Libertas
(All the right people hate them.
They should re-form into a successor party to the PDs.)
Fianna Fail
(They were great under
Charlie McCreevy
and
Bertie Ahern.
But they have gone downhill since.
First they got rid of these two, the best Minister for Finance ever
and the best Taoiseach ever.
Then they introduced the offensive blasphemy law.
There's not much reason to like FF now.)
Fine Gael
(This is who I voted for last time, in the absence of the PDs or Libertas,
and furious with FF over the blasphemy law.)
Discussion:
Economics
The ideas of the PDs made Ireland rich, and did more to end poverty in Ireland
than all the work of the left-wing parties
since independence.
Indeed, Ireland's history seems to suggest that right-wing parties end poverty,
while left-wing, statist parties cause it.
Fianna Fail sensibly adopted the PDs' ideas on economics.
America
On foreign policy, FF may not share my ideals,
but they can probably be trusted to do the right thing.
They are a sensible, pragmatic party, and will never offend our
western democratic allies
(Britain and America) in order to make some stupid point.
They haven't the slightest interest in standing
with France (or anyone else)
to make a point against America.
FF and the PDs allowed America use Irish airports in the War on Islamism, 2001 onwards.
Why I like Fianna Fail
- "I had the pleasure of watching John O'Donoghue, a government minister,
lambast a political opponent, John Bruton of Fine Gael, when Bruton demanded to know
whether there were any circumstances when the government would deny use of
Shannon. O'Donoghue told Bruton the government would not let Saddam Hussein use it."
FG are likely to be in coalition with the anti-neocon, anti-American, anti-Israeli
Labour Party.
FF are currently in coalition with the anti-neocon, anti-American, anti-Israeli
Green Party.
There is an outside chance that FF would go into coalition with
the communist gangsters of
Sinn Fein.
A Fianna Fail - Sinn Fein coalition would wreck our economy,
undermine law and order, and alienate Britain and America.
It would be a disaster for the country,
but above all it would be a disaster for Fianna Fail.
It would destroy Fianna Fail,
as hundreds of thousands of the sensible tax-paying middle class deserted it forever.
SF-IRA have peaked already.
The Republic will never be like Northern Ireland.
Marxist-Leninist gunmen from the 1970s
have limited appeal to the prosperous middle-class voters of the South.
SF-IRA are past their peak.
The South has never voted for communists, and never will.
The Democratic Left style
Old Labour
have a limit to their appeal in the South.
Dick Spring's
Blairite Labour
had a broader appeal.
Time for Labour to change, and follow the lead of Blair.
Nor did the other major left-wing party
- the Greens - make any progress.
One wonders if it would be possible to have a Green party
that wasn't extreme left on economics and foreign policy?
And the hard left
Socialist Party even lost their only seat.
It was a bad election for the left.
Truly left-wing parties will, it seems, never get more than
20 percent of seats in the Republic.
Finally, I guess I just disagree with the people's verdict on the PDs.
The PDs may be a psychological scapegoat for some of the voters and the media,
but the fact is the new Fianna Fail government
will be implementing PD policies.
Which is what we want.
We just don't want them to be so honest about it.
Unfortunately, the anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-GM, anti-free trade,
anti-capitalist
Green Party
are now going to be a minority partner in the
government.
Fianna Fail and the PD's will stop them wrecking the economy.
But there is a danger that they will have an influence on foreign policy.
There could be a threat to the use of Irish airports
by the U.S. military.
Fianna Fail are not allowing this as part of their deal, though.
And the anti-war left are
horrified
(and here
and here)
by the Greens' "betrayal".
The
Irish Anti-War Movement chairman
said: "I am very disappointed ... We worked very closely with the leadership and the rank and file of the Greens since 2003 on the issue of Shannon and Irish neutrality. ...
As recently as May 22nd, we had a message from Mr Gormley assuring us that the Green Party would always have the issue of Shannon in the forefront of their political agenda."Anti-War Ireland
urged Green Party members to vote down "this shameful deal".
"The alternative is to have your party co-equally responsible for the US military presence at Shannon".
Richard Boyd Barrett
said it was "a tragic betrayal of the anti-war movement
and many of those who voted for the Green Party".
So maybe it's not all bad.
PANA's
Roger Cole
says:
"A FF/PD/Green Party supported by a range of independents including Finian McGrath totally committed to actively supporting President George Bush's Imperialist war to gain control of the oil of Iraq and to consolidate US/Israeli military domination of the Middle East for years to come, will be elected to run the country for the next 5 years."
Let's hope so!
So foreign policy may not actually change much.
But it does mean that Irish foreign policy, which is already far too pro-UN, anti-Israel, and
pro-appeasement of Islamism, is unlikely to improve as I would have hoped.
As I say, Fianna Fail are hardly my heroes on foreign policy.
I have few real heroes in Irish politics.
At least the PD's are back in as well.
Hopefully, this government will be much like the last one.
Made Ireland rich.
Privatisation (especially of airlines and telecoms). Low tax.
Ended unemployment.
Ended emigration.
Ended poverty.
Helped US and allies in War on Islamism (kept Shannon open).
Ended NI conflict.
Established power-sharing in NI.
Only major black mark:
Pro-Palestinian.
Set up a democracy.
Defeated violent anti-Treaty forces.
Ended the 1916-23 violence.
Stabilised relations with Britain.
1922 constitution (much better than 1937 one).
Peacefully surrendered power when lost 1932 election.
Today,
only 10 countries in the world
have been democracies as long as Ireland.
Only major black mark:
Executions without trial in Civil War.
Crap economy. State monopolies. Sexual repression. Catholic Church rule.
Neutrality.
Opposition to Falklands War.
Entrenched partition.
Personal corruption.
And before he was in power:
Burnt Union Jack on VE-Day in 1945.
Crap economy. Protectionism. State monopolies. Economic War.
Sexual repression. Catholic Church rule.
1937 constitution.
Irish language compulsion.
Censorship. Neutrality.
Treachery in WW2.
Sneering moral equivalence.
Condolences on death of Hitler.
Entrenched partition.
Personal corruption.
And before he was in power:
Refused to accept pro-Treaty vote.
Caused Civil War.
New Labour has supported the War of the western democracies
against the global jihad.
Though I worry about them returning to the past
now that Blair is gone.
The Tories have blown hot and cold on the War when in opposition.
But in government they could be trusted to do the right thing.
The Liberal Democrats
are dhimmis and appeasers, or even actively pro-jihad.
Doctor Death by Frank McGahon,
who sums up my views
here
about the pointlessness of
trying to "understand"
the
hallucinatory, hate-filled killers
of innocent women and children:
"a serial killer may have any kind of half-baked ludicrous "rationale"
for his murders.
Pehaps they were inspired by listening to a Beatles LP:
who cares?.
It is of little use in preventing future serial killers to examine
in minute detail the "reason"s
proferred by such a killer.
There will always be crazy people.
The first priority is to protect yourself
against crazy people.
Getting sucked into the crazy worldview is a very
good way of losing sight of that priority."
Executing homosexuals
and killing British soldiers
are apparently now ok with the new
Liberal Democrat party.
Khatami receives honorary degree from Scottish University.
He is the first senior Iranian to visit Britain
since the 1979 revolution.
"It is disgusting that St. Andrews university is conferring an honor on this man,
he is responsible for more than 1,300 deaths during his presidency,"
said Maryam Namazie, of the Iranian Women's Liberation group.
"This regime was responsible for the oppression of people that I knew and loved."
Nick Clegg, Jan 2009,
calls on Britain and the EU to block arms sales to Israel.
On Madrid:
"Let me use this occasion to make one point absolutely clear. If the
terrorists hope they can gain their ends by perpetrating in Britain a similar
outrage to that in Spain, their wickedness will be in vain. Whatever my
disagreements with Tony Blair, any government that I lead will not flinch
in its determination to win the War against Terror, wherever it has to be
fought."
On Iraq:
"The British Conservative Party has been consistent in its support for the
British Government, and for our armed forces, over the war in Iraq.
Indeed Tony Blair would not have won last year's vote in the House of
Commons .. which gave him the mandate to go to
war, without the support of the Conservative Party.
...
The
war against Iraq was necessary. It was just. It was, indeed, arguably
overdue. And, let us not forget, it was overwhelmingly successful"
"We won the Second World War because we fought side-by-side with
America. We won the Cold War because we stood side-by-side with
America. And we will win this war on terror if we wage it side-by-side
with America."
On Europe: "it is true that
there are some who see a European State as a partner of America. But
many have as their main motivation the desire to establish a rival pole of
power in Europe. If their views were to prevail many of the achievements
we value would be at risk. I shall do all I can to resist their ambitions."
He is pro-capitalist and pro-free trade,
and correctly links it all to helping the
Third World.
He quotes Hernando de Soto.
Good stuff.
Then I went off Howard:
Howard keeps being tempted to make capital from Blair's
troubles on Iraq, despite the fact that he agrees with Blair
and would have done the same.
This achieves nothing except
making the Tories look unreliable and unprincipled -
in contrast to
the honourable, principled Blair,
who many conservatives now admire.
Howard should start caring about Bush
- Mark Steyn on Howard's idiotic and unnecessary alienation of Bush
by trying to make capital over Iraq.
Or consider his unnecessary alienation of people like me.
I have never supported the Tories in my entire life.
I have actually voted for Blair (when I lived in the UK,
general election 1997).
After 9/11
I was just, after all these years, for the first time stumbling towards
the view that the Tories weren't so bad after all -
because they are strong on the defence of the west.
And Howard is telling me no, that's not true actually.
If you want really strong in defence of the west, vote Labour.
"Despite the great gaping nullity of the [Conservative] party this past decade,
there was still one thing it stood for: like the Republicans, the Tories were the party
that took foreign policy and national security seriously. That's what Howard threw away
when he chose to repudiate his own Iraq-war vote, accuse Blair of "dereliction of duty"
and demand his resignation."
"how stupid do you have to be to kick away the party's last remaining leg,
the one that still seems relevant to the world we live in? If the Conservatives
are no longer credible on foreign policy, what's left?"
The Tories
do have a problem with
the
conservative pessimism,
that allowed them do nothing as the
Bosnian genocide
raged in Europe in the 1990s.
This Tory isolationist tradition is exemplified by:
I could not get so excited about the UK election 2005.
Between Labour and Tory,
the choice was just not as clear-cut as it was
in the US election
or the Spanish election
or the Australian election
or the German election.
The Tories did their best to convince us that they'd be weak on defence,
but I don't believe them.
I think they'd be fine.
On the one hand, I'm a great fan of Tony Blair,
the great
liberal internationalist
who understands the post 9/11 world -
but the problem is
I don't like much of the Labour party.
I worry that after Blair goes, Labour will revert to its old anti-American self.
If only one could vote for Blair without voting for Labour.
On the other hand, I like Tory policies,
and I think most of the Tory party are sensible,
but I was turned off Michael Howard by his shabby, second-thoughts opportunism on Iraq.
Howard is an alienator of potential new Tory supporters like me.
I far prefer Blair to Howard.
So I'm happy with a third Blair win.
Maybe now the Tories will realise the kind of things that attract conservative voters
to Blair.
Oliver Kamm
sums up the election result:
It's not quite a win, not quite a loss.
It is interesting that
Bush, Blair and Howard - the three leaders of the Iraq War of 2003
- all won re-election in 2004-5.
Sure, the war was unpopular with some people.
But
the war's unpopularity has clearly been exaggerated.
Much of the media bought into the "Bush lied. Blair lied." rhetoric.
But most people didn't.
They either supported the war,
or opposed it but didn't care that much
compared with other issues.
The media's "Conventional Wisdom" version of history will forever
portray this as an unpopular war.
But the less dramatic truth is that it was
not very unpopular.
David Cameron
I think I like
David Cameron,
who seems to represent optimistic, neo-con conservatism.
"A new approach to foreign affairs - liberal conservatism",
Cameron's foreign policy speech, Sept 2006,
is somewhat mixed-message.
Pessimist Melanie Phillips
puts the most negative spin possible on it,
saying it looks like Cameron will cool things with America.
Bizarre Tory isolationist
Geoffrey Wheatcroft
enthusiastically agrees
(and, unlike Phillips, thinks that would be a good thing).
I suspect both of them are wrong.
I think Cameron is a neo-conservative, no matter what he says.
He's not afraid to say openly he agrees with much of neo-conservatism,
which hardly anyone in Europe says.
He then claims his is a slightly different form, and perhaps it is,
but not that different.
Cameron, Oct 2008, says he is not a neo-con.
And search.
"We should accept that we cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun; that we cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet - and we shouldn't try.
Put crudely, that was what was wrong with the 'neo-con' approach, and why I am a liberal Conservative, not a neo Conservative."
Cameron is a neo-con?
Cameron stands encircled by zealous Anglo-neocons, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, March 22, 2007,
has second thoughts about Cameron's Tories.
Hurray.
If Wheatcroft doesn't like him, then
Cameron is definitely safe to vote for.
Wheatcroft compares Britain's support for America in the War on Islamist fascism
to Vichy France's
support for Nazi Germany in its war on democracy and the Jews.
Again, one always has to wonder
if whining isolationists like this
would have really supported the troops in the second world war.
Whereas it's obvious that the "Anglo-neocons" would have.
Wheatcroft mentions the admirable
Douglas Carswell, who says
"it is in our national interest to support Israel".
Carswell apparently says he does not like to criticise Israel
"because I believe they are a front-line ally in a war against people
who wish to destroy our democratic way of life."
The weirdo Wheatcroft
describes these unexceptional views
as "extreme",
"plainly absurd"
and "terrifying".
David Cameron talks rubbish about Islamism, May 13, 2007
- "First, a concerted attack on racism and soft bigotry.
You can't even start to talk about a truly integrated society
while people are suffering racist insults and abuse,
as many still are in our country on a daily basis.
...
many Muslims I've talked to about these issues are
deeply offended by the use of the word 'Islamic' or 'Islamist'
to describe the terrorist threat we face today.
We do need greater understanding of the true nature of the terrorist threat.
There's ... too much denial of it in the Muslim community.
But our efforts are not helped by lazy use of language.
Indeed, by using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat,
we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them"
For heaven's sake, the word
"Islamist"
is used
to allow some clear water
between the jihadi Muslim terrorists (Islamism) and moderate Muslims (Islam).
"Islamism" describes accurately the popular philosophy and world view that motivates jihadi terror
around the world.
Cameron is missing the point that
all Muslims should reject Islamism
and not be offended by insults to it.
Any Muslim who defends Islamism is not someone whose opinions we should care about.
Maybe Cameron will be useless on the war after all.
Can't we get Michael Gove instead?
He attacks Israel over Gaza. He calls Gaza "a prison camp".
Nice response by Ephraim Sneh, former Israeli deputy minister of defence:
"Cameron is right - Gaza is a prison camp, but those who control the prison are Hamas. I'm totally against the double standards of a nation which fights the Taliban but is showing its solidarity with their brothers, Hamas."
Cameron condemns Israel's self-defence against the violent Turkish Islamists in the
flotilla clash:
"The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable".
Cameron strongly supports Turkey joining the EU,
despite the clear wishes of the British people.
The 2006 Eurobarometer poll
(see Question 33.13)
shows
30 percent of British people in favour of Turkey joining the EU,
and 52 percent against.
"It's Turkey that can help us stop Iran from getting the bomb",
Cameron absurdly says.
Talk about naive!
In reality it is Israel - the country you have just attacked - that will stop Iran getting the bomb.
Cameron shamefully laid a wreath at the tomb of the butcher
Ataturk.
And not a word (of course) about the persecution of Christians and other minorities
in modern Turkey.
Blair's grasp of the War on Islamism is better
than almost all leaders in Europe,
but it is still sometimes confused with the stale conventional wisdom
of his left-wing wife
Cherie Booth
and his centre-left peers.
Blair says:
"Unless we re-appraise our strategy, unless we revitalise the broader global agenda
on poverty, climate change, trade, and in respect of the Middle East,
bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine,
we will not win."
In reality, not a single one of these 4 issues will make any impact on stopping the
global jihad against us.
Republican
(two big-tent parties, but ultimately this is the only one we can trust to defend America and the West)
Why I would vote this way:
Essentially, because the
Democrats
have not taken the War on Islamism seriously.
They have been, especially in Bush's second term of 2004-08,
the party of defeat and surrender.
Maybe now they are in office this will change.
Even though I describe myself as a
libertarian,
I would never vote for
the Libertarian Party
since they are isolationists.
Nine prominent Democrats
show why
no one who believes in victory in the War on Islamism
should vote Democrat.
Somebody like
Rep. Thad McCotter (R)
would be my choice for President in the 2012 election.
"Speaking Democrat: A Primer",
a hilarious speech actually delivered in the
U.S. House of Representatives
by Rep. Thad McCotter (R), June 2008.
See
transcript.
The section on "Speaking Global Democrat" allows us finally translate Obama's speeches:
"DIPLOMACY" = "MAGIC"
"Democrats will protect America from Iranian nukes through tough, principled diplomacy."
Translation: "Democrats will protect America from Iranian nukes through tough, principled magic."
"ENGAGE" = "APPEASE"
"Democrats will engage America' enemies."
Translation: "Democrats will appease America's enemies."
"END" = "LOSE"
"Democrats will end the Iraq War."
Translation: "Democrats will lose the Iraq War."
Voting is of course not for idealists.
You almost always have to choose the lesser of two evils
and vote for someone who promotes some policies you hate.
I have serious problems with all of
the above parties.
For all of them, I would be
voting for a lesser evil.
There is so much space for a party I would prefer to
any of the above parties.
Why can't I find a party that is
secular,
anti-drug war, anti-censorship,
pro-gay rights, tough on real crime,
pro-capitalist, pro-free trade, pro-West
and pro-War-on-Islamism?
Why does such a party not exist?
Postscript:
But you don't have a vote! What is the point of this?
The reader may think: You can't possibly have a vote in all 3 of these
countries. So why are you talking about who you would vote for?
Second, I used to live in the UK, and I had a vote there
(I voted for Blair).
Indeed, this website used to be in the UK.
Some immediate family are UK citizens,
and it is possible I may live there again in the future.
I have also lived in the US
(and paid taxes),
but never had a vote.
Again, some immediate family are US citizens,
and I may have permanent family ties there.
I thought of moving there once myself,
but it didn't happen in the end.
This website is actually hosted in the US.
So I'm hardly from another planet.
In fact, if current trends continue,
about half of my children's 1st and 2nd cousins
will be British, Australian or American.
And two more general answers:
It is reasonable
to be interested in foreign policy
and what other countries are doing.
Apart from anything else, our country could help
(e.g. we let America use
our base at Shannon
for the Iraq War).
Therefore it is reasonable to be
interested in figuring out
what policy you would like other countries to adopt
and who you would like to see in power.
Who is in power in the UK and US most certainly affects my world,
but I don't have a vote to influence it.
Nor should I - but it is not unreasonable to be interested.
Finally, my ideas - if people like them
- may be worth as much as a vote.
Several thousand
American and British readers come to my website
every month.
No one forces them to, and no one forces them to stay.
Many will disagree with what I say of course.
And all get information from a million other places.
But if I influence just one or two readers a year,
then I do in effect have a vote in the UK and US.
You may call this "foreign meddling" in your election,
but the fact is such influence has always been there.
If you allow your citizens read material written by foreigners,
then it can affect their thinking and their votes.
This is as true in the 18th century as it is today.
It's just normal.
And in case you think that, being Irish, I know nothing about US politics:
I took
this Pew test
and
I knew more about US and international politics than 83 percent of Americans.
9 of the 12 questions were about U.S. politics.
3 were about international politics.
I scored 10 out of 12.
I got it wrong on who is the majority leader of the U.S. Senate,
and who is the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
I got the other 7 questions about U.S. politics,
and all 3 questions about international politics, right.
(see Question 33.13)
shows
30 percent of British people in favour of Turkey joining the EU,
and 52 percent against.
Since 1995.
