Buh-bye...

On 10th June, Congressman Dennis Kucinich took 3 hours to read 35 articles of Impeachment against President George Bush into the House Record. That's probably as far as they will go, however they do read as a comprehensive list of the failures and mistakes of the Bush administration. These include misspending, incompetence, misrepresentation, delberate misleading, invasion of a sovereign country, illegal detention, torture, imprisonment, violating laws/constitution, obstruction - the list goes on.    

Despite all this, I really find it hard to condemn George Bush. I have also been elected to an office (mine was piddlingly small in comparison – Deputy President of University of Limerick Students' Union but nonetheless important to the people who depended on me) I somehow understand how one can a) become a victim of circumstances that you don't control and b) find yourself advocating a position you don't believe because you followed a path that seemed like a good at the time) suddenly realise that, even though society tells us we can do anything, you maybe just do not have the skills for a certain part of your task.  

He has admitted that his use of phrases such as "bring them on" and "dead or alive" had "indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace". However, bringing in a certain type of person into his Administration/circle of dependants, he probably allowed himself to be manipulated into these statements and the actions that went with them. He goes on to defend the Iraqi war, however saying "No I don't regret it all. But I could have used better rhetoric," Bush said. "The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision."  

A certain amount of what Bush has done has been progressive, increased funding of AIDS research in Africa, and his (late) support of efforts to bring Israeli-Palestinian peace. However, saying that he wanted to "leave behind a series of structures that makes it easier for the next president" to tackle issues such as Iran's nuclear programme and establishing a Palestinian state, is naïve wishful thinking. He is being politely listened to, but generally ignored. He is hoping to save the reputation of this disastrous Presidency through international diplomacy, but this cannot be done while he clings to Iraqi-type interventionist policies and refuses to acknowledge faults. It is for this reason that he will fail, not because he has 6 months in office. 

Bush is not a stupid man, he has gone through his life surrounding himself with excellent people and managing them efficiently. However what he probably cannot see is that he has been and is being managed by those around him. He could probably still contribute in his last 6 months to America and the world, but first he must seek forgiveness from a damaged people and a damaged world and truly build the international structure necessary to face global challenges. 

 
(Edited through addition of first paragraph on 17/06/08).

Last Wednesday I attended a screening of "Citizen Havel" (Obcan Havel), a kind of pen-picture of the 8 year latter Presidency of Václav Havel. The access granted to the film crew was amazing, and the backroom dealing and power relationships that were shown, didn't need translation as they were clear in body movements alone!

Playwrite & politician - Václav Havel

However, the humanity of Václav Havel was the element that made this film great. Private moments of doubt and delight were scattered through the film; poignant moments were shared, such as his arranging the flowers over the coffin of his first wife, his being remarried and his agonised decision about whether to run again for office. 

It was in the context of this decision that he quoted one of his own plays; "those who truly value democracy cannot understand it, leaving it to those who do not value democracy to define it" (quote may not be exact - from memory). Perhaps that's why politics has been so unresponsive to people's real earnest needs. Can we really say that we get a chance to elect people who truly value democracy and the will of the people rather than secretly resenting it? Where are the people that truly value democracy and why is our system driving them away?

This book singlehandedly changed me from a dyed-in-the-wool Clintonite to an Obamaniac...

Audacity of Hope - Barack Obama

In a political world where shafting, lying and manipulation are seen as skills, this was the first political biography I think I've ever read where I felt the author was absolutely honest; not only about his positive/good points but also about his weaknesses. I really learned so much from it, about how human weakness affects a candidate, about how the influence of money slowly seeps into the mind of a politician and how one's humanity must be brought to his job to counter this potentially negative influence. More than anything, he struck me as being the embodiment of a progressive (but not naive) politician and extraordinarily aware, both of himself and of others. His two-sentence description of George Bush ("I had found the President to be a likable man, shrewd and disciplined but with the same straightforward manner that had helped him win two elections; you could easily imagine him owning the local car dealership down the street, coaching Little League, and grilling in his backyard--the kind of guy who would make for good company so long as the conversation revolved around sports and the kids.") is I think it's a better pen-picture description of the man than anything I've ever come across.

Originally I was a strong Hillary supporter (I even bought the t-shirt!). I couldn't warm to Obama - I felt his comments about talking to the Iranian President were naive and also Hillary was so good to Ireland (she even visited Doolin - a woman of taste!)  but after reading this book I cannot but be certain that Obama would be a masterful and potentially transformatory President of the United States. I believe his election and subsequently his open style of government could awaken a sense of civic participation the world over in people and lead to many great achievements that have proved elusive for the last generation. The Bible says "Cometh the hour, cometh the man" - I'm sorry it can't be a woman, but for the here and now, Obama is the man. 

(There is an entertaining short extract here: http://jacquelinekam.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!713D0CCEAEBEE05!2108.entry) 

One of the politicians I have campaigned for, worked for and really admire as a politician is Senator Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael) of Dublin Central (below). He diligently worked a 2 1/2 year Election campaign from the day he got elected to Dublin City Council and was barely beaten by a candidate that won a third of Paschal's first preferences - in the process beating candidates like (ex-MEP) Patricia McKenna and (current MEP) Mary-Lou McDonald. 

Senator Paschal Donohoe.

But what I admire most about him politically, was his idealism tinged with a business based practicality, combined with a constant desire to seek consensus and the best posssible solution in any conflict situation. I feel these are traits possessed by a new generation of young politician who are appearing in almost every Member State in the European Union. It is fascinating to examine the very similar characteristics and outlooks this generation of politician possess, suggesting that the influence of globalisation and cultural convergence may be finding its way into politics and Government of our countries. It is striking, for example that that an Italian is now the French First Lady, Stubb is married to a British citizen, as is Denmark’s opposition leader and that the British Foreign secretary has an American wife. Newsweek magazine examined this in its January 21st edition and it drew a number of similarities that it saw between the next generation of politicians. It stated that “They are more technocratic, more global in outlook, more comfortable with technology, more idealistic and yet less ideological and invested in old debates. They are also international in a way most of their parent’s generation was not.” Can this new generation of politicians transform the European Union in the next number of years?

Younger politicians (say those under 45 years old) have a different set of experiences than those who are currently in power. Most for example would not have been part of the social revolutions of the sixties and seventies that defined political divisions (divisively) for the past 30 years.

It is suggested in this same article that younger leaders have moved beyond these damaging divisions to come to a consensus that thought “there is widespread support for a state-provided social safety net…there is a realisation that current benefits and tax systems that support them have become overly burdensome and must be reformed”.  With 46 year old Barak Obama having a great chance to be America’s next President and 42 year old Dmitry Medvedev taking over this year as President of Russia (and Paschal with hard work I'm sure will make it into the Dáíl (Parliament) next election) – perhaps it’s time for a younger and perhaps truly revolutionary set of younger politicians to take charge. 

 (A modified version of this Article may be published in the European Stagiaire's Journal - Backstage in May 2008)

The National Organisaiton for Women was the last organisaiton we visited today and it was probably the best. So much belief, vigor and energy was evident in the pursuit of their beliefs. Comparing it to the Human Rights Campaign who campaign for Gay/Lesbian and bisexual rights, whom we had met the previous day the comparison was clear. THe Human Rights Campaign freely admitted they had made sacrifices of some groups, issues in the pursuit of their agenda...for example they stated that studies had shown that Gay men were more prone to homelessness than straight men, but this was not an issue they pursued. This was shown very clearly in the pursit of what they called here the ENDA (Equal Non-Discrimination Act) through Congress. The Democrats felt they could not pass the bill if it included Transgendered people, a line the HRC reluctantly agreed with. Therefore an important part of their community was excluded.

The National Organisaiton for Women took pride in standign for a number of issues with which many people would disagree, e.g. Keep Abortion Legal, Gay Marriage for Lesbians, but still sought to attract people with who would agree wiht the majority of their platform. They also took positions on a wide range of topics - educaiton, healthcare etc. Their line was, there's enough poeple who will compromise - it's for us to be the hardliners, they will not endorse any candidate who does not agree with their full programme. The sense of inclusion  and mission that I felt here was infectious...I really felt they believed what they were doing. It was such a contrast to the HRC where I felt a kind of doom and gloom, maybe they had started feeling that after years of exclusion, they had finally gotten inside the system and not being used to power they had made comprimises and suddenly they the bad guysmthey had been fighting all these years...ah to be an outsider..