normblog

There was a wicked messenger

Or so, at any rate, it is said. Sometimes the wickedness in a message is that it's true:

Doubtless those who have been filling Guardian space with calls on Tony Blair to pack up his three election victories and walk off into the sunset would describe themselves as democrats. It is therefore worth reminding this lengthy list of commentators, thinktankers, former advisers and self-proclaimed experts on the political pulse of an important democratic fact: a few months ago the country held a general election. Tony Blair made clear it was his last. He said he would, if elected, serve a full term. He made clear he saw Gordon Brown as his successor, as do most people in the party. Tony and Gordon spent much of the election campaigning together, which helped to underline the point.

Labour won, its majority smaller than in the first two elections, but big enough to get through the programme of change set out in the manifesto.

So the contract between party and people was clear. In the often near-hysterical media bubble that party conferences become, I think some deluded souls honestly believed Tony was going to signal his imminent departure.

Meanwhile, Tony Parkinson looks unfavourably on the situation of Australian Labor, as measured against the party led by Tony Blair:

The contrast with the identity crisis of the ALP could not be more pronounced.

A missive of peace

Here's one in the eye for the cultural boycotters:

"It is with great pleasure that I recommend author Sami Michael to be nominated to become a Nobel Prize laureate in Literature for 2005" - this recommendation comes from a Palestinian writer, who penned the words at the height of the armed conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

A prominent writer and critic, Professor Ahmed Harb of Ramallah sent his recommendation of Israeli novelist Michael to the Nobel Prize committee in Sweden after being asked to suggest nominees for the prize.

Speaking with Haaretz, Harb said that he was deeply impressed by Michael's writing, which, in his opinion, influences not only Israelis, but also many Palestinians and Arabs, who through his books are able to grasp the fate shared by the residents of this region.

Do read the whole thing.

TPM 32: justice and politics

The new issue of The Philosophers' Magazine (#32) is now available. Full details of the contents are here. There is a forum on 'Social Justice', with pieces by Keith Dowding, Norman Geras, Oliver Letwin, Tony McWalter and Stuart White. (I have posted my contribution here.) Duncan Pritchard reviews the Simon Blackburn volume which I referred to a few posts down. And there is a roundup of views in the wake of the London bombings. Jonathan Rée:

[T]he progressives see western capitalist societies as reaping the harvest of their war-mongering imperialism, and conservatives feel confirmed in their sense of civilisation being under siege from barbarians. The result has been an extraordinary ideological disarray in which progressives are finding it impossible to be critical of radical Islam, even though it is murderously hostile to the liberties of lifestyle they hold dear; while conservatives find it impossible to sympathise with it, even though they agree with its revulsion from hedonism, individualism and moral agnosticism.

The only thing I am sure of is that both sides are wrong.

In the same roundup, Bat-Ami Bar On offers a definition of politics in which terrorism is not political, and even coercion is not central to politics. She writes:

[W]hile I suspect that politics cannot be free of coercion, I do not regard coercion as central to politics, especially not to liberal-democratic politics. Rather, I believe that it is freedom, the very opposite of coercion, that is central to liberal-democratic politics.

I don't really see the point of conceiving politics in such a way that politics as such is made pretty much co-extensive with liberal-democratic politics. Favouring such politics - well, that's another thing.

In any event, as a second-hand bookseller of my acquaintance used to call out to those around his stall, pick where you will.

Anti-Semitism inquiry

A wide-ranging investigation into contemporary anti-semitism in Britain is to be launched, it was revealed during this week's Labour party conference.

John Mann MP, the newly elected chairman of the Parliamentary Committee against Anti-Semitism, told delegates that the group's inquiry would see MPs and peers scrutinising the government's actions in relation to the growing scourge.

A spokesman for the committee said: "This will be a far-reaching and comprehensive review of the current nature and state of anti-semitism in the UK today. It has been commissioned by parliamentarians, will be conducted by leading parliamentarians from all the major parties and we are sure that government departments and related agencies will be keen to engage with it."

If this has been picked up anywhere else, I've not been able to find it. (Thanks: AL.)

Futureblog

The Rand Corporation looks ahead from the mid-twentieth century. If their predictions had been accurate... ouch.

What Fodor said

Jerry Fodor reviewing Simon Blackburn's Truth: A guide for the perplexed in the TLS:

Blackburn is, pretty much, an absolutist about scientific truth. You might thus expect that he would also run a "correspondence" theory of what such truth consists in: on the one hand, there's the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun; and, on the other hand, there's the theory-independent fact that the Earth does revolve around the Sun. And it's the fact that makes the theory true. But this kind of account of what truth is has become unfashionable of late. It is argued that, since we must always approach the world with some or other theory in mind, we couldn't, even in principle, know about how the facts are "in and of themselves", independent of our theories. Blackburn treats this line of thought with some respect, but it seems to [involve a] confusion between semantics and epistemology... Furthermore, such arguments must be unsound; it is precisely the virtue of Scientific Realism that it shows how we can come to know about facts that aren't theory-dependent. It is the main point of Scientific Realism that only their correspondence to theory-independent facts would explain why our theories are successful.

Quite so: there's the theory; and there's the theory-independent fact.

The choosing of words

The editor of a certain newspaper (call him G) complains to one of the paper's journalists (call him J)...

G: You've said here, 'Israel killed three armed Islamic activists as it continued a week-long assault against Hamas...'

J: I know, I know. 'Activists' might suggest people leafletting for the Labour Party in, er, Warrington. But what was I to put? 'Terrorists' is out. So... 'soldiers'? Doesn't seem quite right. 'Fighters'?

G: You misunderstand me; 'activists' is fine. But 'armed'?! That's far too judgemental. It undoes the neutralizing, emollient effect of 'activists'. I mean, if these guys are armed, and said to be so, some readers might get the wrong idea and...

J: Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry, Big G.

G: Apology accepted. You could say 'robust' - 'robust activists'. And then what about 'killed'? That's very sharp, and might even be seen by some as being condemnatory. We can't take sides like that.

J: But... well, they were in fact... killed.

G: That's not the point. Readers sympathetic to the Israeli side are entitled to something milder. Let me suggest 'incapacitated'.

J: OK, G. Is that all?

G: No. You've said 'Israel'!

J: Pardon?

G: You've said 'Israel' - that Israel killed them. There are those who don't accept Israel's existence as legitimate.

J: Well, I can't say 'Palestine' did it, can I? Should I have said 'So-called Israel'?

G: No, that still leaves intact reference to what some refer to as 'the Zionist entity'.

J: Wow, this is difficult. How about 'the usurper state'?

G: We cannot take sides! I suggest 'The country sometimes associated with the People of the Book'.

J: Doesn't that sort of allude to... well, Jews?

G: What have you got against Jews?

J: Nothing. My wife is Jewish and so are all our children - and our household pets. But some people are a bit iffy about Jews.

G: OK, then, say 'A certain country...'

J: So... 'A certain country incapacitated three robust Islamic activists as it continued a week-long assault against Hamas...'

G: Hmmm. I'm not too sure about 'Islamic' and 'Hamas' - or about 'assault', for that matter. Try this:

A certain country incapacitated three robust religious activists as it continued a week-long oppositional effort against a campaigning organization...

J: That's good, Big G. That's very good. Thanks for your help.

[Loosely inspired by this and an old memory.]

The naming of poets

In my many long years of counselling students, one of the more poignant moments was being told by a young guy, in explanation of the difficulties he was having getting his essays in on time, that his girlfriend had run off with a poet. I was, naturally, most sympathetic. But I have long wondered whether he would have been due more sympathy or less had his girlfriend left him, say, for a rugby player - who might, for all one knows, have been a poet in his own domain.

Why do I tell you this story? Just as a way of introducing the latest in the series of normblog polls. I am inviting you to send me the names of your three favourite English-language poets. No need to rank them; each vote will count for one. The closing date is October 31.

Not compulsory and not part of the poll: if you care to send me, with your entry, a favourite poem (preferably with a link for it), please do.

The normblog profile 106: James Hamilton

James Hamilton was born in Widnes, Lancashire, in 1968, of Scottish and Irish stock. He was educated in Bedford and at Magdalen College, Oxford, before spending the 1990s in London. He now runs a private psychotherapy practice in Surrey and Central London, specializing in depression anxiety, panic, phobia, addiction, PTSD, IBS, emetophobia and paruresis. James is marrying Karen in the autumn. He blogs at the eponymous James Hamilton.

Why do you blog? > Psychotherapy can be lonely work. I'm an extrovert, and need the intellectual company I get from blogging.

What has been your best blogging experience? > A post on football managers won me a 'talking head' spot in a Sky One documentary on the life of Jose Mourinho; I was completely gobsmacked to discover that some people watched the programme because they were readers of my blog.

What has been your worst blogging experience? > Being cited in Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush.

What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger? > Link generously, accept criticism and never lose your sense of humour.

What are your favourite blogs? > Jackie Danicki, Tommy G, Blimpish and Brian Micklethwait. My politics are a world away from all of them, but the four of them combine generous personalities with an unusual gift of friendship. I'd certainly buy them all a drink given half the chance.

Who are your intellectual heroes? > Dietrich Bonhoeffer - the sole survivor from my reading of Paul Johnson's Intellectuals.

What are you reading at the moment? > Sorry about this, but it's McMullin's New Handbook of Cognitive Therapy Techniques. Excellent if you like that kind of thing, which obviously I do. More action and excitement than you might think.

Who are your cultural heroes? > Father Maximilian Kolbe, Sophie and Hans Scholl.

What is your favourite poem? > Macaulay's 'Lays of Ancient Rome'.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to disseminate? > The intellectual primacy of scientific method. Enlightenment values in general.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to combat? > Cultural relativism; anything to do with either the anti-war or anti-globalization movements.

Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major and lasting influence on how you think about the world? > William Stevenson's Ninety Minutes At Entebbe set my views on foreign policy and politics in stone when I was still very young. They haven't changed since.

Who are your political heroes? > Claus von Stauffenberg, Oskar Schindler, John Rabe and Raoul Wallenberg.

If you could effect one major policy change in the governing of your country, what would it be? > I'd reinstitute the 'British System' for Class A drugs. Drugs must be made a medical problem, not a criminal one. There is the potential to cut the crime rate in two and undermine gun use if only we have the courage - to say nothing of emptying the prisons.

If you could choose anyone, from any walk of life, to be Prime Minister who would you choose? > From any walk of life? Tony Blair.

What would you do with the UN? > I'd provide the New York staffers and diplomats with side weapons, march them into Zimbabwe and topple President Mugabe's regime. All it takes is a little leadership.

What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world? > The lack of faith, within the modern west, in democracy, personal freedom and universal human rights.

Do you think the world (human civilization) has already passed its best point, or is that yet to come? > Human civilization peaked in and around the beginning of the twentieth century.

What would be your most important piece of advice about life? > It's a high jumper's adage: 'Throw your heart over the bar, and your body will follow'.

What personal fault do you most dislike? > Bigotry, especially in its 'acceptable' UK forms of inverted snobbery, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.

Do you have any prejudices you're willing to acknowledge? > I'm getting really tired of the more-cockney-than-thou accent that's prevalent in my neck of the woods.

What commonly enjoyed activities do you regard as a waste of time? > I find the enthusiasm otherwise intelligent people have for fantasy novels and 'seasons' of SF TV series completely baffling.

If you were to relive your life to this point, is there anything you'd do differently? > I'd have stayed on at Oxford by hook or by crook. Leaving when I did was a defeat at the most intimate and personal level.

What would you call your autobiography? > I've always thought My Life and Loves has a ring to it. Hope it's not been used by the time I settle to my memoirs.

Who would play you in the movie about your life? > I like Russell Crowe, but I'd settle for Alan Bennett. I'll get Dick Emery's ghost.

Where would you most like to live (other than where you do)? > Within walking distance of Port Meadow in North Oxford. So many wonderful pubs; the river; horses; skies on autumn evenings.

What would your ideal holiday be? > I'm about to have it: a weekend in Edinburgh with Karen. The air scented by brewing and primitive chippies; the roar of tyres on cobbles beside the Heart of Midlothian; the Witchery late at night; Kay's Bar; Bell's Diner. Bliss.

Who are your sporting heroes? > There is only one: the Preston Plumber, Tom Finney. Not just a great footballer, but a great man.

If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for? > A cure for arthritis. I long for the day when it is as rare in the West as rickets.

If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be? > Lillian Gish, Raoul Wallenberg (sprung forever from his Soviet gaol) and Wing Commander Guy Gibson.

[The normblog profile is a weekly Friday morning feature. A list of all the profiles to date, and the links to them, can be found here.]

From Gandhi to the human shields

Across at Neo-Neocon, Neo-Neocon has an interesting discussion of Gandhi's pacifism. Her discussion is wide-ranging, whereas the focus of this comment will be narrow. I was struck by the passages she cites of Gandhi's advice to the Jews in face of Nazi persecution. He speaks of a crime that is being visited upon a whole race 'with unbelievable ferocity' - and this in 1938, that is, before the genocide against the Jewish people had (strictly speaking) begun. Gandhi writes also that:

Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism.

Prophetic words. But the words that follow them look to be a cruel joke in the light of the history that was to follow:

If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can.

Cannot be worse off than now. Outside a system of religious belief, talk of suffering bringing inner strength and joy just looks like simple-mindedness against the experience of Auschwitz, and of a thousand other human massacres. But what Gandhi's words here reveal above all is that as a political tactic pacifism of this kind is only effective against those whose coercion and violence stay within certain moral limits - for whatever reason: whether because they themselves respect those limits or because they have to face, and are restrained by, a public which respects them. Against political rulers, or organizations, or movements, that are willing to set aside all limits such pacifism is an invitation to murder.

The point is demonstrated in a smaller way today by the willingness of would-be human shields from the 'peace' movement to face down soldiers of the US or the Israeli armies, combined with the absence of any similar effort by them to restrain the so-called Iraqi insurgency from their daily killings of other Iraqis, and the radical scarcity of shield-folk on the buses and in the cafes of Tel Aviv, Natanya or Jerusalem during hotter phases of the suicide-bombing campaigns of Hamas. Shrewdly, they prefer not to get killed.