Recent Criticisms in Politics
Current Affairs, Rant, State Terror August 17th, 2009I noticed two news stories that really “grind my gears”. Firstly, the case where MEP Daniel Hannan called for the abolition of the British National Health Service. The government’s health secretary commented:
“I would almost feel… it is unpatriotic because he is talking in foreign media and not representing, in my view, the views of the vast majority of British people and actually, I think giving an unfair impression of the National Health Service himself, a British representative on foreign media.” Andy Burnham
Now, I find it odd that he presumes that politicians may not to talk to journalists that are from beyond the UK and also that politicians may not disagree with public opinion. And to voice disagreement with public opinion is “unpatriotic”? Very worrying signs… (hello, thought police…) Perhaps it would be better for Andy Burnham to stick to the topic of discussion without resorting to name calling.
A second case concerns David Miliband and his comments on Joe Slovo, a South African anti-apartheid activist. When asked if violence (or “terrorism” in the parlance of our time) could be justified in some circumstances:
Presenter Matthew Parris asked Mr Miliband: “Are there circumstances in which violent reaction, terrorism, is the right response?”
Mr Miliband said: “That’s such a hard question, ‘right’ has to be judged in two ways doesn’t it? Whether it’s justifiable and whether it’s effective.
“I think I’m right in saying that one of the ways in which the ANC tried to square the circle between being a movement of political change and a movement which used violence, was to target installations rather than people.
“The most famous ANC military attack was on the Sasol oil refinery in 1980. That was perceived to be remarkable blow at the heart of the South African regime.
“But I think the answer has to be yes – there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, and yes, there are circumstances in which it is effective – but it is never effective on its own.”
He went on: “The importance for me is that the South African example proved something remarkable: the apartheid regime looked like a regime that would last forever, and it was blown down.” BBC
He has come under fire from various sources, including William Hague, for apparently condoning terrorism generally. This is an instance of the slippery slope argument (and an appeal to consequences). But “violence is necessary in some circumstances” is as true as any other statement I care to think of. History of all peoples and places are full of illustrations that this is the case. To claim otherwise requires a total lack of the historical sense and gross double standards.
For example, Churchill planned civilian and military suicide attacks in case of invasion of the UK (Their finest hour, Winston Churchill, p149). Another case is the firebombing of Dresden and the use of atomic weapons against mainly civilian targets. Also the French resistance to Nazi occupation using sabotage and assassination. Attacks are called “terrorists” by one side and “martyr”, “liberation” or “freedom” fighters by the other. Chomsky and others questioned if states are capable of terrorism? Or even is there an agreed definition of terrorism? No, often there is not, because this would implicate many military operations/actions as state terror. (And “operation” is another case of “words as weapons” – implying they are competently and justifiably applied.)
Anti Citizen One
August 17th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
I notice this line in the US declaration of independence:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (my emphasis)
And as it transpired, they used force.
AC1
August 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
On the 2nd issue I am wholly in agreement with you. The whole concept of state is generally intertwined with coercion and at some stage this requires violence… few states are born peacefully. If war is an extension of politics by other means, so too is terrorism, one need only see the political wings that Irish Republicanism and Palestinian separatists have emerged from or retreated into.
On the first point I’m more cautious. Mostly because I am tired of smear politics and the American Right using Socialism as a dirty word. I consider the U.S. health system to be grossly unjust (I accept this is a subjective opinion). And also to be contrary to the spirit of the preamble of the Constitution where it states its aim to be to “promote the general Welfare” of its peoples – a health system that discriminates against those who are unable to pay full health insurance thereby limiting the quality and quantity of medical care available to them hardly seems to be in the interests of the general welfare of the people.
I accept that the NHS is a far from perfect model, yet it is a model that was established to promote the welfare of all peoples in Britain and from its conception health care in this country has radically improved.
I also accept American commentary that a similar system may be unworkable or undesirable for America, and thankfully President Obama seems to be aware of this when he recently stated that he hoped to create a uniquely American system designed for American needs and pressures.
Generally AC1 is correct to defend Hannan’s free speech, he has a ‘right’ to speak up even if his views are not shared by the majority. Similarly to describe such dissentions as “unpatriotic” is to say the least an unfortunate choice of phrase. As AC1 asks “stick to the topic”.
For me the most important line is “giving an unfair impression of the National Health Service” which I think is accurate. Hannan belongs to a neocon group that wishes to dismantle the system of universal health care and replace it with a profit-making health industry based on insurance premiums.