The first is the right only appeared

• queen we are the champions

in ascendance because of the breakdown of the pillars of the left: the fall of the U.S.S.R. and the socialist ideals it represented; the academic splintering of left-wing ideologies (socialism, civil-rights, feminism, environmentalism etcetera) which cannot easily unite politically under first past the post (F.P.P.) electoral systems; and the dominance of the global capital markets and the influence of right wing economic ideology on traditionally left wing governments (New Labour).

The second is there are now new ideologies ascending: viable alternative models for prosperity such as state capitalism in China, oil monarchies in the U.A.E. or the Indian mixed economy¹; the rise of atheism in contrast with a backlash against overt religious fundamentalism; wide acceptance and understanding of global environmental and resource issues; and lastly the credit crisis is cutting away at the base of a belief in under-regulated capital markets.

As can be noted from the above two observations, the traditional notions of left and right are breaking down. In the first, it is the left breaking down (in the West) which has been occuring since the 60s and the era of civil rights. It is now the turn of the right, who up until now have been shielded from having to justify their positions by economic boom times, which turn out to have been based on a lot of debt.

The Conservatives in England have rebranded themselves as the Environmental Party, although how they plan to reconcile that with business I am unsure. The current crisis is especially putting them in an awkward situation, as they cannot claim they would have been any more fiscally responsible or prepared to regulate the City (as London’s financial district is called) than Labour.

In the U.S. the group of Republican nominees that the party had to choose from was particularly dire. The only conclusion I can make is that no serious contender wanted to run directly after George W. and face almost certain defeat. However the the four most serious contenders as the race went on highlighted the splintering issues for the party. Mike Huckabee was a traditional Christian conservative, Rudy Giuliani was a high flying New Yorker in line with business, Ron Paul (who was a surprise success) was a libertarian favouring near complete absence of government, and John McCain is from the political class where money, government and friends are one and the same. Unsurprisingly, but only with the benefit of hind sight, was McCain nominated after his campaign went bankrupt through mismanagement, because he was the contender who was the least offensive to the members of the party with which he wasn’t naturally aligned. No Christian conservative was going to vote for Giuliani who while Catholic has been divorced.

In New Zealand it scares me that the reason for voting in the National party has nothing to do with what they stand for or will do once in power. It appears that many New Zealanders don’t care who is running the country, and that since Labour have been in for a long time it is ‘time for a change’. Unfortunately National is still running on the old right-wing ideologies and appears to be ignoring the two observations earlier. I believe that voting in National will be a grave mistake for the New Zealand public.

1. Please note that I am only highlighting that there are other models for economic prosperity and power, and not that necessarily advocating them

I do not find it suprising to finally having some positive events come out of the Bush led Whitehouse. The main conclusion that I drew from reading State of Denial by Watergate journalist Bob Woodward was that Bush had assembled an ideologically driven team that was prone to infighting. This meant that not only did I (and a large part of the U.S. electorate and the rest of the planet) disagree with their ideologies, but they failed to implement them well. The Iraq war would have been harder to be against if it had gone as the Whitehouse expected – greeted as liberators in the streets, provided adequate security early on, not alienated the Sunnis by purging any member of the Baath party and disbanding the army etcetera etcetera. At some point or another the Bushies had to start getting something right. They couldn’t permanently live in the ’state of denial’.

The next six months are going to be very interesting in the Middle East. If it turns out that Iraqis have had enough violence, that the influx of foreign fighters starts to slow, and that the ‘ethnic redistribution’ that occurred after the initial invasion has adequately seperated Sunni from Shia, then it just may be that Iraq doesn’t dissolve into the post-apocalyptic nightmare that sites like Commondreams have been predicting. And if the Palestinians and Israelis manage to negotiate a settlement, Bushes prediction that history will judge him well might just turn out true. These are very big IFs.

Who else can interview and be interviewed by Bill O’Reilly and make the infamous Fox News presenter look like a retard.

Who else gets invited to speak at the annual White House correspondents dinner (2006) and spends twenty minutes lampooning President Bush – in front of President Bush, his wife, and everybody else of political consequence in Washington. Now I might be a little belated in blogging about the political news story of 2006, but having just discovered it and how funny it was I couldn’t not pass it on.

One of many juicy quotes with Dubya sitting just to places to his right: “I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers, and rubble, and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.”

Rumour has it that Laura Bush told him “f#ck you” at the end, although that is probably a leftwing conspiracy theory spread by the liberal media. At least one Republican understands sarcasm.

For more links of American (and some British) political satire check out One Good Move. The archive section contains all of the videos that have appeared on the home page, and especially a comprehensive list of Bill Maher’s New Rules (use the find in your browser to locate each ‘New Rules’). Classic.

It is with shame that I take glee in the disharmony of ideals of the combined political right. Long ago did the ‘left’ splinter into smaller competing interests that while more accurately representing the political base, means that in first past the post electoral systems they have either lost ground (French politics) or turned into ‘New Labour’ (England and New Zealand). At last may the cracks in the right begin appearing, exemplified by Don Brash’s need to hide his true economic intentions from the electorate¹ while espousing racial issues as his main platform.

1. read Nicky Hager’s The Hollow Men