In the dark.

Happy Holidays and New Year from me to you. 

I've been following the Vince Cable fiasco that threatens to bring down the the coalition government in Britain where Cable, Business Secretary and senior Lib Dem politician, gave embarrassing details about the governing coalition to two women whom he thought were constituents visiting his office. The women were instead two reporters from a British newspaper pretending to be constituents who published the details of the conversation even though Cable told them the conversation was confidential. 

Among the details Cable revealed to the women were policy fights, candid views about controversial issues and his own role in the government including the ability to, in his words, "bring down the government." Subsequent to the publication of the details, Cable had to give up a major portion of his portfolio, review of the News Corp. attempted takeover of BSkyB, a subscription cable service in the UK, and has otherwise been seemingly marginalized within the cabinet.

Personally, I've found this entire episode problematic in terms of what it says about media and open society. Governments need the ability to keep secrets in order to keep their citizens safe and execute their domestic and foreign policy objectives but what Cable revealed seemed less to me of a wikileaks scenario than more of a politician being honest with his constituents. 

There seems to be a strong need for deception and misinformation across our societies. The level of deception is, of course, less pervasive in the west than it is in, say, an autocratic regime like North Korea but it still is pervasive.

In politics, the biggest reason for this is the insatiable appetite of the media and media consumers (of which this blog is one). There's a constant need to "make news" by corporate media driven by profits and ratings and there is a correlating phobia by policymakers to avoid embarrassing headlines. In this never-ending news cycle, pundits, commentators, editorial boards react without contemplating and public opinion moves without criticism.

Thus, Vince Cable can't tell us what is really going on behind Number 10 although common sense tells us such a disparate coalition must involve tension and heated policy debates. Before the cameras, he must smile and stand hand in hand with his conservative brethren and pretend everything is OK.

Not only does this insult our intelligence, it provides no real service. We should be able to weigh in and contribute on the coalition strife. Both sides should be able to get input and feedback from their constituents, which is why what Cable did was so admirable. He laid bare frictions and sought feedback from people he served but was punished by an insatiable press.

I think we all as media consumers should think more critically about what we see and hear and demand more of media providers. On the right there already seems to be a move to think about mainstream media critically but I fear that many of these critics aren't thinking about media in a new way other than going to different sources.

The ethics of what the Telegraph did aside, something is really wrong with our society when policymakers have to lie to us to get anything accomplished.

Interesting reading:
The Online Threat, Seymour M. Hirsh, The New Yorker.
Germany's 'Frau Nein' calls the shots, Eric Reguly, The Globe and Mail.
Obama's Other War, Joe Bavier, Foreign Policy.

How rude.

I’m back blogging after an extended break where I changed jobs, moved cities, traveled extensively, etc. I'm excited about blogging again but am somewhat limited in the issues I can opine on due to my status as a federal employee. Nonetheless I hope to focus here on international relations and global economic issues, two areas in which I am able to write more freely.

As an American, I always thought of the British monarchy as a sort of showpiece. As the monarchy is no longer a source of hard political power, I've always thought of it as more of a symbol of British tradition and history. When we Americans think of political power and Britain, we think of Number 10 Downing Street. When we think of beefeaters, the Tower of London and double decker buses, we think of the Queen and Buckingham Palace. So on first thought I was quite surprised at the strong reaction at the attack on Prince Charles and Camilla's Rolls Royce during student protests at the tuition increase vote.

While the attack was outlandish, outrageous and foolish, it didn't strike me as the sort of rabid mob that was intent on physically harming the royals. It was more of a protest designed to strike a blow, perhaps deface, a symbol of established order. It was simply a protest. I didn’t see any indication that Prince Charles or Camilla were ever in any immediate physical danger.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson had this to say: “The officers who were protecting their royal highnesses showed very real restraint. Some of those officers were armed.”

The Mayor of London Boris Johnson gave this reflection: “It is very regrettable that in the heart of London the heir to the throne can be surrounded by agitators and his wife can be put in a position where she’s plainly alarmed.”

The Prime Minister David Cameron had this to add about the student protests in general: “we want to make sure that the people who behaved in these appalling ways feel the full force of the law of the land.”

While I agree with Cameron I think all three comments demonstrate a generational disconnect and a misunderstanding of the political worldview of the protesters, whom, again I do not defend.

To Cameron, the photo above is a shocking example of disrespect to his nation. While to the protesters, the attack was just as shocking as the burning the Christmas tree in Trafalgar square. In other words, the power of the symbol, Queen, country, empire, is totally lost. Nowhere was this more evident than when a student protester (interesting trivia in that he is the son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour) climbed the Centograph war memorial.

So while the police commissioner hints that security would have been justified at shooting protesters who threw paint at a passing car, students were running roughshod over some of Britain's most treasured monuments. Both groups, I believe, think of the monarchy in the same way that Americans do, that is, in largely symbolic terms. They differ, however, in terms of the status they afford to symbols such as the monarchy.

Why I find this interesting is because I believe it highlights a growing anarchical trend among young people in today's political discourse. I think this is a reaction to the growing interconnectedness of media, culture and language coupled with the growing complexity of economics, politics and society. The seemingly fragmented and regimented world of old, monarchy, class, empire, doesn't make much sense to young people today.

Looked on in this respect, wikileaks is a part of the same genre of anarchism. State secrets, diplomacy, these things are irrelevant within a chaotic movement designed to break down all walls. In this way, wikileaks seeks to create an entirely disorganized and hence unstructured society.

I don't advocate anarchy or wikileaks but they are worth trying to understand. As this generation grows, we will see more mainstream attempts to upset the social order. The response from government officials and diplomats thus far? Well it's written all over Camilla’s face.

Interesting reading:

WikiLeaks is delinquent and anti-democratic, Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph.

Europe, Look Outward Again, Op-Ed, I.H.T.