Author: davidajepson

by

Black Lives Matter

With the death of George Floyd “Black Lives Matter” became a global rallying cry for all those against racism. It was a simple statement encapsulating opposition to racism’s historical roots and its contemporary practice both individual and institutional.

Inevitably it would not be long before an attack on its credentials was forthcoming. Leading the charge, just as inevitably, was President Trump who in a tweet denigrating the painting of the logo on 5th Avenue which he claimed would “further antagonise New Yorks Finest” called Black Lives Matter a “symbol of hate”.

Kayleight McEnany, the Presidents Press Secretary, attempted to redefine the racist attack against a phrase with overwhelming national and international support by suggesting the President had “only” meant to refer to the “Greater New York BLM” whose president Kayleigh claimed had said “if this country does not give us what we want that we will burn down the system”, Her response “I call that a pretty hateful statement”.

One cannot envy the job of defending the indefensible. However, the steely Ms McEnany whose resting state is passive aggressive, with emphasis on the aggressive, does it without blinking. I have no idea whether she believes what she says but you have to admire her ability to project absolute certainty and confidence defending the incoherent ramblings of a rather dim man loaded with every prejudicial “ism” one can think of.

However, whatever her personal views, her attempt to paint the BLM movement as a hate filled threat to democracy, and that therefore the BLM moto should be rejected is in effect an attempt to undermine a powerful symbol of anti-racism. It should be rejected out of hand. The phrase has a palpable strength which comes from its simplicity, directness and moral truth. A truth which has been brutally suppressed for more than 400 years.

It is difficult to get one’s head inside the moral universe that existed when slavery was a major component of the the growing world economy in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries. As long as I can remember it has appeared self evident to me that slavery was, and is, an abhorrent practice. The dreadful treatment and brutalisation of fellow human beings seemed beyond understanding. The International Museum of Slavery in Liverpool charts the unspeakable trade and I thought I had a clear understanding of the whole awfulness of the business

However its still came as a shock to me when I read in Thomas Picketty’s excellent book “Capital and Ideology” that on the abolition of slavery it was the owners and not the slaves who were compensated. Even in a world where racism is still a major problem it is difficult to believe this was thought to be a morally reasonable solution.

Picketty provides an informative summary of the African slave industry, how it was “abolished” and compensated, and the the nature of the debates at the time in Britain, France and the US. Those debates were structured, according to Picketty, by the proprietarian view of the word which came to dominate over this period. In this view property rights were fundamental, tantamount to sacred and could not be challenged even if the property in question was another human being.

Ironically the power of this world view can probably be seen more starkly in the arguments of the abolitionists than the defenders of slavery. In France a dedicated abolitionist, Alexander Moreau de Jonnes saw it as axiomatic that the, “…masters of slaves must be compensated by an indemnity…” and that it was also obvious, “…the slaves, who will derive immense benefit from it, should naturally and necessarily…” fund the indemnity, ie. compensation.

Alexis De Tocqueville (the same) came up with what he saw as a sensible compromise whereby the government would pay half the cost of the indemnity whilst the slaves would pay the other half.

In the event the compensation was paid by the French state as was the case in Great Britain. The compensation provided to the 4,000 UK slave owners at the time was £20m, or 5% of UK’s national income at the time. If the compensation was converted into 5% of the national income of 2018 it would amount to €20bn, or €30m per slaveowner.

This enormous payment by the state meant an increase in the public debt which was funded by families on modest or average incomes in a highly regressive tax environment where most taxes were on consumption and trade. Crudely the poor in Britain compensated the rich in Britain for their slaves.

Talking of public debt it is worth considering the case of Saint-Domingue, now Haiti. This island had a population of which 90% were slaves. That demographic probably accounts for the fact that abolition there was the result of a slaves revolt. However, whilst they might be able to overwhelm their local oppressors they had to succumb to the demands of a French state for compensation of their former owners under threat of invasion.

In 1925 France recognised the independent Haiti following a promise by its government to pay 150 million gold francs (roughly €40bn in todays money) compensation to slave owners. This amounted to 300% of national income. The entire amount had to be paid within five years, so Haiti was required to borrow the money from French banks at about 5% pa and repay it over time. A very long time.

From 1849 to 1915 the French creditors managed to extract 5% per annum of the whole of Haiti’s national income. From 1915 to 1934 America occupied Haiti to restore law and order during which the French banks ceded the rest of their loans to the US. The 1825 debt was not finally wiped from the loan books until the early 1950’s. So the slaves of Haiti spent a century and a quarter paying compensation to their owners. Now that is what I would call “pretty hateful”.

The more you study black history the more shocked you are. Furthermore, abolition was little more than a step forward, a shift from de jure oppression to de facto oppression. In France, the UK and most egregiously in the US abolition was accompanied by new laws which ensured the exploitation and degradation of back lives could continue unabated.

In relation to black lives there is no neutral. There are no subtle distinctions to be made around Black Lives Matter. It is a motto for a race. A race which has experienced oppression in ways it is almost certain no one in a white skin can even imagine, particularly those from states with a colonial heritage. Oppression which appears to be part of the very fabric of reality. So ubiquitous as to be almost invisible to those not subject to it except for the most egregious examples of physical abuse.

There is only one legitimate response to the motto Black Lives Matter. Unequivocal agreement and support. No ifs, no buts, no clever distinctions.

by

New Deal Rhetoric – Call the Midwife

Both Prime Minister Johnson and Minister for the Cabinet Office Michael Gove have evoked the transformative programme of Franklyn Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal in recent days. Whilst their description of some of the challenges we face is accurate the scale, focus and depth of the response leaves something to be desired, and they do not touch the heart of the problem

We are going to “build build build” our way out of the economic collapse that is accompanying the Covid-19 virus. To achieve this we are going to bring forward £5bn of already identified expenditure. That is a lot of money and compares favourably with the $3.3bn that FDR invested in the Public Works Administration.

Except… the $3.3bn was only the first significant investment in the New Deal in 1933, which is a long time ago. The figure has been estimated as representing some 5.9% of the GDP of the US economy. The UK economy is currently approximately £2.2trn per annum, 5.9% of which is £129bn. Even allowing for currency difference the scale is significantly different and it was just the start.

More significantly however is the fact that at the core of FDR’s vision was a concern about power. The fact that power had been monopolised by the monopolists. This left the vast majority of American citizens on the outside and impoverished with 25% unemployment, collapsing businesses, and agricultural chaos.

He certainly wanted to “level up” those languishing in the depression economy, to provide them with relief, establishing the first basic social security system in the US. He transformed agricultural finance and implemented a public works programme on an immense scale.

He understood the benefits of public ownership setting up Tennessee Valley Act which created a publicly owned electricity company generating cheap electricity for the residents of the Tennessee Valley.

However, FDR was not content to just provide relief to level up the dispossessed he also wanted to “level down” some of those, business and financial monopolists, speculators, reckless bankers and others who he saw as largely responsible for the economic collapse and enemies of peace. Speaking of this group he said, “They are unanimous in their hate for me – and I welcome their hatred.”

That “levelling down” involved addressing income inequalities with the Revenue Act in 1935 which imposed a top rate of 75% on incomes over $1m. It also involved measures to support the growth of independent trade unions to redress the balance of power between employers and workers.

Roosevelt also introduced measures to curb the finance industry, notably the Glass-Steagall Banking Act which, amongst other things, separated retail from investment banking, the repeal of which in 1999 opened the way for some of the excesses which led to the 2007/08 credit crunch.

In his first 100 days FDR introduced legislative and administrative changes which transformed the US. Not just providing much needed support to the unemployed, small businesses and family farms but much more significantly reducing the power of the economic elite. He paved the way for a almost half a century of recalibration of inequality in favour of the poor and middle classes. His actions can be seen as having both saved the US economy and more profoundly reconciling capitalism with democracy.

On the positive side much that he changed stands as a testament to his vision and determination even today. However, the conflict between capitalism and democracy faces the same challenge as it did when FDR came to power. A conflict generated by a return to similar levels of inequality and concentration of power.

It is difficult to see nationalistic bluster and a “reform” of the civil service which havers between a rehash of proposals made over decades and a desire to inspire its performance by making senior appointments political, as having anything like the impact FDR had.

If the Tory party are looking to history for something that rhymes with what they are doing now, they have alighted on the wrong person. FDR’s New Deal was short on rhetoric and long on action.

Mr Gove’s Ditchley lecture begins with a quote from Antonio Gramci analysing the problems of his time saying, “the inherited is dying – and the new cannot be born;”. I fear we need to call the midwife as neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Gove look up to the job.

by

Why Joe Biden Will not win the US Election

Political prediction is almost always a hope of the heart propelled by a wishful intellect. However…

I hardly dare say it but it does look as if the wheels are finally coming off the clown car which is the Trump administration. Naturally at this point in any predictive article it is important to put the Wilsonian disclaimer in that “a week is a long time in politics” and we are a good four months from 3 November when Americans go to the polls.

When they do go they will not just be judging the performance of their President they will also be voting for 35 seats in the Senate, where the Republicans currently have a six seat majority, and all 435 members of the House of Representatives where the Democrats have a 15 seat majority.

At the moment Mr Biden has a double digit poll lead. Even his closest supporters would be hard pressed to put this down to energetic, charismatic, high profile campaigning. 

What Mr Biden does have on his side is President Trump and an administration which increasingly lacks competence and credibility. An administration long on loyalty but short on ability. Better yet even the long position seems to be starting to crack.

A large number of Americans have been giving President Trump the benefit of the doubt. I have no doubt that, for a very tiny fraction of Americans, the spiteful and juvenile stream of tweets; the coarse behaviour and articulation of clearly racist and misogynist views were welcomed. For a much larger number however, I suspect there was a feeling this was a price worth paying to shake up the elite and drain the swamp. They had been ignored for so long that something radically different was needed. Well they certainly got that.

Having said this it became ever more difficult to understand why the President’s increasingly unconstitutional and bizarre behaviour seemed to come at no cost to his support. People appeared to be willing to accommodate ever more outrageous attacks on the very foundations of the US constitution. 

The separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, the chain of command, respect for the law, threats to a free press, abuse of office for personal gain, nepotism. As they occurred individually and even as they accumulated they did not lead to the level of public outrage that many thought appropriate and inevitable. However, over the years they have built up a picture which people simply did not focus on when the economy was booming and unemployment was falling to record low levels.

But now, Covid-19 (C-19) has burst the bubble of the Trump narrative. His bluster and incompetence have been revealed for what they are.  

The shotgun the President took early on in his Administration to health care was always pointed at his foot. Having shot off one foot in the mid-terms he carefully took aim at this issue again on the other foot! 

His denial of C-19, his failure to act early, his stupid musings on how to cure it with disinfectant, his refusal to model appropriate social distancing practices, his rush to reopen the economy, prioritising re-election over American lives, all reveal the essence of the man. An incompetent narcissist, with the attention span of a goldfish and IQ to match.  Whilst this has been visible to some for a long time it is now being brought home to all Americans in the most cruel manner.

This awakening is set to lead to a re-evaluation of much of the past five years. The doubt is over. He really is what he appears to be. What is more that re-evaluation may not simply focus on the President. The Republican party and its members of the Senate and House; the cast of venal  incompetents, extreme loyalists and yes men that make up his cabinet, and the upper echelons of the Federal bureaucracy appointed by Trump may all feel the growing wrath of the American people. 

It is clear some of his “team” are beginning to see this. Members of his own party, startled by polling numbers, are starting to put their head above the parapet. Senator John Thune has urged the President to focus on an electoral strategy which, “deals with substance and policy…”  and is presented in a different “tone”. Good luck with that one Senator.

What 4 years have shown is the complete lack of ability of this President. The esteem of the nation in the eyes of its allies is lower than it has ever been. Its  foreign policy a combination of rhetorical triumphs with practical failure, see North Korea and the Middle East. A craven response to dictators, see Russia and its interest in Ukraine, and Turkey and its interests in Syria. A trade “policy” the theoretical idiocy of which is only exceeded by its incompetent implementation. A legislative record, the golden star of which was a tax cut focussed clearly on the 1%.

If the election was tomorrow it is very likely there would be a Democratic landslide. The Republicans must be praying for a miracle because there is nothing on the horizon set to help. The monumental mishandling of the virus means America is now sitting on an epidemic time bomb set to overwhelm the medical services of the richest country in the world. The graph below shows the surging infection numbers. This will eventually force an effective lockdown and an avoidable protraction of the damage to the economy. 

Covid-19 Confirmed Cases. Source: The New York Times


Even if the disease were to disappear tomorrow the impact has been devastating. The virus has already taken more American lives than the wars in  Korea and Vietnam combined (94k), and more than the First World War (116k).  If the current level of incompetence is not addressed quickly and radically it is not inconceivable the final death toll could compete with America’s previous worst, the 650k killed in the Civil War. Of course the Civil War lasted four years, C-19 has killed more than 125k in four months.

Whilst all of this grim reality provides hope President Trump will be gone in 7 months time it also generates fear. It is certain he will not go quietly. A totally compliant Attorney General who confuses his role with that of defence counsel to the President, provides a powerful tool for skewing the election process. Voter suppression is an industry in some Republican States and is set to go into overdrive. Legal attacks on Nixonian type “enemies” is more than a risk, and Joe Biden has already been in the crosshairs. 

Worse, some other form of domestic of foreign crisis may be manufactured. The difficulty with this, for Trump, is that the American people are increasingly  unlikely to be reassured any such crisis will best be handled with him as President.

Trump’s aggressive, vindictive nature is not going to be a pretty sight as it becomes more apparent he is going to lose. We are in for a very rough few months with the US constitution and nation strained to the absolute limit.

Mr Biden’s best efforts may not win the election but there is every chance Donald Trump will lose it and lose it spectacularly. Fingers crossed, for if he does not lose and lose clearly, the prospect for the States is definitely not United.


by

Arctic Circle’s record temperatures heighten global warming concerns | Financial Times

Wild anomalies such as the 38C recorded in northern Russia this week underline climate change threat

Source: Arctic Circle’s record temperatures heighten global warming concerns | Financial Times

 

Northern Comment – As evidence piles up about the accelerating impacts of climate change the leader of the western world dismisses it as a hoax or Chinese conspiracy. In the UK, where we are due to host COP26 in November 2021 progress to meet the 2050 net zero emissions looks much harder to achieve. It is difficult to know what post Covid-19 will look like if indeed there is a post Covid-19.

There needs to be a much clearer focus on what needs to be achieved and the same sense of urgency as has been generated by the virus. Climate change and a Green Deal investment programme must be a focus of action now.