I am often asked why I will not stand for political office. I clearly have some of the attributes that might incline me to do so. And then something comes along to remind me of the sheer ghastliness of politics, which I have known of since the time I was a student. The Brett Kavanaugh hearings are evidence of that.
I completely believe the testimony of Dr Christine Blasey Ford.
I do not believe Kavanaugh.
I do think a boy capable of assaulting a girl in his teens who has not evidenced a massive change in his cultural attitudes since then is likely to retain the contempt for women that was apparent in his early actions.
I greatly appreciated this comment piece by Moira Donegan.
But to return to my theme this comment by Richard Wolffe hit the mark:
[Y]ou could hear Republicans gasping for air as they calculated the political cost of this nomination. What was larger? The number of votes they were losing among women versus the number of votes they would lose among Trump fanatics by putting this flatlining nomination out of its misery.
That is the base calculation of politics that I could not abide. I cannot reconcile that baseness with doing the right thing, when in this case what is right is obvious. And as a result I do not wish to participate in the sordid calculations that are a part of the politician's life, and which seem to be getting more sordid by the day.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Credibility is something we are little judge of. Christine Ford is much more my cup of tea in terms of being lulled into believing her credible, but let’s face it plenty are gulled by Trump and Kavanaugh. Evidence is thin on the ground, though part of the reason for this is lack of investigation. I would like people like Richard to strap on their guns and clean up the town of politics to the theme from The Magnificent Seven. There is no political system people can work decently in. We have copied a very silly model. We should have decentralised through new technology by now and brought in new forms of public scrutiny electronically and through contact with the ‘wild public’ (early Habermas).
I would say I was as convinced (when a cop) as I am about Christine Ford’s veracity and been wrong after further investigation. I have also seen police, local authority, MPs and social work staff totally misconceive situations to protect their own corners (vile victim treatment). It’s not safe out there!
It would be a shame if, as I think you are saying, you would not enter politics because of a fear of what may be said about you from decades ago. Your aims now are clear and what should be your focus. Do us all a favour and stand!
I’m not worried about what was said about me decades ago
I am saying I do not like the current political process
You likely make a wise choice – I would feel the same but lack useful attributes. Your entirely understandable position does go quite some way in explaining why we get the politics we do.
Richard
If you cannot reconcile yourself to the “ghastliness”, you have made the right call.
Party politicians are expected to observe two rules – if you cannot be loyal, be discreet and if you cannot be discreet, be loyal. Loyalty being loyal to the party.
Enjoy the freedom of thought and action that politicians of equivalent eminence don’t have.
Agreed David,
Informed free-thinking commentators often speak with greater clarity and impartiality than politicians, who have to follow the dogmatic party line. Thankfully the internet makes it easier for free-thinking commentators to get their views across to a wider audience, so I’d say Richard’s role as a thinker and commentator has wider value than he could achieve by becoming a politician and, by necessity, part of a party machine.
Stick to the day job(s), Richard!
Ok
I think your lobbying for the moral and ethical basis will have a larger effect in the long run. Your message will eventually get through. That it’s already making an impact is obvious from the FT post earlier.
I was told this by quite a lot of Labour MPs once – including some quite prominent ones now
I’m sure they know that the so-called Overton Window can only be eased gradually to a new position. The right wing media would crucify Labour if they moved to fast. As it is Denis Healey would be called commie today.
I think you’re quite right, Richard, you would have to be morally bankrupt to get involved with some of these political people and you are not that person.
You would implode in the political space very quickly as evidenced by your intransigent, arrogant and dogmatic attitude towards discussion particularly when you are got on the wrong side of an argument.. best stay as a blogger to your little but loyal readership. In the meantime get out the begging bowl to little old ladies, the EU or whoever will provide some benevolence.. I suppose that’s much better than getting a real job!!
I am proud to be intolerant of those who seek to abuse
Speaking the truth to power
@Nathan
I was under the impression that intransigence, arrogance and dogmatism are the qualities most desired within politicians today? Or is that only dogmatism to one set of rules?
All jesting aside,
1 – I’m not convinced the readership is that little and
2 – loyal, yes I guess so, but not without question.
Some of RM’s comments can be rather blunt and as an inquisitive kind of person I would rather see discussion and explanation against opposing comments. But, I understand that RM is incredibly busy and that therefore it is my job to look around and find the answers for myself if I am interested enough. I value and appreciate RM’s writing enough to feel that he does not owe those who frequent the blog an explanation to every jibe directed his (and MMT’s) way. BUT, and I have to stress this, I do not take the opinions expressed, on either side, on the TRUK forums as gospel. It is our own job to weigh the evidence ourselves and come to our own conclusions. And so in the matter of which side of the argument is correct — in my opinion MMT has it; it fits the data best.
Just out of badness, what do you consider a real job?
p.s. Richard, I know it’s a little late, but my condolences. I hope life is as good as can be considering your recent loss.
Thanks for this
And I am very pleased that you take no comment I make at face value. I hope no one does. I offer opinion as speculation knowing everything is capable of refinement, and sometimes simply being wrong
Despite the claims made about me I am well aware of my fallibility
This blog is, at its core, nothing more than my own exploration of what is worth believing
That’s straightforward talking and a considered opinion, for sure. I find myself unable to say that I don’t disagree with any of the testimony of Dr Ford, and can only say the opposite for Mr Kavanaugh.
I heard some of the hearing this morning at 6 am(ish) and was frankly disgusted by the kind of language being used by the Nominee and the Republicans. Like Archytas I found Dr Ford entirely credible, but I do not know whether she is telling the truth, has mistaken her assailant’s identity or is suffering from false memory syndrome. But whatever the “truth” of the matter she should have been treated with respect by all parties and the language used should have been sensitive and careful. It was none of these things but was designed to destroy her credibility.
This is what politics is all about now: stay in power and use any means to achieve that and verbally assassinate the character of anyone with the temerity to disagree with you or present actual evidence.
Hence we have some of the poorest quality politicians I can remember. Stay away and fight for change.
A favourite US author I read commented on the mores prevalent in the kind of school Kavanaugh attended, that it was not uncommon for young men to ply young women with drink, and then take advantage of them..
He went on to say this:
And, of course, it’s now been revealed that Kavanaugh, as a judge, admonished a pregnant teenager that she could not have an abortion and that she had to live with the consequences of her actions. So…why doesn’t Kavanaugh have to live with the consequences of his unwise actions as a teenager?
I believe Juanita Broaddrick too regarding Bill Clinton. He got away with it.
And was tarnished as a result
The Surpeme Court cannot suffer a tarnished appointee, again, surely?
One can understand your reluctance to engage in the moral frustration to be encountered as a politician. The Kavanaugh confirmation process of the American Judiciary Committee is a case in point. The Republican vote dominated committee refused to subpoena Mark Judge who wrote a book about the debauchery that took place at the private Catholic high school he and Kavanaugh attended and Judge was Kavanaugh’s friend and according to Ford present at the party Ford has said she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh. Two other women have also claimed Kanaugh sexually assaulted them. Donald Trump refused to allow the FBI to investigate all three women’s claims. The American Bar Association has sent a letter to to the Senate Judiciary Committee saying the committee should suspend its vote until the FBI has investigated.
This is a bad judgement on the part of the Republican Party and Donald Trump since it allows many Americans and Democratic Party politicians to claim that a just or fair Supreme Court Judge nomination process has not taken place not least because of religious convictions held by many Republicans that abortion is immoral (Kavanaugh being opposed to abortion). Obviously there is a clear disconnect here you don’t impose your morality by acting immorally!
Lest we forget, the Republicans care not one jot about anything but getting Kavanagh in the Supreme Court seat.
Let’s not forget, Scalia’s place should have been filled by a Democratic appointee but the Republicans ‘cheated’ the system for want of a better word in an unprecedented manner to deny this. They want to ‘fix’ the court for probably decades to come and don’t care who suffers because of it. Even if they lose out in the mid-term elections because of uproar following these accusations against Kavanagh, the longer game means that they stand to benefit in the future. Given Kavanagh’s behaviour in his testimony and his past record, does anybody really think he’s capable of a balanced reading of the law? Expect the gerrymandering and disenfranchising already being enacted to ramp up in the future. The Republicans are shameless enough already but with a Supreme Court stacked with right-wing wingnuts on their side expect them to really go for broke.
‘This blog is, at its core, nothing more than my own exploration of what is worth believing’.
Fucking hell Richard.
You’re good. You’re really good.
I dropped out of local political group I was in because although there were loads of people who wanted to make things better, none of them knew enough in order to begin the task seriously. How can you change what you do not understand?
Stay where you are. Personally I see you as philosophical leader anyway (and my apologies if that does not sit well with you).
I note what you say
I admit I don’t agree
I am just exploring what there is to know, and what flows from it
Richard
To be clear.
We cannot control what we mean to others. My bit about you being a ‘philosophical leader’ is what you are to me. And I stand by it.
That is, that you ask questions that too few people ask and then kick off of my own internal and external dialogue about these issues leading to a better understanding and possible answers (the latter more commonly known as ‘Hope’).
OK, that works for me
I get that
Richard,
One point not noted by any commentators in the above (nor, of course, by you, given your aim not to argue on Party lines, but only in evidence) is that the Republican Clique is a special case of politics gone wrong.
For it is no longer a political Party but a cross between first, a quasi-religious cult, whose “faith” is in a few ultra-rich oligarchs whose “word must be obeyed and whose wants must be met”, and devil take the hindmost, and second a Mafiosi gang, whose only concern is self enrichment, and being cock of the walk – once, of course, the wishes of thr oligarchs have been met.
Latter day Republican politicians, with very few exceptions, certainly amongst those on frequent public view, appear to have zero interest in the electorate, except to get them to vote Republican.
The House Leader, Paul Ryan, and the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell seem to be politicians entirely lacking either values (except for worship of the abysmal Ayn Rand, in Ryan’s case – and he claims to be a Catholic!!), morality or self-awareness.
McConnell, for example, is berating the Democrats for disrespectful behaviour towards the President for not letting the Kavanaugh nomination go through on the nod, when he masterminded the stonewalling and eventual blocking of President Obama’s nomination of Marrick Garland.
Finally, he put a veto on Obama revealing his concerns about Russian interference in the Presidential election, asserting that to do so would constitute Presidential interference in the process – and like the good constitutional lawyer that he is, Obama accepted that argument, when I believe he shouldn’t have.
What great Republicans of the past – great Presidents such as Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Eisenhower, and good, though failed Presidents, such as Hoover and Ford, would make of the current amoral, but alas unfortunately effective, Keystone Cops that constitute the modern Republican Sect, I tremble to think, but imagine it would have been along the lines of – scrub the whole programme, and load up new, more authentic Republican software, and then reboot the system, with ALL current officeholders barred from running, unless they can obtain at least 70% of the vote in a primary contest.
Thanks Andrew
“For it is no longer a political Party but a cross between first, a quasi-religious cult, whose “faith” is in a few ultra-rich oligarchs whose “word must be obeyed and whose wants must be met”, and devil take the hindmost, and second a Mafiosi gang, whose only concern is self enrichment, and being cock of the walk — once, of course, the wishes of thr oligarchs have been met.”
Gosh! For a minute there I thought you were describing the Vatican!
Obviously, the Republican Party would prefer it if a Supreme Court Justice was not a molester and perjurer. But if it blocks any meaningful Democratic Party legislation for 20 years, they may judge it is a price worth paying.
Though the morality of politics is clearly ‘dirty-hands’, I think the case is much worse than the 2,500 year line from Thucydides to Walzer, Democracy (imo) has origins in a repressive participatory management and not freedom. Schofield has covered the Kavanaugh stuff as well as anyone could in a few lines. This is all a chronic surfacing of prejudice – a word meaning private law in latin, very much a one law for them another law for us. It was this “thinking” the French aristocrats used to pay no taxes and no doubt in the current fixation that taxes can be virtuously stolen through accountants. I’m not sure there is a politics decent folk can play. Trump may look like the apogee, but really it’s tough to find a decent president or leader in history. And we are all in the dirty-hands game – from priests who must know religions are based on fables, the cop bending evidence rules and academics taking sinecures knowing their students are going into big debt for little return. Noble cause is a tough one, even that of trying to stay on he moral high ground. It seems 48% of evangelical Xtians would want Kavanaugh even if he’s guilty. Good grief! Trump’s refusal on proper investigation can be seen throughout our democracies. Think Hillsborough, sexual abuse scandals, Grenfell – thousands in fact – and also the slow and dismal pace of enquiries into police shootings like Rodney, Duggan and de Menezes that miss the point almost entirely whilst wasting millions.
Many here advise you to stay away from political games and carry on lobbying for what you believe in, without having to sell your soul.
They’re right I think, for your own good. But so it goes on.
We have people in politics who have ‘lost it’.
And people watching the show, no longer voting because it’s mostly a farce. The only ones who gain from this farce are the corporations, the rotten press, the financial world, all circling like vultures to grab their share of the spoils.
I wish I could believe in politics again, as I did when I was 17. But when trust has been broken, as it was for me in my early 20s, there’s no mending it.
You do what you can, educate, inform, lobby, spread the message, argue, agree and disagree, but keep the debates alive.
Still…if only we could have politicians who believe in politics…rather than in vote buying…
The Kavanaugh trial, because that’s what it looks like, is distressing to watch.
I believe Dr Ford completely. I believe she is seeing it all in her mind, re-enacted, and those memories are real, not ‘planted’.
The vote counting in the politicians’ minds is also real, that’s all they’re concerned about. That’s what so disgusts us all in them. It’s creepy.
There needs to be an FBI investigation, otherwise there will always be a doubt.
Having sat with teenage victims of rape a few times as a ‘responsible adult’ in police interviews, I recognise the looks, the tones, the body language of those who have gone through hell, and those who haven’t but imagine they have had a near miss, or even those who want revenge on someone.
The FBI must do a thorough job, without interference or influence.
Let’s hope politicians will keep away.
It’s fairly obvious the majority of Republicans aren’t really interested in due process taking place. It’s with the utmost reluctance that they’ve rescinded Trump’s refusal to allow the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh’s past behaviour and then only for a week. But then what would you expect when the party has a leader who thinks it completely acceptable to publicly call a woman a dog (Amarosa)?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/opinions/trump-calling-omarosa-dog-is-sexist-hossain/index.html
The problem with politicians is that extremists of right and left see individuals as objects and that is an outcome of a failed upbringing reinforced by the cultural values of a flawed society that is male dominated. You have to have a strong constitution to stand up against these flawed values but change can only come by doing so.
Schofield says
“The problem with politicians is that extremists of right and left see individuals as objects and that is an outcome of a failed upbringing reinforced by the cultural values of a flawed society that is male dominated.”
I need a little explanation of this. Are the politicians extremists, does the objectification come from a failed up bringing? I agree that society is flawed and male dominated. There has been positive discrimination for white males for at least the last 2000 years. Is your contention that right and left meet each other in their attitudes and behaviour? As someone above stated today Denis Healy would be a “commie”, perish the thought of Bevan/Bevin walking amongst us again. Though of course I treasure the thoughts and memories.
Denis
Try reading Aeron Davis’ book ‘Reckless Opportunists’ – its a longitudinal study of those ‘at the top’ so to speak that looks at their culture from the inside out.
A small book that packs a big punch.