Great books you should read: LBJ, Portrait of a President.

Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President

Lyndon Johnson is reviled by both the liberal left and the conservative right in the United States, which is no mean feat. Is it possible for any serious student of US history not to be familiar with the taunt of “Hey! Hey! LBJ, How many kids you kill today?”

And yet without Lyndon Johnson Barack Obama would not be president today.

Viet Nam, with a push from JFK, really kicked off under LBJ. Yet here was a president who had no real interest in foriegn affairs and wanted to eradicate poverty in the US. One facet the book really gets across is the idea that what LBJ really wanted was not to bomb North Viet Nam but to cut a deal with Ho Chi Minh, another politician, as to what was needed to do the business.  In exasperation he used to bawl at his advisors that he would rather be building schools in Viet Nam than bombing it.

Lyndon Johnson was possibly the most corrupt man to ever serve in the presidency, but history speaks for itself. He brought in the 1965 Civil Rights bill knowing full well that it would (And did.) destroy the Democratic Party in the South. But it was the right thing to do, and for that LBJ deserves more gratitude than he gets.    

Robert Dallek’s slim book is a masterful blending of two heavier tomes on LBJ’s life, and another example of how sometimes less is more.

Would a Gallagher win be a vote of confidence for Fianna Fail values?

Sean Gallagher: FF we forgive you.
Sean Gallagher: FF we forgive you.

Today’s poll in the Sunday Business Post is interesting reading for Sean Gallagher, and must surely seal his place in Irish politics as a player even if he doesn’t win the presidential election. What I find interesting is the question as to whether a Gallagher win is basically a sign that the Irish people are willing to begin forgiving Fianna Fail? Now, as I write this, I can already hear the attacks for suggesting this, that I’m trying to smear Gallagher, but the reality is that Gallagher is saying little different from what Fianna Fail has been saying for the last 15 years. Yes, he has distanced himself from the policies of Fianna Fail, but in fairness, so has Eamon O’Cuiv, and he’s the deputy leader of the party, so that’s not really an anti-Fianna Fail thing. He’s pro-business and says that we need to take care of the vulnerable, which is the Fianna Fail line. In fact, if I were Micheal Martin, I’d be shifting uneasily in my leadership seat.

Of course, he could knock the whole thing on the head. Is there anyone who seriously believes that he will not appear on a Fianna Fail ticket within five years, if he’s not elected president? If he rules that out, then that’s a whole different kettle of fish altogether. 

The transubstantiation of Eamon O’Cuiv.

Eamon O'Cuiv: Fond of both his own cake and others too.
Eamon O’Cuiv: Fond of both his own cake and others too.

If the Brass Neck Manufacturers of Ireland have any decency in them at all, they’ll be hosting a gala dinner for the deputy for Galway West any day now, such is his contribution to their industry. Speaking in the Dail yesterday, the deputy revealed his apparently long held suspicions about both the EU and the free market itself.

Reading his remarks, one can only wonder whether deep in space there is another planet which is an absolute mirror image of this one, with the one exception that a man of the calibre of O’Cuiv had been given the opportunity to serve in the cabinet and put into practice these apparently long held beliefs. True, we would have had to pay this mirror image O’Cuiv a substantial cabinet minister’s salary and pension, but at least we could have gotten the value of seeing him, day in, day out, valiantly battle in the cabinet against the twins gods of federalism and Mammon. Still, we can always dream.

Having said that, there’s form within Fianna Fail on this sort of “My cake and I’ll have a scoop of yours too”. When Dev wasn’t busy stealing newspaper shares he was busy betraying Collins and then raising up an armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the state, to oppose a treaty which ten years later he uses to get what he wanted in the first place. At least today’s FF strokes aren’t getting people’s heads blown off. One suspects the new euroscepticism in Fianna Fail will be similar, lasting all the way to the cabinet door. Anyone remember Bertie’s committment to a referendum on NATO’s Partnership for Peace in 1997? Neither did he, apparently.

Britain could exit the EU without too much worry, but without the great prize eurosceptics hope for.

Not quite what it seems.

Not quite what it seems.

The level of debate about Britain’s future in the EU is getting interesting, because the Eurozone crisis is throwing up opportunities, and not just for eurosceptics either. There are some who advocate a straight British vote followed by a walkout, but other calmer heads are beginning to see another option. If Chancellor Merkel is to amend the Lisbon treaty, it’s very hard to see David Cameron agreeing to any changes to the treaty (which will have to go through the Commons and Lords) without getting some sort of quid pro quo for his trouble, such as British membership being transformed into access to the single market and opt outs on everything else.
This would, of course, open the treaty up to debate as every country starts looking for stuff, which could cause the talks to rumble on as the markets look on aghast. But it could also allow Britain and other eurosceptic countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Czech republic, Slovakia, possibly Ireland) to push for a new reduced form of associate membership. If it could be done tidily, indeed if Cameron now were to (even secretly) begin negotiating a draft treaty text agreeable to Britain’s potential allies, he could present a fait accompli to Chancellor Merkel as the price for agreeing to the creation of a fiscal union for those countries that want it. It would surely be Cameron’s greatest moment.
Or would it? Firstly, let’s be honest. It would not be the disaster that more excitable British pro-Europeans claim. Britain is an important trading partner for most EU countries, and so an amicable arrangement will be arrived at to accommodate the New European Free Trade Area (NEFTA). And yes, Britain will save money by not contributing as much to EU coffers, although it will, as Norway does, still be required to pay a membership fee. Money which, by the way, Britain will have no say in spending, as Britain will no longer have a commssioner or MEPs or a seat at the council of ministers. As for the end of regulation, there’s some truth in that. Britain will no longer have to apply the social legislation, like workers rights. But British manufactured products will still have to obey EU regulations and standards to be sold in the EU, this time without British ministers and commissioners fighting the British case. British industry will still be told what to do by Brussels. And yes, it is true, Britain will now be able to speak for Britain at the WTO. Once the US, EU, China, India, Brazil, Japan and Russia decide the big stuff. Then Britain can have her say.
Finally, I look forward to eurosceptics looking across the English channel at the 150-200 million integrated economic behemoth that they will have little or no control over. Well done chaps!

An Irish solution to an American problem.

Well f**k me, a nice Republican!

Ooooh! A nice Republican!

See this guy to the left? There are lesser spotted lesbian pottery making owls who are less rare than him. His name is Lincoln Chafee, and from 1999 to 2007 he was a Republican United States Senator from the great if teensy-weensy state of Rhode Island. Nothing special there, you say. Except he was against the death penalty. And the Iraq war. And in favour of gay rights. In fact, on many issues he was to the left of President Obama. In the 2004 general election he wrote George Bush senior’s name on the ballot as a write-in candidate. He endorsed Obama in 2008. Surely, you say, he’s really a Democrat. That’s certainly what the hard right in the Republican party say, calling him, and other moderate Republicans “RINOs” (Republicans in name only.) Yet Lincoln Chafee only quit the Republican party relatively recently, and is now the independent Governor of the state. Why? Because he believes in free enterprise, a small government, low taxes and the freedom of the individual. In other words, traditional Republican values, not the hate filled bible bashing whackjobbery that has seized control of what was once a pretty good party. It seems that there is no room in the modern Republican party  for moderates like Lincoln Chafee. Why is that? Here’s why:

Supposing Sinn Fein were able to draw up the boundaries of their own Dail constituencies, to ensure that all the Sinn Fein voters in a given area were in, and non-Sinn Fein voters were moved into another constituency. In other words, it was 100% assured that that constituency would  elect a Sinn Fein TD. What that would mean is that the real fight would not be the general election but for the Sinn Fein nomination. And supposing only Sinn Fein voters were allowed vote in the primary election. Imagine the sort of “I hate the Brits more than you!” grandstanding that would go on to appeal to that narrow electoral base, leading inevitably to candidates more concerned about appealing to the extreme voters in their primaries than the broad electorate because they are guaranteed to win in the general election. Sure, it’s not the same in Ireland, where our politicians are so broad based as to be meaningless, but in the US it is causing a poison at the heart of American politics. Both parties have gerrymandered districts so that most are either solid Democratic or Republican, and as a result the real fight is in the primaries, where candidates have to appeal to either ultra liberal or ultra conservative primary voters, and as a result you get a Congress with almost no middle ground.

That’s where we can help. Our electoral system, the single transferable vote, would transform US politics for the better, and here’s how:

First, it would allow parties to scrap the expensive primary process, instead permitting every candidate to contest the general election. In other words, there would be a number of Democrats and Republicans on the ballot paper. But rather than splitting the vote, STV would allow Republican voters to vote for their favoured candidate, but know that if he/she could not get elected, their votes would transfer to their second choice, and so on, until some candidate would win of 50% of all the votes in the district.

But that doesn’t matter in a rigged district, surely? That’s right, but that is where the second part of the Irish system helps. Multi-member districts, as we have in Ireland, make it much harder to gerrymander in favour of one party or another. A four or five seat district means that voters have a better choice, and a better representation for minorities (Such as white voters in parts of Los Angeles. Pay attention conservatives!). But it also allows American voters to vote for how they really feel. A Lincoln Chafee Republican may feel more comfortable giving a second preference to a Clinton Democrat than to a Rush Limbaugh Republican. Likewise, a Rush Limbaugh Republican may prefer to transfer to a Joe Lieberman Democrat than to a Lincoln Chaffee Republican. This system improves choice whilst rewarding moderation, and that’s surely what America needs now.

The Kiwi Method.

The Kiwis do it repeatedly.

The Kiwis do it repeatedly.

Like most political anoraks, I spend a lot of time thinking about how to make Irish politics work, and as part of that, a New Zealand friend of mine reminded that next month New Zealand is voting on whether to change their voting system. In 1993 the Kiwis, fed up with a first past the post system that let the wrong party win elections with less votes than the other main party, voted in a series of referendums to change the voting system. After much deliberation and debate, they chose Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), which is basically the same system used to elect German MPs. The conservative National Party government led by John Key is not a fan of a system being too proportional, as it means that his government has to have the support of a majority of voters (the cheek!) so he’s called a referendum to change the voting system, giving people four choices, including our own beloved STV. Check out the NZ govt’s excellent website explaining the choices to people here. For my money, I think that Ireland should look at a form of MMP alongside our existing STV system, to elect “National” TDs. But that’s just me.   

Dana would be, by far, the most fun president.

Dana: Let's get ready to rumble!
Dana: Let’s get ready to rumble!

Let’s be honest: If it’s a fun seven years you want, with plenty of political high drama, then Dana is the presidential candidate for you. If she really subscribes to the socially conservative and eurosceptic values that she says she does, and we have no reason to doubt her, this could be great fun. Take same-sex marriage, which is likely to require a referendum in the next five years. Will she sign the bill authorising the referendum? Will she campaign in the referendum against SSM? Will the government be forced to move to impeach her, then? What larks!

What about a possible EU treaty, which isn’t beyond the realms of the possible? She has already said that she will not sign a treaty that puts an EU constitution over an Irish constitution. Aside from the fact that this is already the de facto case (how would she know that, she was only an MEP for 5 years?) does that means that if the treaty, which will almost certainly cede budgetary powers to an EU institution, does not have the word “constitution” in it she’ll sign it? Or refuse? Supposing she attempted to address the Irish people without the government’s approval? What would RTE do? Who would they side with? Pure popcorn country.

By the way, the US citizenship issue will do her little harm, although it does say something about the mindset of the Irish people. When we understand that even the president of the country wants to hold on to a US passport, just in case things don’t work out, that’s surely saying something, isn’t it?

Questions for presidential candidates.

Do you believe that paying over €100k in salary for a position in a charitable organisation is the best use of charitable donations from the public?

If not elected president of Ireland, will you pledge not to seek election to any office in the future under a Fianna Fail banner?

Do you believe that swearing an oath of allegiance, on your word or a religious text, to this or any other state is a mere technical matter?

Do you believe that claiming a disability to work whilst working another full-time job is committing fraud?

Do you believe that all presidential staff should be vetted to ensure that they are not members of criminal organisations or operatives of a foreign intelligence service, given that they will be accessing state papers?