A City Shining on a Hill?

There has been much to admire about the United States

- a revolution based on the principle of "no taxation without representation"
- a Constitution which enforces a strict separation of powers
- a Constitution, as amended, which includes rights that Citizens can enforce
- the assertion in their 'Declaration of Independence' that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
- fantastic technical innovation - including sending men to the moon; playing a leading role in the development of and use of computers and information technology
- its' "can do" attitudes
- some excellent academic institutions and think tanks.

I have loved visiting the United States, especially Washington DC and NoVa (Northern Virginia). I'm an American Football fan; and an addict of American politics.

John Winthrop, in a speech made as the Pilgrim Fathers approached their new land, is credited with applying this phrase taken from the Bible to the role that 'America' could play in the world. Presidents, including John F Kennedy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaXt7GE0aUo  and Ronald Reagan have made stirring speeches on this subject.

Yet, I write this post in great sadness. In recent years there has been coming out of certain quarters in the USA a poison which we in the UK and Europe need to protect ourselves from. It was prompted by the news that a gunman had opened fire in an area I deeply love, the Del Ray area of Alexandria, Virginia - injuring (as far as we know as I write this) a number of people, including the Majority Whip of the House of Representatives. It is reported that between 50 and 100 shots were fired from a set-automatic rifle (The Hill : Rep Mo Brooks [quoted in a BBC Report]).

The effort to weaken gun control has been part of the poison - each time I stay in Virginia, I hear of new changes to the law of that State which make it easier for anyone to get hold of some deadly lethal weapons - I've sat in gallery of the House of Representatives as very limited measures to improve safety were opposed and thrown out. THE NRA has been on the offensive - and despite the number and frequency of mass shootings, have gained the support of some Members of Congress, and of State legislatures - not only to reject sensible restrictions, but to push away restrictions that had existed.

We've seen the rise of a rabid populism - and fake news, culminating in the election of a man wholly unfitted to be the President of the United States. Last night I was appalled at the poor performance of the Attorney Officer of the United States - as he displayed a worrying inability to remember certain things as he testified before a Senate Committee.

We've seen a determined push to make it more difficult for certain parts of the American electorate to register to vote - for purely party political objectives.

We've seen the World Economy (as well as the American economy) taken to the brink by some Congressmen who threatened to let the USA default on its debts. We've seen the USA pull out of the Paris Climate Accord - and restart activities which threaten to further degrade the state of our planet.

There is a common theme. The push towards these developments has come from a particular part of the American political spectrum. A movement calling itself "conservative" has been behind a determined effort to push very radical ideas. Fifty-three years ago Barry Goldwater was their standard bearer - and he was given a beating at the Presidential Election. But the movement kept on planning, and spending, and removing Republican moderates. The election of Donald Trump was the, perhaps inevitable, result of their activities. Moderation was hunted down - some very black (political) arts were used to achieve the takeover of the Republican Party - and the country. Some of its fellow travellers were even overtaken by the monster they fed (Eric Cantor, John Boehner). - as Kennedy said in his inauguration speech - "those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."

The damage to the American system is vividly described in the books of Norman Ornstein and Thomas E Mann ("The Broken Branch" 2006, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks") and many others.

But why does it threaten the UK and Europe? The same crazy ideology is being pushed over here. So called "conservative" ideas have gained a foothold in the British Conservative Party. While the Conservative Party has given public support to the continuation of the National Health Service for over sixty years - there are some now suggesting that the market based approach of US health insurance would be better (!?!?!?). Brexit has its strong supporters - and funders - amongst the American 'conservatives'. We've seen the advocacy of similar barriers to voter registration,

We need to look closely at the tactics they have used to push their ideas to such prominence and power in the USA. We also need to prepare our counter-offensive. Many in the US failed to take them seriously - we must not make the same mistake.

Negative Political Advertising

We all deplore it - but, so it seems, it can be extremely effective. That's the reason why so many candidates (and especially their "independent-expenditure only" followers ['SuperPacs']. The most memorable political ads - and probably the most effective - in the last half century have been negative (from LBJ's "Daisy Ad" invoking fear of the possible consequences of Barry Goldwater's 'extremism'...




through the Willy Horton "revolving doors" ad by Bush to undermine the Dukakis campaign in 1988.



C-SPAN recently broadcast a programme on the history and current use of negative political advertising. It is available to view here.

Why Newt is scary...

It's been an interesting few days in US politics (and apologies for Washminster's absence - a mixture of a trip to Norfolk; parties in Northampton; family visits to my home - and filing returns to the taxman!). With the Florida primary a few days away - some who want a Republican victory in November's presidential election have been panicked by the thought that Newt Gingrich might be gathering enough momentum to seize the nomination. So what are they worried about?

Newt is a former Speaker of the House of Representatives. Significantly he was the FIRST Republican Speaker for 40 years (Trivia Question - who was the previous Republican Speaker? - I will publish the answer just after 5am GMT tomorrow morning). That amazing victory owed much to the work of Newt. He changed the mindset - and the tactics of House Republicans. So why are many Republicans so ungrateful?

David Frum wrote this week "It's striking that almost none of Gingrich's former colleagues in the House has endorsed him for president. Striking that nobody associated with a past Republican presidential association has done so. He is a candidate of talk-show hosts and local activists -- and of course of Rick Perry and Sarah Palin -- but not of those who know him best and have worked with him most closely. Gingrich may raise more money after his South Carolina win. But prediction: Romney will raise even more, among the great national network of Republicans who recognize that to nominate Gingrich is to commit party suicide."
I have to admit that I think Newt is brilliant - he has an understanding (partly academic - but also an amazing instinctive feel) for what works in MASS seduction. He has learned & deploys all the tricks and techniques to motivate and mobilise people for his agenda. A word of warning - admiring someone for their brillance is NOT the same as endorsing that person or finding his actions at all acceptable. I am also in awe of Hitler for a similarly high level of brillance in the same area. I wholly reject his philosophy and his actions. [by the way today is Holocaust Memorial Day]

Anyone interested in political communication should study Newt - and citizens need to protect themselves by studying the techniques he uses. He puts a lot of emphasis on the use of language - his memo to Republican candidates (the 1996 GOPAC) on Language as a key mechanism of control is very important.
It can be read here. His use of C-SPAN (unwitting collaborators) to frame viewers impressions of Congress and his opponents was masterful. As Newt himself is reported to have said "My ability to organize and orchestrate things would be vastly greater than a normal politician."-- (CBN News). Gingrich understands (and many politicians don't) that you can't persuade everyone to love you. Gingrich will never win the support of committed lerals and progressives. He has his "targets" and seeks to mobilise them.
Jon Meacham wrote this week in an article 'Why Newt is Like Nixon' "The analogous elements are obvious. Like Nixon, Gingrich is smart, with a wide-ranging and entrepreneurial mind. Like Nixon, Gingrich is a striver who seems insecure around traditional establishment figures even though he has achieved much more than nearly all of the politicians, editors and reporters he seems to at once loathe and fear. Like Nixon, Gingrich is fluent in the vernacular of cultural populism, brilliantly casting contemporary American life in terms of an overarching conflict between 'real' people and distant 'elites' bent on the destruction of all that is good and noble about the United States."

As Frum highlighted, the fear amongst some Republicans is that he could win the nomination - and while he has a strong following - he also will provoke an angry reaction. Like Goldwater (1964) and McGovern (1972) the party may suffer a humiliating loss in the Presidential election. Worse still for the Republicans, his candidacy could sink GOP congressional candidates - Bob Dole (Republican Presidential Candidate in 1996) issued a statement this week saying - "I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway." He added: "In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty bucket in his hand -- that was a symbol of some sort for him -- and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it, and I'm not certain he knew either."

So should supporters of Obama be backing Gingrich in Florida? A few months ago no one thought he could ever be the most popular candidate amongst Republican voters (A Gallup tracking poll this week shows Gingrich six points ahead on the rest of the Republican field!) - is Newt clever enough to win a national race? (remember his achievement in the 1994 congressional elections).