Pesky opinion surveys

Posted by on

In America we are pestered continually, sometimes two or three times a day, by companies who want to know “how they did”. I refer to opinion surveys, which proliferate everywhere. When I lived in England I used to slightly envy those who were asked their opinion about anything. Being extaordinarily opinionated myself it was irritating when friends and neigbours were asked what they thought and I was ignored. Be careful what you wish for! Now I wish they would leave me alone.

What is all this about? Well,it’s a total management cop-out. Indeed, one shouldn’t even use the word “management”. Interface with the customer has now been delegated to young people who do their nest to please you, with little training and knowledge about the company and its products. Ask them to be put through to their supervisor and they don’t know who he or she is or what to do about your request. There is no one you can talk to. The “management” sits behind an iron curtain in splendour, unapproachable by mere customers, although, the case of big public companies, one can Google the top management if you have a complaint, and write to the CEO or the President of Sales (the job title inflates as the person concerned gets more remote from the customer – have you noticed that?)

The only way a company can find out how it is viewed by the customer base, it seems, is by opinion surveys. No one thinks of sitting with the order clerks and judging their performance personally; they get an opinion survey to do it. Half the time the survey asks you how you were treated by the youngster on the phone, not what you think of the company and its products. Poor kids! They are judged but their well-paid bosses are not, and should be. The surveys never ask, “Do you think thisis a well-run company?”

When I ran a business all complaints, however minor, came over my desk and I spoke to the customer personally. I never hid behind the (excellent) ladies in the order or accounts departments. We thus had a loyal set of customers. I blame the Business Schools for the way companies behave nowadays – they have taught executives to be little lords, too grand to deal with the hoi polloi. It’s a disgrace. Oh, well. They’ll all be working for Chinese companies in due course, that is, if they have jobs at all.

I have no doubt the Epicurus, were he alive today, would resist the idea of corporations asking their customers to take up valuable time telling the what they think of their junior staff. He would make the point that the rest of us are fighting for just a little time to ourselves for peace, contentment and relief from advertisements and computer problems. Leave us alone, he would declare.

Blame it on the baby boomers?

Posted by on

Bruce Gibney has written a book called “In a Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America” (I can comment on the account of the book and its review by Dana Milbank because I am not a boomer). The Boomers, Gibney says, are guilty of “generational plunder”. They are accused of “the mass, democratically-sanctioned transfer of wealth away from the young and towards the Boomers. In addition to making a mess of Social Security and Medicare, they dragged the national savings rate down to 5% between 1996 and 2016, from 10% between 1950 and 1985. They were (are) divided bitterly into two camps: the Woodstock counter-culture types and their ideological opposites, who created the modern religious right. These two blocs have been at war since the 1960s and it has paralysed the country for a generation; more than a generation, actually – look at how the Senate is being ruined and its traditional, bi-partisan way of working being undermined at this very moment. This is the fruit of the un-giving, unforgiving and uncompromising natures of the two ideologies.

It was never like this when I first traveled around America, penniless, hitching rides and being offered more wonderful hospitality than could never be returned in two lifetimes. Yes, there were weirdos who thought the United Nations was taking over America and those frantically building nuclear shelters, but back then there was an open, can-do atmosphere. You could be given a ride in a hearse driven by an African American one moment, and a ride in a corporate jet by the Chairman of a big corporation the next. Democrats and Republicans were working together (more or less) for the good of the country. Now, no one trusts the hitch-hiker or the young, foreign visitor. And watch out carefully if you are clad in moslem garb.

But most serious is the accusation of generational plunder; it has been the Boomers who set the stage for the obscene gap between the rich and the poor, who gave free rein to the banking scam artists and set the stage for the 2008 financial bust. Greed has been raised to the level of art, and we have ended up with a President and a top level of government which is mind-bogglingly rich and is setting about cementing the power of the oligarchy and dismantling the rights and the protections of the very people who voted them in. This is the crowning achievement of the Boomers, even if most in the new government are not technically boomers, just inheritors.

Syria: the implications for British and American politics.

Posted by on

Given the comprehensive case against NATO intervention in Syria, as made yesterday, the response from the both the British political establishment and the electorate has been appalling. The government has failed to condemn America’s actions, preferring to curry favour with the Trump administration in the hope of a good trade deal post-Brexit. The Liberal Democrats, who bravely opposed the intervention in Iraq, now rally behind the call to war, ignoring Trump’s anti-liberal nationalism, bellicose rhetoric, and support for Brexit. UKIP, which like Trump, previously had an isolationist foreign policy, remains dubiously silent.

The only prominent voice of sanity vis a vis Syria is Jeremy Corbyn. Now the ideology and leadership qualities of Corbyn leave much to be desired. Under his tenure, Labour has slumped in the polls, and is widely perceived to be irrelevant in the post-Brexit political order. During the referendum campaign, the Labour leadership’s contribution to the Remain cause was lacklustre, in which real conviction and zeal for the European cause was conspicuously absent. Corbyn fails to make a convincing case for his brand of democratic socialism, preferring to rally against ‘austerity’ without prescribing a credible alternative, adding to his perception as overly spendthrift and fiscally irresponsible. He has failed to see off the threat of Scottish nationalism- a key promise of his. Even on foreign policy, his closeness with Hamas, Hezbollah and Sinn Fein are worrying at best. His frequent appearances on Russian and Iranian state TV, where he fails to condemn the human rights abuses committed by those nations, betrays an anti-Western bias common amongst the socialist left. This gives needless credibility to his right-wing critics, who view him as unpatriotic and anti-British.

Corbyn can be relied upon to oppose any Western intervention, because his socialist ideology views such interventions as expression of post-colonial oppression, in which the former imperial powers seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the developing world. Now that isn’t necessarily always the case: the interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone were successful in preventing more killings, and in the case of Rwanda, genocide occurred due to lack of intervention. Nor is the Marxist paradigm of post-colonialism entirely accurate in the case of Syria: it would be disingenuous to suggest that NATO members don’t care about the immorality of Assad’s crimes, and are only proposing intervention to increase their influence in the region. Nevertheless, Corbyn’s anti-war views ought to be commended in his instance, even if they aren’t entirely for the right reasons. This is partly because they run contrary to public opinion, which is generally supportive of some sort of intervention, even if regime change is still opposed by a majority. One of the reasons why Corbyn was elected Labour leader was because he was viewed as a man of principle, even if his principles weren’t always agreeable. This was juxtaposed to his opponents: Kendall, Cooper and Burnham all seemed to be spewing out politically correct inoffensiveness, talking a good talk on making Labour electable and helping the poor, without ever challenging popular misconceptions or outlining a programme of real change. For many on the Left, Trump’s bombing on Syria has reminded them why they supported Corbyn, even if they have grown more sceptical of him over time.

Like the British public, the American public is generally supportive of some sort of intervention, without supporting regime change. What distinguishes America from Britain is that the anti-war movement has energised the Democratic Party against Trump, whereas the British left remain hopelessly divided. Comedians, civil rights activists, journalists, Democratic politicians and ordinary protestors have all eloquently spoken out against Trump’s foreign policy. They do not necessarily share Corbyn’s aversion to all Western interventions, but rightly regard Trump’s actions as short-sighted and likely to lead to more violence in the long term. The American Left will reap the rewards of this opposition. When it becomes apparent to a majority of Americans that Assad is no closer to being ousted from power, the Democrats will be swept into office. Having said that, they can only fully capitalise on anti-war sentiment if they repeat the 2008 primary, selecting an anti-war candidate. Nominating someone with similar foreign policies to Hillary Clinton would be a tactical error.

The response from the American left is not the only reason to be more optimistic about anti-war opposition in America than in Britain. As president, Trump has far more control over foreign than domestic affairs. Therefore, foreign policies ought to have greater bearing on Americans’ view of him than the British people’s view of Theresa May. The British people are also distracted by Brexit, which involves not only the complicated Article 50 process, but an economy which has already worsened (primarily in the form of inflation, the devaluation of the pound, and many major banks’ deciding to move jobs overseas) and will probably continue to do so. Despite Trump, the outlook for the American economy is more bullish, which means foreign policy will play a greater role in the public debate. If the anti-war movement is to succeed in Britain, it must put its differences aside and unite under Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour. This won’t guarantee electorate success, or even make it much more likely. But it will provide a coherent narrative, forcing the interventionists to defend themselves more vigourously. It also makes the nomination of another Syrian non-interventionist more likely once Corbyn resigns, following Labour’s all but inevitable defeat in 2020.

 

Syria: Why intervention is not the answer.

Posted by on

The ongoing civil war in Syria is a mess, in which there is no obvious solution to. The Western consensus is that the intentional killing of innocent civilians by the Assad regime without impunity, is a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to continue. Assad has repeatedly denied his citizens basic human rights. The civil war started when he refused the popular outcry for democracy, preferring to shoot at unarmed protestors; the backlash led to the civil war we see today.  As a direct result of Assad’s actions, thousands of people have been killed and millions forced to seek refuge in foreign countries. The latest use of chemical weapons against civilians is but a small aspect of this tragic tale.

The immorality of the Assad regime, and Russia and Iran’s choice to support it, is indisputable. The only question is what the West ought to do about it. For Trump, as well as a broad range of figures from the internationalist left to the neoconservative right, the answer is direct military action, with the intention of reducing the number of civilians murdered by the Syrian army. Very few people would suggest overthrowing the Assad regime altogether, because that would be a prolonged and costly war, which would bring us into direct confrontation with Russia, a nuclear power. But the interventionists argue Syria is an instance where the international community has a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Syrian civilians from slaughter. At the very least, humanitarian concerns ought to take precedence over traditional notions of state sovereignty or our national interests.

To an extent, the interventionists have a point. Assad’s deliberate killings of his own people certainly give NATO a right to intervene. State sovereignty can be violated to prevent genocide or human rights abuses on a large scale. The interventionists are right to be concerned about Russia and Iran extending their influence via the entrenchment of the Assad regime. They are also right that Russia and Assad are more concerned with defeating the rebels and the Kurds, than defeating ISIS. The priority for Russia and Assad is to wipe out any liberal opposition, thereby reducing the probability of a NATO intervention by making their only opponents the Al-Nusra Front (a terrorist group with Al-Qaeda origins) and ISIS. Most of the Russian bombings have been directed at the Free Syrian Army, not those normally deemed ‘terrorists.’ To complicate things even further, Turkey, a NATO member, continues its battle against the Kurds, who want to use some of what is currently Turkish land to create an independent Kurdish state. But the rest of NATO sees the Kurds as a key ally against both Assad and ISIS.

But despite the interventionists’ largely correct description of current events, they are mistaken in their policy prescriptions. For a start, Trump is merely acting on impulse. He has no proper understanding of the region, nor a long term vision of its future. At least with the Iraq War (an intervention Trump repeatedly criticises despite having supported it at the time), Bush wanted to create a democratic Iraq, because he believed Hussein was the biggest obstacle to democracy in the Middle East, and of course Hussein had committed human rights abuses on a similar scale to Assad. But Trump promised an ‘American First’ foreign policy, in which potential interventions would be considered based on the consequences for US interests. Now he has broken his campaign promise, instead justifying the bombing of the airfield on the basis that innocent children are being killed by Assad. This also breaks the promise to normalise relations with Russia (which was never workable given that Trump is opposed to the Iran deal, Iran being a key Russian ally.) To be fair to Trump, he isn’t the only president to have campaigned on a policy of non-intervention, only to have broken it upon entering office: Reagan, Clinton and Bush behaved likewise. But for interventionists to praise Trump for the bombings, when there is clearly no long term strategy, is the height of foolishness. Unless NATO fully commits to overthrowing Assad, intervention will only prolong the conflict, resulting in more civilian deaths and refugees.

There are two things NATO can do. The first is to develop a better refugee policy. Overall, its clear that Syria will remain a war-zone for the foreseeable future. So the question of refugees will not go away. Its also clear that Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are already hosting more than their fair share of refugees, given how poor those countries are. As nice as it would be to make the wealthy Gulf States take in more people, we can’t force them, so Europe and North America must step up to the challenge. To ensure the wellbeing of both the host states and the refugees themselves, refugee policy must be increasingly made on a supranational basis, with the EU, the US and Canada co-operating for their mutual benefit. Refugees must be resettled according to where there is affordable housing, where local infrastructure can cope, and where the local economy can support them. Having each country decide for themselves how many refugees to take and where to put them, does not ensure this at all. Overall, the number of refugees living in the West ought to increase for the time being. But the important thing is to guarantee that every country takes their fair share so no locality is overburdened.  It goes without saying that refugees ought to be vetted, but they already are, contrary to Republican conventional wisdom. Humanitarian assistance to refugee camps in Syria and Jordan needs to be increased, given that not everyone can move to the West.

NATO must also come to terms with the fact that relations with Russia and Iran will not be normalised as long as they continue to support the Assad regime. Those like Trump that would like to ‘get on with everybody’ are simply living in an alternative reality. Although the Iran deal may be the best solution to a nuclear Iran in the short term, the idea suggested by paleoconservatives, of an alliance with the Islamic Republic, is simply preposterous. When Israel talks of Iranian funded terrorists, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or insurgencies in Iraq, we ought to listen. As for Russia, the EU and the US must continue sanctions as long as Russia continues to support Assad, and Russian-backed militias continue to undermine the Ukrainian government. As Margaret Thatcher used to say, ‘this is no time to go wobbly.’

I’m going to follow up this article tomorrow, with a piece on the implications of the civil war on British and American domestic politics. I have to confess, I’m not an expert on the Middle East, so feel free to correct on any factual errors I may have inadvertently made. I’m also going to start a new series next Monday, so look out for that. 

Eating meat

Posted by on

In a poll 8.6 percent of the 3,000 Americans surveyed said that during a typical week, they ate no meat (poultry and fish excluded). Some 56 percent ate meat one to four times a week, and 31 percent ate it five or more time a week.

A later poll asked the same questions, plus an additional one: Has the recent publicity linking processed meats to an increased risk of cancer caused you to change your eating habits? It turns out, about 30 percent of respondents said “yes”. But the results showed that Americans’ meat-eating habits haven’t shifted much.

However, there is a subtle shift, owing to the information out there about the health effects of meat eating. A lot of people are saying that they want to eat less meat, and they are increasing consumption of vegetables, regardless of age, income or education. ( adapted from the NPR website)

As a trending vegetarian, who eats meat on occasion when my wife, a stellar cook, takes the trouble to cook it (she knows how I feel, of course), I wouldn’t eat beef or pork if l lived alone, but defend the right of others to do so. However, what comes out of all this is the fact that people are oblivious to so much that will do them harm. It took decades for cigarette smokers to get the message, and you still see people hastening their own deaths by lung cancer. Getting messages through and changing lifetime habits in human beings is a long and arduous process, and in the case of beef, telling people that beef-rearing is a major cause of climate change and ruins the environment seems just too much of a stretch, although true.

Are we doomed?