How can we summarise the history of the United States? Let me try …
May 29th, 2019 by Roger Darlington
My review of “A Little History Of The United States” by James West Davidson
This is not just a short account (300 pages) but it is conveniently broken up into 40 brief chapters and the writing style is very accessible, even conversational, with an emphasis on personalities and stories rather than dates and statistics. The overall tone could be said to be liberal or progressive.
Following the ‘discovery’ of the Americas by the Norseman Leif Erikson around 1000 AD (actually what is today Newfoundland, Canada) and the ‘rediscovery’ by the Italian Christopher Columbus in 1492 (actually somewhere in what is now called the Bahamas), Europeans paid little attention to North America for 140 years (1542-1682) which Davidson calls “a huge silence in the history books”.
In a sense, therefore, the story of the United States itself does not really get going until the French explorer Jean-Baptiste de La Salle’s trip down the Mississippi River in 1682. Very early in the narrative of the nation, two tensions emerged: that between a central authority and localised autonomy and that between the notion of liberty and the practice of slavery.
Following the American War of Independence from 1775-1783 (“a quarrel that turned into an uprising [that] spiraled into a full-fledged rebellion”) and the rapid expansion of the nation through the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, President Andrew Jackson’s forced acquisition of substantial Indian lands, and the spoils of the U.S.-Mexican war of 1846-1848, these twin tensions led to the American Civil War of 1861-1865.
Davidson reminds us that the civil war death toll of some three-quarters of a million was more than died in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the U.S.-Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, the Korean War, and World Wars I and II combined.
Following a period known as Reconstruction, the country was beset economically by one major panic or depression after another: 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873-1879, 1882-1885, 1893-1897, and most infamously the Great Depression of 1929-late 1930s. Then – and now – American politics has divided into two views of how economic wealth is allocated in society: what Davidson characterises as “luck or pluck”.
So-called progressives took the view that the federal goverment had to intervene to support the most deprived in society. This led to the ‘square deal’ of President Theodore Roosevelt, the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt, and the Great Society of President Lyndon Johnson. But more recent experience has been much more conservative and free market.
This little history is brought up todate with brief accounts of the emergence of the U.S.A. as a superpower, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the collapse of the Soviet empire.
Davidson concludes his story by reminding readers that: “Two big ideas echo through American history, circling and ever returning: freedom and equality”.
The lines between these two concepts have been redrawn again and again: the Three-Fifths Compromise of 1787 (the valuation of slaves), the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (the admission of Maine as a slave state and Missouri as a free state), the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 (effectively a repeal of the Missouri Compromise), and the Compromise of 1850 (the status of territories acquired in the Mexican-American War). He insists that “the lines never held”.
And today the lines still have to be redrawn. If freedom means the freedom to be unequal, how unequal? And what is the role of government in ameliorating such inequalities? These are questions for every nation but perhaps most especially for the richest nation in the history of humankind.
Posted in History | Comments (0)
The European Union is a large democratic entity – but not the largest. That would be India.
May 27th, 2019 by Roger Darlington
India – with a population of 1.3 billion and an electorate of around 900 million – is the world’s largest democracy and, for all its faults and flaws, this democratic system stands in marked contrast to the democratic failures of Pakistan and Bangladesh which were part of India until 1947.
Elections in a country of the size and complexity of India are huge and difficult affairs. The Indian Constitution requires that voters do not have to travel more than 2 km (1.2 miles) from their homes to vote. At the recent election, some 900 million citizens were eligible to vote and around 600 million did so.
There is no way that such a poll can be conducted on a single day and in fact the last election to the Lok Sabha took place over a period of almost six weeks, starting on 11 April 2019 and finishing on 19 May 2019 with all votes counted on a single day: 23 May 2019. The election was conducted in seven separate phases and almost 4 million staff were deployed to run them.
How is power allocated in the Indian political system? How are elections to the parliament in India structured? What was the result in the recent general election? You’ll find all the answers in my updated short guide to the Indian political system.
Posted in World current affairs | Comments (0)
Post-May, where now for Britain and Brexit?
May 26th, 2019 by Roger Darlington
“The next five months look set to be the most torrid, yet pivotal, period in our history since the second world war. And as the Tory party engulfs itself in a self-indulgent leadership beauty parade, all remaining hope lies with Labour. Only Corbyn can conceivably deliver us from this unholy and destructive mess. But it’s far from clear yet whether he will choose to step up to do so.”
The conclusion of a thoughtful editorial in today’s “Observer” newspaper.
Posted in British current affairs | Comments (0)
A review of the newly re-released 1964 film “Dr. Strangelove” (1964)
May 24th, 2019 by Roger Darlington
“Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb” – to use its full title – was directed. co-produced and co-written by Stanely Kubrick with the other writing credits going to the author of the book on which it was based (“Red Alert” by Peter George) and noted satirist Terry Southern.
Coming so soon after the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, this black and white film was a brave piece of dark comedy that was commercially very successful in spite of military and right-wing critics. It is quite a wordy work but there are some wonderful lines including the injunction: “Gentlemen, you can’t fight here. This is the war Room”.“
It posits a scenario in which all-out nuclear war is unleashed by some crazy individuals, sophisticated technology, and unfortunate occurrences. Following the success of “Lolita” in which Peter Sellers’ character assumes several identities, Colombia Pictures agreed to finance “Dr. Strangelove on the condition that this formula was repeated, so here the brilliant Sellers plays the British RAF Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, the bland American President Merkin Muffley, and the mad German scientist Dr. Strangelove.
Other stand-out performances come from ex-communist Sterling Hayden as General Jack Ripper, George C. Scott as General ‘Buck’ Turgidson, and Slim Pickens as bomber pilot Major ‘King’ Kong, each of whom wishes to eliminate the Soviets.
Another strength of the movie is the set of the War Room, a huge artifice designed by Ken Adam, fresh from his work of “Dr, No”.
An inevitable weakness of the film is representations of the B-52 bomber since the U.S. military was clearly not going to provide the sort of access and cooperation that it did for the 1955 work “Strategic Air Command”, so Kubrick was reduced to very obvious use of models although the cockpit scenes and crew procedures look and sound very convincing.
Posted in Cultural issues | Comments (0)
And now there are 24 seeking to be the Democratic candidate in 2020
May 23rd, 2019 by Roger Darlington
I’ve already blogged four times on the ever-growing field of those who wish to be elected as the Democratic candidate in the United States presidential election of 2020.
The latest – and tallest – to declare is New York mayor Bill de Blasio. This brings the current field to an incredible 24.
Of course, we have not had any hustings yet, let alone actual primaries or caucuses, so it very early days. But “Rolling Stone” magazine has helpfully ranked the 24 in the order the publications thinks the candidates currently stand in terms of popularity with Democrat supporters.
Joe Biden – with lots of support from older Democrats – is clearly in the lead with Bernie Sanders – who has lots of backing from young voters – in second position. Then come two female candidates: Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.
You’ll find the full ranking here.
Posted in American current affairs | Comments (0)
Do you understand the D’Hondt method being used in today’s UK elections to the European Parliament?
May 23rd, 2019 by Roger Darlington
Elections start today for the European Parliament which represents the 28 Member States of the European Union. Following the Brexit referendum , the plan was that the UK would be out of the EU by now and therefore would play no part in the election – but we are still a member and so we still have to participate in the election.
The UK and The Netherlands vote today Thursday 23 May; Ireland will vote on Friday 24 May; and Malta on Saturday 25 May. Voting in the remaining Member States takes place on Sunday 26 May. Votes will be counted and results announced on Sunday and Monday.
UK voters will choose 73 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in 12 multi-member regional constituencies. Each region has a different number of MEPs based on its population. The largest allocation is 10 seats in the South East Region and the smallest is three seats in the North East Region.
In each region except Northern Ireland, seats are allocated to parties in accordance with the number of votes won by each party using a system known as the D’Hondt method.
The D’Hondt method is a highest averages method for allocating seats and is therefore a type of party-list proportional representation. The method is named after the Belgian mathematician Victor D’Hondt, who described it in 1878 for proportional allocation of parliamentary seats to parties.
How does it work? There is a worked example here.
Posted in British current affairs | Comments (0)
Word day: folderol
May 22nd, 2019 by Roger Darlington
I had never heard this word until I saw it used in the House of Commons today by Conservative Member of Parliament Jacob Rees-Mogg.
It means “nonsensical fuss” and was used in the context of the current state of the Brexit fiasco.
Posted in Cultural issues | Comments (0)
Why are political opinion polls getting it wrong more often? (1)
May 22nd, 2019 by Roger Darlington
It is my contention that, across the democratic world, opinion pollsters are finding it harder to forecast accurately how political parties will do in elections and, on occasions, are getting the overall result wrong. Opinion polling is a complex matter and different companies use different methodologies, but all pollsters have the same problems of reaching the right people to construct a representative sample and of tracking short-term changes in voting intention.
The most dramatic recent case of poor polling in Britain was the General Election of May 2015 when the polls had Labour and Conservative neck-and-neck but in fact the Conservatives did significantly better than Labour. I have blogged about why the polls got it wrong on that occasion.
Essentially the problem was that some voters are easier to contact than others. Polling is becoming more difficult because fewer homes have a landline, many people do not like to answer unsolicited calls, not everyone is on the Net, volunteers for online polling are somewhat self-selecting, older people are less likely to be contacted by pollsters but more likely to vote, and those who are busy with work are less likely to be available but often more conservative.
The most recent international example of the pollsters getting it wrong was in last week’s General Election in Australia. All the polls forecast a Labour victory but the Liberal-National coalition was returned to power. What went wrong in the polling process? It is too soon to be sure but one pollster has already offered some reflections.
I was struck particularly the observation: “the polls were actually an accurate reflection of where the public was at the start of the week, and there was a move to the government in the final days of the campaign … We always knew there was a large cohort of voters with extremely light engagement.”
I think that what we are seeing is more voter fluidity. Class used to be the major determinant of voting behaviour and class does not change quickly, but class seems no longer to be the dominant factor that it was. Voters seem to be more willing to change support from election to election and even, in the course of the campaign, from week to week and day to day.
In a way, this is healthy for a democracy. It means that voters are thinking about their choices and willing to be influenced by the campaigns of the parties. But it can mean that voters are less engaged with politics and likely to be influenced by ephemeral factors.
What do you think?
Posted in World current affairs | Comments (0)
The spellbinding voice and tragic life of the Queen of Soul Aretha Franklin
May 21st, 2019 by Roger Darlington
“Amazing Grace” is a newly-released documentary that few will see on the big screen but I was fortunate enough to catch at the cinema at the weekend.
“Amazing Grace” was the title of the best-selling album of the Queen of Soul Aretha Franklin. It was recorded over two nights in January 1972 at the New Temple Missionary Baptist Church in Watts, Los Angeles and it was shot as a documentary by a crew led by Sydney Pollack.In fact, owing to technical and legal problems, it has taken almost half a century and the mortgaging of his own home for music industry executive Alan Elliott to bring it to a cinematic release. There is no narration, no interviews, no artifice (except some brief split screens), grainy 16 mm film, just Franklin’s spellbinding voice as she belts out a succession classic gospel songs.
Aretha Franklin – who died only last summer – had a tragic life, some of which is revealed in this short biography.
Posted in Cultural issues | Comments (0)
The growing success of the “John Wick” film franchise
May 19th, 2019 by Roger Darlington
First, there was “John Wick” [my review here]; this was followed by “John Wick: Chapter 2” [my review here]; and, now newly-released we have “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum”.
The word ‘parabellum’ is Latin for ‘prepare for war’ and also a calibre of bullet so, even if you haven’t seen the previous two films in the franchise, as long as you understand the title of this movie, you’ll know what to expect. In fact, John Wick has now become a well-known action hero and the franchise has built up a growing following so viewers know exactly what to expect and they will not be disappointed.
Like any successful entry in a popular franchise, you have all the elements of the original movie – most notably scene after scene of wonderfully staged and choreographed slaughter of anyone seeking to block or take out the eponymous and mythic hitman – with the return of some familiar characters, some new characters, a new location, a developing plot, and many more bodies.
The story picks up just 45 minutes after the conclusion of the previous chapter and the pace is unrelenting. Mostly we’re still in New York but there is a foray to Casablanca. New characters include The Adjudicator from The High Table who serves up punishment on anyone who helps Wick (non-binary actor Asia Kate Dillon), a one-time colleague of Wick and accomplished assassin Sofia (an excellent Halle Berry), and an ultra-destructive team led by Zero (martial artist Mark Dacascos) whose two side-kicks are played by real-life champion kickboxers who starred in “The Raid” movies.
There is nothing subtle about a John Wick movie. It is always utterly over-the-top and at times knowingly comical but, for mindless entertainment of a certain sort, this is a franchise on a roll that deservedly will be around for a while longer. And, why not? We all need a bit of escapism sometimes. Oh, for the record, one estimate of this film’s body count is a record 167.
Posted in Cultural issues | Comments (0)