The Audacity of Obama

Before you read this post I must reject two possible assumptions you may have formed by looking at the title: 1. That I’m about to comment on anything in particular that Barack Obama might have said or done lately – frankly I have no idea what he’s been up to lately; 2. That the title of this blog, taking as it does the title of his book The Audacity of Hope and editing it, is done so to critique him or in any way put him down. As I shall now explain, it’s some of Obama’s slightly audacious comments that I appreciate.

I picked up the book a couple of days ago at my parents’ house, and have read a few pages with interest – I’m a bit of an American-o-phile, and have been investing time in reading some of the nation’s history lately.

I’m coming to like the guy; as anyone who’s read the book will hopefully agree, he comes across as genuine, thoughtful, intelligent, caring. All the right boxes to be checked for a presidential candidacy, I suppose the sceptics might argue, but I’ve not often had time for their bitter comments.

One paragraph in particular has caught my attention just now. As Obama describes his journey of discovery of new liberties that was brought about through the sixties and onwards, he also deftly describes some of the issues he saw to arise in that time of social and political change: ‘…my rejection of authority spilled into self-indulgence and self-destructiveness…I’d begun to see how any challenge to convention harbored within it the possibility of its own excesses and its own orthodoxy…’ In other words – for this is something I myself have often thought though not been able to express with such clarity – it’s foolish to believe that going against the grain is virtuous in and of itself simply by the fact that it challenges conventions. Very often we see one of two things:

1. That the party challenging ‘convention’ are simply operating out of, for want of a better word, a ‘rebellious’ spirit or inclination, but have no substance to back up their fight – no substantial policy in which to anchor their beliefs, and they are largely ignored and fade away, or
2. With more substantial beliefs in place, the party that in the first place sought to subvert and overturn convention in the end themselves became conventional or, in Obama’s word, ‘orthodox’.

He goes on to say how his observations were formed in the conversations held in college dorms, hives for subversive language and activity, and how he came to recognise

‘the point at which the denunciations of capitalism or American imperialism came too easily, and the freedom from the constraints of monogamy or religion was proclaimed without fully understanding the value of such constraints, and the role of victim was too readily embraced as a means of shedding responsibility, or asserting entitlement, or claiming moral superiority over those not so victimized.’

I think his words should echo across post-modern society and give people pause for thought in all Western countries, indeed perhaps more particularly Europe. But of course not everyone will, and some will no doubt see him as merely another Democrat spinning off rhetoric in an underhand attempt at winning votes. I, for one, think he has something to say. So there.

A society broken

If you live in the UK, you won’t need to be told that over the last few days some crazy riots have been breaking out first in London and then spreading like wildfire across the nation. This bizarre phenomenon, to helpless morally-centered social analysts like me (that’s a rather grand title), is indicative of an inherent brokenness in a generation that has been abandoned by the last, which chose independence and individual rights and individual choice (the masks of selfishness) over love and family order and faithfulness, the things that originally caused a society like ours to be built in the first place. I’m going to say it outright: fatherlessness is a serious issue (not a dig at single-mum families, but at men who think they can do what they like!). Guys need their proper role models back!

On the surface of it, of course, there might be other reasons for this kind of thuggery. Poverty is rife as always in our nation. A government which purported to bring us ‘prosperity’ (Labour) left us in undoubtedly the stickiest fiscal situation we have seen in a long time (though the 20th century demonstrates a considerable pattern of crashes, depressions, crunches and debt, giving me little cause for confidence in the relatively young machinery of capitalism), and the ensuing debt crisis has left a sour taste in many mouths, and perhaps an impression in some of these criminal minds that it’s never going to get better for them. Combine poverty with a society littered with strong advertisements telling you what you don’t have but must definitely get, and it’s no wonder that these criminals think they should have the 42″ widescreen TV, even if they have to steal it.

Gang culture of course, which is at the hub of most of the rioting, naturally fosters a kind of rebellion. You might even have some kids in there from slightly more stable homes but if they unwittingly get drafted in they can still inherit the kind of spirit that hangs around in that atmosphere.

So, some of the questions that I feel most need asking:

How can society encourage good parenting? Why on earth is there not more of an emphasis and focus on this important societal role?
How can more jobs be found for the unemployed youth be created? How can employers be encouraged to give them opportunities? Even the basic sense of worth that comes from a simple job could make all the difference!
How can youth organisations be further empowered to target and begin to disseminate and discourage gang culture?

Some of these are huge questions but in my view they are some that fundamentally need addressing. Of course, this will probably just remain my humble opinion floating in the blogosphere, but I hope that at least some of these things will be more widely recognised and will become the focus of our government and of society in general.

Cambridge stakes its position

So the news reader on The World Tonight on Radio 4 told us that Cambridge University have announced plans to up their tuition fees to the new maximum of £9,000 next year. According to the BBC News website:

‘An internal report … argues that to charge any less than the maximum would be “fiscally irresponsible” and would raise doubts about the university’s “commitment to excellence”.’

Right, commitment to excellence. And to well-off families. And “fiscally irresponsible”? How can it be fiscally irresponsible? The fees are £9,000 precisely because the government wouldn’t be paying up nearly so much for tuition fees. They could charge less and the government wouldn’t put in more. If it’s about wanting to pay the most tax, well that’s the first I’ve heard anyone wanting to pay as much tax as possible! Could someone explain this fuzzy, unclear, unhelpful term please.

Also on the BBC last week, Richard Bilton did a good job in a documentary entitled, “Who gets the best jobs?” of showing how the top positions and best-paid jobs go especially to those privately educated and from well-off backgrounds. In other words, as the cycle goes around, a certain circle of well-off in this nation are feeding themselves and the wealth isn’t getting handed out, or down, in the way that it could be. (That’s a very curtailed analysis but is essentially true.)

While Cambridge would offer a reduction of up to £3,000 to students from poorer backgrounds, I wonder if they realise that for some this really won’t be enough. A simple reduction isn’t enough to encourage those stuck in the poverty rut to get out and try. Poverty really can grip some people and it’s going to take more than that for them to be seen as being in anyway ‘fair’, economically speaking.

But then, maybe they feel they can’t commit to economic fairness, and really “commitment to excellence” IS  a way of saying, and to the middle class and to the wealthy elite of the UK and the world. I almost think that is their philosophy and if so, they should be clear about it. Gestures to offer a £3,000 reduction are really only formalities.

Still, I dare Oxford to be different…

When democracy isn’t exactly that. [Tuition Fees.]

I mean come on. I was listening to Moral Maze on Radio 4 the other night when driving home late. They were discussing ‘nudging’ – whereby the government use recognised, surreptitious practices to ‘nudge’ the thinking of the public in one direction or another. There were arguments for and against, and much of it explicity or implicitly around the issue of whether it was the government’s right or role to fiddle with the thinking of the public. Meaning that eventually, at some point, one of the illustrious debaters had to come out with a rough definition of what democratic government is: a collection of publicly-elected individuals put forward simply to represent the desires and wishes of the majority. It troubled me that in his voice it sounded like he had a little too much faith that what he was describing is what we’ve been getting in this nation recently.

I struggle to see that.

The coalition’s rosy honeymoon is over. Preceded only by a few noises within the Lib Dems already about compromise on policy in general, the recent issues surrounding the proposed rise in tuition fees at UK universities have really provided the first major challenge to the government since its election to power. Today the government voted in favour of the proposed rise in tuition fees.

As a recent graduate (York, Music, 2007), and one who has experienced financial struggle since then (something I say without shame or want of pity – I’m alive and well), my feelings naturally harmonised with the thousands of students and prospective students who I proudly watched take to the streets in such great numbers as to cause the huge media storm that we have seen. (Yes, I know about the violence. That’s a shame. Protests: good. There’s my sophisticated opinion on that one.)

I’m not about to sift through the mass of information and arguments to be made on either side of the debate and say ultimately what’s right or wrong, or perhaps ‘best’ or ‘worst’. Time will tell, presenting, I’m sure, it’s own surprises. But one can hardly help feeling that despite all the rhetoric around ‘fairness’ which has been the unmistakable watchword of the coalition as they make large budget cuts, there is something inherently unjust about lumping such great sums on those who are least able to afford it. Students have hardly been known as the most wealthy of citizens. It doesn’t take much to see that the government might be doing themselves a huge disfavour in putting a great many off of university study in this country.

Why, the pro-fees advocates might argue, are the government doing themselves a disfavour? These cuts are good and work well for graduates under this system (the £21,000 threshold etc.). People will come around to seeing this.

Well, o advocate, you’d better hope they do. Because amidst the great uproar (coming not merely from the streets, but from inside the Commons where there have been resignations and a few rebellions), it strikes me that though we have heard one or two debates in the media, and the protesting voice of Nick Clegg advocating the advantages of this rise in fees, the government could have done a lot more to quell the obvious strong national sentiment and lay out the facts as plainly as possible. I’m not saying they didn’t try. But it does seem that despite the protests that have been going on since last month, this has been pushed through without any further attempt to make things clear and amicable to student groups.

A couple of other observations. The Conservatives have managed to stay out of the firing line, to a large degree, perhaps sneakily. The issue has focussed on the Lib Dems, and their obvious turn around on their manifesto promise of not supporting a rise in tuition fees. Make of this what you will – they didn’t write that in prospect chiefly of a coalition government, nor perhaps had they quite anticipated the huge debt that faced the succeeding party (though surely it should have been in someone’s mind…).

New New Labour leader (I forget how he’s styled himself. I’m not sure I care) Miliband had a word or two for the Lib Dems in all this. Sorry, Ed, but whether or not it was to your liking or in your ‘style’, your party had a great deal to do with the massive debt. Hearing his advice I couldn’t help feeling that he was merely trying to establish his name, while he had some air to breathe, as a do-gooder, rather than as a genuine champion of the poor in this case. Maybe I’m just being cynical.

And a final observation. Reading one report earlier on the issue, it covered the opinions of the lecturer’s union, and of University deans and provosts. And the conclusion wasn’t overwhelmingly in the direction of the positive. You would have thought that the government, being a ‘democratically elected’ conglomerate, might find accord in some branch of society, even if no one much likes these cuts. But lecturers didn’t seem overly keen on the idea, and university and college authorities were also divided on the issue. No conclusion there.

Budget cuts have to be made. We all know that. It seems that with every cut announced, there is a group that doesn’t want that cut to go ahead – they all have their reasons why. But we have heard no stronger a protest than that which has come from the students these past few weeks. Putting the onus on those who are least able to bear it seems a bit harsh though. I’ve read the woeful tweets/facebook posts of sixth-formers I know lamenting the fact that, given they’re not able to afford uni, why bother at sixth form. Well, o advocate, if in fact it won’t be so bad for them, why don’t they know it? Why have the government not been doing more to steer public understanding that the next generation can go ahead confident that they won’t be lumbered with debt as a problem for years to come in their lives?

I’m sure everyone who reads this has lots of opinions and thinks I’m wrong on some things. That’s the way with these things. Like I said, time will tell. I hope that is satisfactory.

Are we missing something here?

Every now and then (well quite a lot actually) I notice these stories appearing in the papers which detail often horrifying stories not of adults who have committed the usual, sad offences (rape, murder, and so on), but teenagers and children. Today was no exception. Two boys aged just ten and 11 were found guilty of attempting to rape an 8-year-old girl. The Metro article was scarce of any great detail about their attempt but the outcome seemed decisive. Apparently the boys were ordered to be registered as sex offenders but, in the words of the article, “the judge said he was ‘not quite sure’ how this applied to children of their age.”

Not quite sure. I’ll say! Was the judge simply an old man confused in a moment of senility? No. Was he picking apart pieces of the law to try to work out the answer to his problem? No – his problem was not of that nature. The problem is how on earth two boys of primary school age can be asked to register as sex offenders.

This is one of many stories that I can think of just off the top of my head recently. The case of Jamie Bulger stands out as one of the greatest atrocities of child crime of the last couple of decades. I was sickened to read of another recent crime committed by two boys equally as young which was matched in some senses to the Bulger case, although there were two victims in this case older than Jamie Bulger but obviuosly vulnerable, and they were not killed. But the reports of what was done to them and what they were made to do made horrific reading.

I remember when reading of this particular case that when the boys were asked why they committed such atrocities to two fellow school children, they responded that they were bored and there was nothing else to do.

We might wonder what on earth has got into these children that they are even having it in their minds to get up to such things. Yet the cause to me is obvious. These boys – and other children and young people in the news of course, including especially girls apparently as young as 8 carrying about drugs for gangs – are imitating the older generations. They simply see it about them in so much of society. Children and young people are clearly impressionable, and I have known it said on more than one occasion that every child just wants to be an adult. That’s often why it’s better to treat them like one in the good sense. But it’s also why they are in some of these cases heading into such trouble.

I and probably everyone who reads this is plenty aware of children who are being shown films with ratings of 15 and 18. EVERYBODY knows things like that are happening. Maybe it’s a stupid, obvious question, but aren’t those ratings in place for a reason? I have heard of definite cases where young boys have got into serious crime and trouble, and it has been  shown that they have just been allowed to sit around at home while their irresponsible parents put on some violent or in some way adult film without sending them out of the room. Clearly such material can have a huge influence on their mind and almost think that what they’re seeing is normal, or at least, more acceptable than it actually is.

This is one example of the many problems that need to be addressed in society. One significant issue that I think needs even more attention today is parenting. Ultimately I would estimate that in most cases the responsibility lies with the parent. In many court cases over child crimes this is of course taken up and the parents are required to take some measure of responsibility.

But it’s too late then! It’s not as if that’s really going to send out a message to all other parents everywhere to make sure their kids are brought up without these bad influences. It’s so obvious to me but, we need to be helping the parents from day one, from the moment mum realises she’s pregnant! It’s the whole case of turning from retribution to prevention.

I still have much to find out about it, but I am aware of some research coming out of Iain Duncan-Smith’s setup, the Centre for Social Justice, and I am very impressed by their range of Publications which address all sorts of these issues that I’m touching on. There is obviously still a long way to go – people need to hear the statistics, the research, and be able to use it to better society. One piece of research there I would strongly refer to especially in the case of this article is found here and contains what I consider to be findings of unbelievable importance, detailed especially on pages 60ff. Page 63 for example demonstrates scientifically the importance of love, care and attention for a child between the ages of 0-3. One brain scan of a well-cared-for child shows a healthy brain, while a brain scan of a neglected child shows a different story: it is 20-30% smaller, with ‘decreased cell growth, synaptic and dendrite density’ – in short, less well-developed, with poorer connections across the brain, making for an all-round more difficult upbringing, I gather.

It’s amazing, but love, care and attention for every person on this planet between the ages of 0-3 really would help at least quite a few of our problems. Certainly neglect has caused a lot. That is why I believe parenting should be a target. We shouldn’t be straightaway just condemning parents – they need help learning the ropes as it’s a big task! But especially some in harder conditions can find it all too easy to neglect their children.

One last paper of theirs to point to would be “Fathers Not Included“,  a response to the recent human fertilisation and embryology bill which, among other things, would have stated that there would no longer be the need for a natural father to be named on birth certificates for children born to same-sex couples through donor sperm. The paper importantly, and again of course through valuable research, points out the value of raising children in homes with a father AND a mother, among other things.

I could go on. But I think it crazy that we don’t seem to have really GOT it yet – that there is something fundamentally wrong with our society at its roots, and this needs addressing NOW, not just at some point when we might be able to manage it.

Breaking out of the spiralling vortex of capitalism

One of my most recent and sustained developing interests has been in the area of economics. More and more I have found issues in this realm to thoroughly occupy my mind, especially when it comes to addressing the needs of the poor. From a Christian perspective this no doubt takes a slightly different route than it would among non-Christian economists because my concern is fundamentally driven from a belief and understanding about the created order whereas a secularist approach probably comes from a simple desire to achieve balance in a presently extremely unbalanced world. I make no apologies for the direction I choose and my commentary will be fused with my Christian belief.

All the same the observations I make refer to secular as well as Christian responses to the present economic challenge (as well as response to the Western economy in general). This is because, unsurprisingly, across the board there seems to be a dissatisfaction with the way things are and a persuasion that things need to change. This finds voice especially in the outcries expressed through the media at huge bonuses handed to bankers, and at the swindling of expenses by MPs. Enough commentary has probably been done on WordPress alone to fill several volumes and so I do not intend to make further judgment on these matters here, I simply point to them to indicate the attitude that permeates public opinion.

Most recently I have noticed a book entitled Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet by Tim Jackson – which, incidentally, I came across by flicking through a copy of the Big Issue. It seemed appropriate that an article about this book appeared in a magazine sold to help support the homeless and those hard-done-by. I haven’t really noticed what the general thrust of the publication is before but this has made me somewhat penitent of my usual attitude of buying a copy if I want to “be nice” to the Big Issue man, then throwing it away when I next get it out of my bag (confession time).

I may read the book. It seems to do what it says on the tin, and according to reviews doesn’t seem to do too bad a job of it, perhaps weighing in a little heavier on the diagnosis than on the proposed solutions. You can preview it on Google Books of course, at http://books.google.com/books?id=jarKLCDcePYC&dq=prosperity+without+growth&source=gbs_navlinks_s

What has also interested me ever since about this time last year, is Christian response to the economic situation in light of the Bible. Of particular note among recent efforts to outwork Christian principles within a secular economy is that of Kim Tan, author of the recently published The Jubilee Gospel (which I am presently reading), who has had some sort of key role in the establishment of what is known as the Transformational Business Network which seeks to work in the developing world not through the means of aid, but rather through the means of resourcing and supporting enterprises in those countries so that they can begin to have their own sustainable economic environments which they will be able to operate themselves. A quick survey of their website(http://www.tbnetwork.org/home/index.php?flag1=1) seems to show that they are doing rather well.

I don’t doubt that this sort of move would begin a process which could radically reshape the global economy. Perhaps my view is over-simplistic, but it seems that where we have “developed” countries (which operate with a centralised system) providing largely only aid to “developing” nations, the latter will in a way also be subject to the moving and shaking that goes on in the centralised systems of the nations that are providing that aid. However, if you empower that country to begin to operate sustainably under its own economic model and terms, you withdraw its dependency on the former, monolithic systems which, as we’ve seen over the last year, are no less susceptible to damage for all their size.

I also have in my list of books to read a book by Kim Tan and Brian Griffiths called Fighting Poverty Through Enterprise: The case for Social Venture Capital which (from my brief glance) fairly straightforwardly outlines the purpose behind the Transformational Business Network through an analysis of present-day statistics and case studies.

If you’re wondering where this present argument is leading, the answer may be “not very far” at this stage because, as you can see, I have a fair bit of reading to do. I’m also not an economist and so all the reading I can do can only stretch as far as my spare time and my understanding will allow. However my heart is deeply interested for the sake of the poor and those who have suffered as the rich have got richer. Having had my own share of financial pressures in my time – pressures which were comparably microscopic compared to those of many who struggle in this nation alone – I have seen enough to be concerned that the treacherous imbalance of society (which as we know is not purely economical but also social) might somehow begin to be turned on its head through whatever means we might have within our grasp.

I was challenged earlier today when another man from church was sharing with a group of men that were gathered for breakfast, from Romans 12, and verse 18 where Paul exhorts “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (NASB) Maybe it was the way he said it, but suddenly the words “if possible” rang out with new meaning and emphasis: if there is any remote chance, any slim possibility that I can see in a situation, for peace to be brought into it and lived in, then I should work to achieve that peace. And if you know anything about the Bible and the way that Jews thought from way back, “peace” would not merely have been about being friendly; the term shabbat which we know as “Sabbath”, together with the idea of shalom,  encompassed ideas of social, economic and spiritual peace and rest – a holistic peace which touched every area of human experience.

So this is what I’m going after. I’m interested also in the Jubilee as a concept in which, essentially, a national but de-centralised (or rather non-centralised as it was never central in the first place) economic system which allowed for growth and development was nevertheless “capped” and kept from growing out of control, through the regular redistribution of wealth through the cancellation of debts and restoration of property to original owners. In it too was fundamentally written the idea of rest with each Jubilee year being prescribed as a year of rest (which of course would have happened alongside the usual Sabbath years – a year of rest every seven years – also prescribed for the nation). As a whole economic model now it is obviously impossible to introduce, but its values and principles could and, according to the conviction of Kim Tan and others, do still prove to be useful.

So, apologies for the inept conclusion to this present discourse. Watch this space, as I shall hopefully keep my blog updated from time to time with my findings and feelings about this whole issue. Ultimately what I hope to achieve is to find some new and creative ways in which Christians (well and any concerned citizen) can seriously get involved in this activity of redressing the balance for the good of humanity.

Where does Capitalism end?

In a bit of a daze at the end of a hard week it appears a little foggy to me to be able to answer this with clarity now but I can at least safely say I can see two answers.

At dinner tonight with friends, talk first turned to the swiftly closing Mayoral elections for London and the political ramifications inherent in voting not for policies, but purely for candidates, as policy seems almost immaterial in the much wider game that is being played here in London.

Following from this we engaged in a rather convicting discussion which revolved around consumerism, choice, the Smorgasbord we seem unable to avoid in every day life. The missionary couple from Nepal standing bewildered and thoroughly shocked by the culture as they take their first trip to whichever Supermarket was closest, they and others like them I know can tell that tale.

One of our friends, a doctor, professorial, philosopher-theologian highly engaged in debating current matters of justice, reflected on how a short trip to Burma had given him a beautiful taste of an incredibly different life: “What you did,” he said, “was to get food for the kids, and clothes on your back. That’s it. And everything goes at around 8 miles per hour, at this sort of biological speed – it’s wonderful.”

What he stated reflected just a small part of the overall distinction between what we know to be ‘normal life’ in our part of the world, and that in the (I suppose) ‘non-westernised’ parts. My own short trip to Thailand holds a similar mirror to the issue, blogged about a short while ago.

That makes one of my questions, where do we go from here? I believe Capitalism will not last – a statement which I know of course requires ample justification which I hope to provide in further bloggings in the near future. That means that either I follow it to the bitter end, try as I might to believe that it might work for me, even though we know from a short examination not only of today’s situation but of recent history, that we are getting worse and not better, economically.

Or, I go the way of the nomadic Jew who once worked in a carpenters shop only then to quit, give up everything, and live a radically different life from the rest of the world around Him, giving up possessions, money, often not even having anywhere to sleep. Yet somehow making it, and going on to become without doubt the most influential Man in history.

?

I shall blog more on this subject when I am decidedly more awake and have pondered this thing further.