:44  

"Ant-9/11" is a pretty good description. The way I put it to a friend earlier was that it felt like maybe the 21st Century had finally started.

By  jackanaples, at 06 November 2008 02:00  

This post has been removed by the author.

By  Chris Mays, at 06 November 2008 20:11  

Yes, it did feel good, especially seeing so many furriners share the jolt. Jesusland may never be the same!

By  Chris Mays, at 06 November 2008 20:15  

While I am undoubtedly pleased Obama won the presidency (and am I the only one to note his resemblance to David Palmer from 24), especially given his more positive approach that the previous administration. I will be interested to see how his term in office pans out, and how his ideals translate into the (possibility resistant) system

Pete

By  Anonymous, at 06 November 2008 21:11  

Obama's just another bought-and-paid-for politician, so don't get too excited about him just because his skin is brown. It'll be 4 more years of business-as-usual here in America; you can be sure of that!

By  Anonymous, at 08 November 2008 02:55  

To the anonymous person who posted on Nov 8: I think you've missed the whole point of Richard's comments and maybe even the significance of the election to the world.

By  Anonymous, at 08 November 2008 03:19  

I understand very well what Morgan wrote, even though it sounded more like religious rapture than reasoned prose. What I'm saying is that all the excitement is wasted on this particular individual. For example, do you really think he'll get us out of the Middle East (hint--look to who he chose as his chief of staff)?

By  Anonymous, at 08 November 2008 08:05  

If you read it as religious rapture then you clearly haven't understood what I wrote.

So here it is again, sanded down to operating manual simplicity: Obama himself is largely beside the point. That America has been capable of electing a black President is the point, both for its own populace, black and white, and for the population of the wider world with which, like it or not, America has to deal. A subsidiary point is that America seems (at least for now) to have finally escaped the strait-jacket of Republican political insanity. These are the things that stimulated my original comment.

As to Obama himself, I'm with Pete - I await the next four years with interest (which is better than the disgust and rage I awaited each ensuing year of the Bush debacle). Obama is a politician, and a young one at that - he'll no doubt disappoint (for me, he already has to some extent, by renegeing on his campaign funding promises). He'll make mistakes, he'll take actions that are unpopular. In short, he'll fail to walk on water, yes. Were you expecting someone who could?

That said, Obama has to his credit (and in marked contrast to his predecessor):

1) A set of domestic policies designed to help the poor and lower middle class rather than the corporate lobby and the obscenely rich.

2) A long-standing opposition to the Iraq war dating back to a time when it was distinctly unfashionably, verging on politically suicidal.

3) A genuine depth of experience out in the world beyond US borders, and a direct connection to the poorest continent on the planet

4) The skin colour to understand prejudice, injustice and oppression at a visceral level.

Taken together, these are signs, like it or not, of something better in the wind. And to be honest, after eight years of Bush and associated thugs, it's hard to imagine worse.

By  Richard Morgan, at 08 November 2008 16:41  

Heard this on NPR:

"Rosa sat so Martin could walk so Obama could run so our children could fly."

Linda

By  Anonymous, at 08 November 2008 16:58  

Frankly, after reading "Thirteen," I think you (Morgan) somewhat misread the situation in America today. I think that for many years now, "Jesusland" (flyover country) has been much less prejudiced than you believe it's been. I think that a black president has been a possibility for quite some time in America. I've seen a lot of stereotypical knee-jerk racists in 2nd rate Hollywood movies, but I haven't seen many of them in real life. And I doubt you have, either. That fight's already been won (or lost, depending on your point of view).

It's ironic, isn't it, that people of color from every corner of the earth emigrate in such large numbers to such a horribly prejudiced place as America?

And if the world at large chooses to believe that Obama's election symbolizes any kind of change, then in my view they are simply deluding themselves. The straitjacket we find ourselves in is not Republican, but something else entirely.

Obama was free to oppose the Iraq war when he was a nobody, but now he'll have to toe the line like everyone else. He'll probably make some token noise about ending it, but you can bet Americans with guns and bombs will be in the Middle East for many years to come. It's oil and it's Israel, and Obama won't even try to fight them.

By  Anonymous, at 09 November 2008 09:17  

One more time to anonymous:

I really really shouldn't respond to this, because obviously you're not going to change your opinion, but here's my last thoughts:

1) Thirteen takes place in the America of 100 years from now, not today.

2) The South is less prejudiced from when, the 50's?? Yes, I grew up in the South and in the 50's I remember water fountains and restrooms and restaurants "for whites only", so there is progress. Still yet, my southern relatives refused to vote for Obama because he's black. Well actually several relatives also believe he's the beast from Revelation, but that's a different story. Maybe I'm wrong, but you don't sound like you've ever been to places such as Little Rock.

3) Surely you're aware that people "of color" also immigrate in large numbers to Europe and Britain?

4) The symbolism of change Obama brings has nothing to do with politics (I thought Richard had made that quite clear, but apparently not). "The strait jacket we find ourselves in is not Republican" sounds an awful lot like my conservative friends who blame everything on Democrats for the last 100 years, no matter who's in charge.

5) Since I don't have a crystal ball, I'll adopt a wait and see to your last paragraph.

By  Anonymous, at 09 November 2008 14:58  

*weary sigh*

Some day I'm going to post an extensive backdrop article on the detail of the future I imagined in Black Man/Thirteen - I don't think anything else I've written has ever been so thoroughly (and, in cases not necessarily yours, anon 8/11, willfully) misunderstood. Here's a very brief re-direct:

Black Man/Thirteen does not assume a middle America uniformly populated by barking mad southern baptist white supremacist gun heads - any more than Khaled Hosseini's The Kiterunner assumes an Afghanistan uniformly populated by Taliban supporters. I'm well aware that America's problem is as much a straight rural/urban divide as it is a split along the faultlines I imagined; I'm well aware that Oregon, Washington and New York states have a fair few barking evangelicals in their rural hinterlands, and that southern cities like Atlanta and Austin are thriving examples of progressive liberal culture. (In fact, if you read carefully, you'll find a character in Thirteen who specifically cites this dynamic.) But this is not the issue - the Jesusland future is a worked example of what happens if those barking mad elements gain ascendancy - specifically if the political counterweight of the liberal west coast urban enclaves and the north eastern yankee corner are taken out of the equation. To a very real extent we've already seen something similar happen with the Bush administration (and earlier during the Reagan era), with catatrophic political consequences all round. All I did was take the consequences we've already seen (venal, incompetent government, corporate malfeasance out of control, massive inequality, unhealthy encroaching of blind religious fervour upon state and society, collapsing physical infrastructure and social systems, simplistic xenophobic world-views and dog eat dog male rage fed by a sky-soaring prison population) and extrapolate them to a semi-metaphorical geography.

By  Richard Morgan, at 10 November 2008 11:00  

The problems with Obama are many. His economic policies are deeply flawed. The things he claims he wishes to do are not feasible, simply because the money aren't there.
He will NOT pull out of Iraq. If you read closer, his policy when it comes to Iraq involves leaving roughly 55K troops there on an indefinite basis and increasing operational tempo in the rest of the middle east, with for now, the focus being on Afghanistan.
He will also be adding almost 90K troops to our military.
Good news for me. Means I'm assured of having a job.
But last I checked, this is not how you "end a war".

He will also not be conducive to "restoring" our civil rights. Anybody that expects legislation like the Patriot Act to be removed will be in for a sore surprise.

But the thing that bothers me the most about Obama is not the man himself.
It's the people that look upon him with near religious rapture. He is considered by many to be of near messianic stature.

It's the people that voted for him only because he's black.

With no regards to his policies.

And lastly, it's the people that voted for him simply because he is not Bush.
You may scoff at this, but it's the truth. I've seen it and heard it from people that have voted for him.

People need to reason. Not just react emotionally. And sadly, this election has been all about emotion.

I'll end this on a cautionary note. Things in the US are not what the media would have you believe. Don't believe the hype.

By  Ian Wendt, at 12 November 2008 18:28  

IMO the significance of Obama's election is simply this:

For year the US has said to the world that all men are created equal. Now they have finally put their money where their mouth is.

By  Anonymous, at 14 November 2008 11:54  

Very succinct - I think that pretty much nails it. Thank you.

And (especially for Ian), there is this which lays out the relevant factors rather more elegantly than I have time for.

Of course, Ian, you may argue that this is just more of the media hype you mention, but since the Guardian is one of the most highly regarded broadsheet papers in the UK, you would then have to explain where exactly we can safely get our news coverage from.

By  Richard Morgan, at 14 November 2008 16:55  

None of what is listed in that article changes anything I've said. Obama's stances on a variety of things have been stated numerous times by himself and can be found on websites run by his campaign.
His "withdrawal" from Iraq is a red herring. Keeping 55K troops in a country on an indefinite basis is not a withdrawal.

In some ways the article you've referenced reinforce my remarks about Obama's near-messianic status. I find it unsettling.

I know several people that are very successful in the financial world. People far smarter than I. The general thought amongst economists is that Obama's plans for the US economy, all the various social progams he wish to implement, will simply cost more than is possible to raise with his new tax plans.
Expect the national debt to increase dramatically.

You can read about his agenda on his own website. All these things he wish to do, they sound fantastic to a lot of people, but they are things that are largely meant to incur an emotional response in the general public. Not a reasoned one.

As for the Guardian, I can't say much, since I'm not a regular reader, all I will say is that all media is biased. Some more than others. And since a lot of people in Europe, my own family included, rely on outlets such as CNN to get their news about America, they are invariably fed a very narrow viewpoint that is terminally biased.

I should perhaps also point out that I'm not a fan of Bush. Not hardly.
But Obama will not be an improvement. Certainly not for those of us living in the US.

Regardless, this is all just idle speculation and as such kinda pointless. Only time will show his character.
I for one, am not optimistic.

By  Ian Wendt, at 14 November 2008 17:29  

I stand corrected. The comprehensive overview that was available for the public on www.change.gov... Is no longer there. It's been removed within the last 3-4 days. No explanation of why.

Just pages of "not available".

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

http://change.gov/agenda/defense/

http://change.gov/agenda/veterans/

http://change.gov/agenda/civilrights/

That's somewhat interesting.

By  Ian Wendt, at 14 November 2008 17:40  

Gee, Ian, all we wanted was one day to feel good, just one...

You probably would've told Martin Luther King to give it up, too, that nothing's going to change.

By  Anonymous, at 14 November 2008 20:01  

No, I wouldn't have. And that's kind of a silly thing to say.

By  Ian Wendt, at 14 November 2008 20:08  

Maybe you wouldn't, Ian. But if you're not in favour of Bush's policies, but don't like Obama any better, then I'm kind of curious as to what is your prescription for the future - surely it's not Old Man McCain and the Barking Mad Alaskan?

As to your financial sector friends and their huge intelligence, I wouldn't run yourself down by comparison - from where I'm standing, it looks very much as if the US financial sector has been run (into the ground) by a bunch of greed-bloated criminal morons; chances are you're ten times as smart as they are (and don't deserve to be in jail either). And I wouldn't worry too much about the US national debt either - it's already standing at a colossal all time high thanks to exactly these financial experts you're talking about.

I can't speak to the opinions of the economists you mention without more detail on who they are, but I'm guessing they're the usual mish-mash of American neoliberal faithful - and it's fascinating to me that those guys can somehow contemplate with equanimity the blowing of 700 billion dollars of public money on a rescue plan for the banking sector, but they blench at the very mention of substantial spending to support the working people who actually create the nation's wealth.

By  Richard Morgan, at 15 November 2008 00:35  

Richard,

Being a bit ignorant in the economics area, could you please give me your explanation/definition of American neoliberal faithful? I'm curious to know who Ian's economists are too.

One comment Ian made was curious: "It's oil and Israel..." If I'm reading this correctly, he doesn't think the US should back Israel in the Middle East? Quite an unusual stance for an American, (unless you aren't very religious).

By  Anonymous, at 15 November 2008 01:29  

Pretty sure I didn't say anything about either oil or Israel.
I am not, however, religious and I think the situation with Israel and other countries in the middle east is a problem caused by both sides of the argument. But that's neither here nor there.

As for the economists, you wouldn't know their names. But they're most assuredly not a "neoliberal faithful" nor am I. If anything their political bent is more of an anarchocapitalist one.
Or libertarian.
They tend to mostly favor a return to the gold standard.
And are not involved as such in the banking sector that is largely at fault for the current predicament. The national debt by the by isn't really caused by the economists. It's something that's been underway for several years. From even before Bush was ever elected. See, that's the thing a lot of people don't realize. These things don't just happen overnight.

So many people talk about how good the economy was during Clinton, but none of them seem to realize that when Clinton was in office, the economy was still riding high on the wave of "reaganomics". There is an ebb and flow to such things. Clinton was also not embroiled in a war to the same level that we've been since 2001. Wars are expensive.
Even "small wars".

As for the candidates, I was not in favor of any of them.
Frankly, there is little difference between the two parties these days.
And I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the religious bent of a lot of the Republican candidates. However, they are generally who I would vote for. Not that I agree with all of their ideals. Not hardly. But these days, it's as often a case of voting AGAINST a candidate as it is voting FOR one.

If anything, I'm a libertarian at heart. I prefer there to be as little government as possible. One of the reasons I don't miss my old home in Denmark for anything but the food and my family and friends.
I have no desire to live in what is effectively a police state. Personal freedom and personal responsibility are important things to me. In Europe, those things have largely been taken away from you.

Hell... I could go on and on about this for a long time. I don't see that it serves much purpose though. I'm certain I won't change anybodys minds here.

Suffice to say, I'm not enthusiastic about the next 4 years. I expect them to suck. I may be entirely wrong, in which case I'll be pleasantly surprised.

By  Ian Wendt, at 15 November 2008 10:14  

"'If anything, I'm a libertarian at heart. I prefer there to be as little government as possible.......I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the religious bent of a lot of the Republican candidates. However, they are generally who I would vote for."

Well, that's a peculiarly American psychosis, I think - it's not the first time I've come across it, mind, but I continue to be gut-punch stunned every time I do. A libertarian voting Republican makes about as much sense to me as a man who's allergic to cats getting a Bengal tiger as a pet, watching it kill and eat one of his children, and then getting another tiger because, hell.......you just can't trust dogs, can you?

If you vote Republican, you're clearly not much of a libertarian when it comes to such freedoms as marrying or having sex with your choice of consenting adult, controlling your own body if you're a woman, burning the national flag as an act of political protest, ingesting your choice of recreational chemicals in peace, or bringing up your children as atheists, agnostics or any brand of religious faith other than barking mad Christian fundamentalist.

I would dearly love you to explain to me how this makes sense, Ian, because at the moment I'm stuck with the rather cynical suspicion that in American parlance "I'm a libertarian" is just a not very subtle code for "Waaah, I don't want to pay taxes." I'm also similarly sincerely curious as to how you, as a small government libertarian, can serve (as an earlier comment seems to suggest you do) in the US military - said military being the largest and wealthiest state-run enterprise on the planet, and predicated on an ethos of intensely-trained public service, mutual aid and following the orders given to you without dispute. (Not to run down the US military, I think it's a best-of-breed exemplar - but it sure as shit ain't libertarian in outlook, and it gobbles tax revenue like a motherfucker).

By  Richard Morgan, at 16 November 2008 16:30  

Republican is not a euphemism for barking-mad Christian fundamentalist. That's a huge fallacy. Is there a large number of those idiots over here? You betcha. But to assume that all republicans think that way is just silly.
And no, I don't subscribe to many of the moral standards of the extreme right-wing conservatives.
However, a number of their goals have in the past fit closer to the Libertarian ideals (which is not code for "waaaah, I don't want to pay taxes" by the way) and the Republican party are also known for not being for "Big Government".
In recent years, the line between the two parties however has become increasingly blurred.
Nanny-statism is an increasing blight on the political landscape of the US.
The problem is that there are no other viable options. You vote Democrat or Republican, simply because they are the only two parties with any kind of clout.

Like I've mentioned before, these days, it's become not so much a case of voting FOR a candidate as it's become a case of voting AGAINST a candidate.

My main reason for not voting Democrat is that the vast majority of Democrats, Obama included wants to do to the US what has been done to Europe. Personal responsibility is almost a bad word in a lot of places in Europe.
Self-defense is frowned upon.
The government wants to hold your hand through everything, mostly because they think you're too stupid to take care of yourself.
And don't even get me started on the compromises they make to accommodate especially muslim immigrants in some places.
I've seen it in my own country of origin, I hear about it from friends that live in other countries. I do not wish to see it happen here.


As for my desire to serve, I do not serve a government. I serve a country. And I am of the firm belief that if you want to live in a country, you should be willing to fight for it.

By  Ian Wendt, at 16 November 2008 17:05  

Anon 15/11 - sorry, nearly forgot. By American neoliberal faithful, I mean the followers of Milton Friedman and the Chicago school - the Reagan and Bush adminstrations have been riddled with them, and these days a lot of them hang out at the Cato Institute and other similar right wing think-tanks. Recently, oddly enough, they've been remarkably quiet.........

Of course, the extent to which these guys actually "follow" Friedman is extremely selective - eg Friedman thought recreational drugs should be legalised, but you don't hear much of that coming out of Reaganite or Bush theorist's mouths (or wherever it is they habitually speak from). Mostly, the right wing establishment in the US has simply used Friedman's laissez faire theories to justify the removal of as much of the wealth re-distribution apparatus of government as humanly possible, and so allow the already wealthy to become even richer and the poor to become summarily fucked. In Chile, they also thought it was a good idea to torture and murder leftist activists who foolishly believed over-throwing a legally elected government wasn't an acceptable way to run a liberal democracy. The torture was presumably to educate the leftists in the theory of benefit maximising rational actors in an economic landscape - though how rational you can be when you're watching your wife or daughter get raped or having your fingernails pulled out is hard to ascertain.

Neoliberals - basically, they're a bunch of heartless, self-serving fucks equivalent to the very worst of the communist ideologues, and suffering exactly the same autistic lack of affect or human empathy. Suffice it to say they make equally shit economists as well.

By  Richard Morgan, at 16 November 2008 17:18  

Ian,

"As for my desire to serve, I do not serve a government. I serve a country. And I am of the firm belief that if you want to live in a country, you should be willing to fight for it"

Very admirable (though it's questionable which (if any) American military action since 1945 has actually been fought for the benefit of US citizens). An admirable personal ethic on your part, nonetheless - but it still doesn't address the issue of a state-funded military. You cannot have "small government" and a massive military industrial complex - it is a contradiction in terms.

"Republican is not a euphemism for barking-mad Christian fundamentalist. That's a huge fallacy. Is there a large number of those idiots over here? You betcha."

Yeah, one of them was almost elected VP last week - and presumably you voted for her. It doesn't matter that not all Republicans believe this shit, what matters is that all Republicans get in line behind said shit when the chips are down. I'm sure not everyone who supported the National Socialists in Germany in the early thirties hated Jews or particularly liked that sulky little Austrian guy they had for a leader. Guess what - you still end up with Kristalnacht and Auschwitz. A tiger is a tiger - the fact it's let you stroke it a couple of times doesn't make it safe.

"the Republican party are also known for not being for "Big Government". "

Yeah, and the East German communist regime - one of the mosty brutally repressive in Europe - was known as The German Democratic Republic. Come on, Ian, you've got to be smarter than that. Dump the propaganda, look at the evidence. Under Reagan, federal spending went up. Not to mention, the taxpayer was called on to fork out about a hundred and thirty billion dollars to rescue Savings and Loan which collapsed as a direct result of Reaganite deregulation policies in the finance sector (sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it). This Republican administration has left the taxpayer with a 700 billion tab to pick up, plus they've increased the powers and scope of the NSA and associated security services more than any other government in American history. Not the party of Big Government??? Jesus, Ian, how many times have you got to be bitch-slapped before you walk out on an abusive relationship?

By  Richard Morgan, at 16 November 2008 18:01  

Comparing these current events to Hitler's Germany and to Communist Eastern Germany is kinda retarded. That's a comparison designed to engender an emotional response. They are not the same thing. In no way, shape or form.

Yes, Palin is a nutcase.
Obama... Well, let me quote one of your own publications.

"You have to pinch yourself - a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States . And apparently it's considered impolite to say so."

- Melanie Philips, The Spectator ( UK ) 10/14/08

None of what she says is incorrect.


Your view of what happened under Reagan is also pretty skewed. Unemployment went way down and so did inflation. Under Reagan, the economy flourished.
Then there's the somewhat convenient ignoring of what the Clinton administration did.
Do you seriously think that they did ANYTHING at all to improve our civil rights? To curtail federal spending? On the contrary. Under Clinton, government agencies became more powerful than ever before. To violate basic civil rights with almost no impunity.
Miles and miles of legislation was put into effect to lower crime that did nothing. Like the AWB. One of the most useless pieces of legislation ever. Created to combat a non-existent problem.

And with all the programs that Obama plans to introduce, all these government run agencies that he plans to put in place or empower or restructure, do you seriously think federal spending will go down?

The basic truth of the matter is that NO MATTER who sits on the "throne" shitty things will happen to the people.

Note also that I never said that the Bush administration was one I agreed with. I think they've made a tremendous number of missteps. Including the bailout.
Might wanna keep in mind though, that this bailout was passed by a Congress and Senate consisting largely of Democrats. They've had majority in both houses for some time now.
The very same Democrats who now will serve with Obama.

By  Ian Wendt, at 16 November 2008 18:25  

What is guaranteed to elicit an emotional response is insulting me (or anyone else contributing) on this forum.

So you can either apologise - or you can fuck off.

By  Richard Morgan, at 16 November 2008 20:02  

No insult was intended. I made the mistake of assuming a certain level of informality had been established. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

By  Ian Wendt, at 16 November 2008 20:12  

Thank you, Ian - appreciated. Apology fully accepted, explanation understood.

Still digesting, will come back to you on other points shortly.

By  Richard Morgan, at 16 November 2008 20:15  

The agenda pages on Change.gov are all back by the way --and they look more comprehensive as well I believe.

By  Jackanaples, at 16 November 2008 21:58  

Ian:

"Your view of what happened under Reagan is also pretty skewed."

Actually, no:

"Unemployment went way down and so did inflation. Under Reagan, the economy flourished."

I won't argue with that as such - the first two are undeniably true (though we could have a long argument about the type of employment the Reagan era facilitated). And certainly a lot of the eighties can be seen as a period of economic boom.

But in purely financial terms, well, the US national debt went from 700 billion to 3 trillion dollars by the time Reagan left office. That's tax-payers' money. This is the only (and unskewed) point I actually made about the Reagan administration - that under a President who claimed to believe in small government, federal spending went up, massively. (And has done again, massively, under Bush). As I said, this thing about the GOP being against big government simply won't wash. It's a line of pure propaganda bullshit.

As to the Democrats - well, I'm no cheerleader for them, and I concur that all politicians are flawed beings with a tendency to forget about the little people. But it's a question of degrees - and as I said, this is not dogs or cats for pets, it's dogs or man-eating tigers.

You think parallels with Nazi Germany or the DDR are overwrought. And had I made them as such I would agree - but those were loosely illustrative examples rather than tight historical analogies - examples of, respectively, a spectrum of varying rationality backing a bunch of lunatics into power, and bare-faced lying sloganeering over truth. The Nazis were backed by a number of people who had nothing against the Jews especially, but simply saw Hitler as a bulwark against encroaching Communism. And the apparatchiks of East Gemany did go round calling their country a Democratic Republic with exactly the same bare-faced cheek as the Republicans claim they are the party against big government.

But no, for the record, I don't consider the Republicans a direct analogue of the Nazis or the East German Communists (though if I were American and gay or an American woman unwillingly pregnant, or had a job teaching evolutionary science, I might well begin to have doubts in that direction....) But where Democrats and Republicans are concerned (and compared) there is this rather stark comparison to be made:

A couple of thousand of your comrades in arms are dead, needlessly, because Bush and Co lied about Iraq. Thousands, probably tens of thousands of central American campesinos are dead because Reagan lied about Irangate, the Contras and military aid to El Salvador.

Clinton lied about an extra-marital blow-job. No-one died or was tortured as a result, as far as I know.

This is a big qualitative difference. Dogs for pets or man-eating tigers, as I said. Personally, I think Clinton should have been impeached for lying in his official capacity as President (and deserved to lose his job for being such a stupid prick). But Reagan should have gone to jail for life or to the electric chair for what he did in central America. Ditto Shrub for Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. There is political sleaze - and then there is political crime against humanity.

And as to Obama - well, as far as I can see his detractors want to accuse him of being an Islamist and a radical Marxist and a Black Supremacist and a friend to white mobsters all at the same time - now does that not sound a little like overwrought hysteria to you? I looked at the Melanie Philips article and it contains an enormous amount of "allegedly", "reputedly", second hand shaky claims and iffy chains of association. And as for the Rev Wright - well, he's a dickhead, but to be honest if I had grown up a black male in America at the time he did, I'd be angry verging on psychotic myself. That wouldn't make my opinions or attitudes right, of course, but I think for white Americans to act like what's coming out of Wright's mouth is shockingly incomprehensible is disingenuous to say the least.

Like you, I'll wait and see what Obama does. Like you I have no doubt federal spending will rise - but then no-one on either side of the political spectrum seems see any alternative to that as a strategy. To that extent, we're all socialists now. The big difference I see is that the Republicans want their socialism (like everything else they do) to serve the interests of the haves - federal spending is fine so long as it goes to bail out the rich. The Democrats seem that little bit more inclined to spread the public funding around.

Basically, if Obama runs up the debt and uses it to build universal free healthcare, bridges that don't fall down, a greener automotive sector, incentives for corporations to stay the fuck in the country and employ people, and less financial burden for anyone earning under 250k a year - well, then I'll do nothing but applaud. It will have cost a lot, but at least you'll know what the money bought. What did the Bush deficit buy except a staggering amount of dodgy Wall street paper and piles of dead people all over the Middle East.

By  Richard Morgan, at 16 November 2008 22:26  

Richard, fascinating political dialogue and I broadly agree with you. It would be nice if the various ideologies had strands of varying political thought, but these days no one's got the time. I remember when you genuinely seemed to have a choice in UK politics about what flavour your Labour party came in and being a progressive Conservative wasn't the same thing as being a Tory.

But the fact is the Tony Blairs came along, television took over for good and it's all been commodified and branded.

It may not matter that Republicanism isn't about spouting evangelical religion, firing guns and executing the mentally retarded. But as far as many people are concerned it is, and thus the likes of Sarah Palin can run for VP. If there is another sort Republicanism out there it probably doesn't matter to the idiots who voted McCain even if they didn't really like him. They voted as their tribe tells them to and they weren't buying the Democrats product.

I'm even less sure what the Democrats stand for but I assume it's now about how you stand on each policy area. To me that might make more sense.

Anyway can I get you to answer a stealth question that I'm now sneaking in?

The Tebbit Knife. Tell me it's named after Norman. That would make my day.

Love the books by the way, reading the third Tak novel right now.

By  Deano, at 17 November 2008 18:39  

It is indeed - I needed a name for something thin and very nasty...... No contest. :-)

Thanks for the kind words

By  Richard Morgan, at 18 November 2008 14:44  

Deano--the 3rd Tek is wonderful. so rare does the third in a trilogy stand up so nicely.

Richard, its a pleasure to read your articulate & thoughtful political opinions.

By  bjt, at 21 November 2008 20:50  

Oh my goodness. I love books, I really do, but I can't help but be poleaxed at the lack of economic training in Great Britain.

"The people that create the wealth?"

Classical Econ 101, anyone?

Churchill spins, poor man!

By  JakeGint, at 12 January 2009 15:57  

Sorry, that should have read "love THE books" (as in Richard's).

By  JakeGint, at 12 January 2009 15:57  

Perhaps it's "Waaaah, I want to keep my automatic weapons" then.

I loved reading your arguments but I really don't know why you bother Richard.
Have you ever known anyone to change their mind because of a well argued case?

And what about the fact that the U.S. is basically run by the masons (or whoever they front for)?
How come that never gets mentioned.

By  makka, at 31 January 2009 22:18  

Incidentally.
Love the books too.
And the comics.
When's the next book coming?
I'm getting withdrawals.

By  makka, at 31 January 2009 22:20  

Take the simple approach to politics: as long as people are shaking hands, there is hope for peace. I was relieved when Russia visited Cuba...Obama is called both a comrade and a mon ami. I think we selected well! Nice to have an honest election for a change.

I wonder, in light of the above and the decline of Christanity and somewhat (to a certain degree) radical Islam what the likehood is of WOrld War III? I am opting no on that...I'll bet we can turn Mao into a capitlalist pig any day! With a system of checks and balances...

By  anony ms, at 13 April 2009 23:04  

makka,

I also enjoyed reading their back and forth on politics in general, and Obama in particular. I think the value of the tet-a-tet is not one or the other of them changing their mind by the end of it. Instead I see the value coming from being able to see how someone else thinks about the same topic.

You will never change someone's mind on a political, religious, or other emotional issue. Instead you show them another way of looking at things, add some facts they may not have seen, and hope they change their own mind. But to make it work you have to be willing to let the same thing happen to you.

It happened to me. I grew up in a family full of Dems and became a Republican in the end. (Not one of the Bat-Shit crazy religious types mind you, Palin made my skin crawl)

By  Joshua, at 16 April 2009 19:50  

Now the US has its first gen-u-ine 3rd world president. Oh goody! That wonderful dystopian future takes another step nearer.

By  Anonymous, at 12 July 2009 06:29  

and am I the only one to note his resemblance to David Palmer from 24?

What do you want, a medal?

Of course and who is to say its not intentional. We are all on board with the idea that the media is used to manipulate the masses surely. Soften them up with positive images of black power figures, then hit them with the real thing.

By  Anonymous, at 12 July 2009 06:33  

RKM - 3) A genuine depth of experience out in the world beyond US borders, and a direct connection to the poorest continent on the planet.

WTF man?!

He has only had one real job.

He has lived outside the US as a child for a while.*

And as for a direct connection to the poorest continent, I guess we are admitting that race is important then. Lets finally kiss all that MLK content of a man's character cobblers goodbye eh?

*Its even just possible he was born outside the US thus making him ineligible for the office. He could settle that by making his birth certificate public - but he hasnt. What does that tell you?

By  Anonymous, at 12 July 2009 06:40  

It's oil and it's Israel, and Obama won't even try to fight them.

Why would he fight them? They own him. You can see who has his hand up the Obama puppet, check out the Whitehouse chief of Staff. Filled with patriotic zeal in the Gulf war he ran away to join the army, the Israeli army.

By  Anonymous, at 12 July 2009 06:43  

Well, that has turned in to a completed disaster, hasn't it?

This is why experience matters. This is why integrity matters. This is why those of you who so willingly swallowed the obvious lies of this charlatan now look like fools.

By  Anonymous, at 23 August 2009 13:57  

Post a Comment