Kenneth Roy
Eck’s
literary
luvvies
Jim Swire
An open
letter to
Kenny MacAskill
The Cafe
Should an
independent Scotland
be part of NATO?
Alan Fisher
The township of 12 people
which sells four million
cans of beer a year
Bob Smith
Islay McLeod
Scotland
in the
heat
20.03.12
No. 528
John Cameron
Francis Fukuyama’s 1989 essay ‘The End of History’ argued that we were at a turning point and the ‘logic of modern science’ would lead inevitably to the collapse of tyrannies.
But Simon Heffer in his recent ‘A Short History of Power’ claims it is the nature of power that has changed and countries now seek economic, rather than territorial, expansion.
Certainly as the 21st century proceeds it becomes clearer the case for liberal democracy has not been proved and its achievements are certainly not universally recognised. In addition the notion that only a free market can maximise prosperity is challenged by China where growing prosperity is achieved despite the absence of democratic values.
For much of human history the need for territory and wealth or the toxic fervour of religion and ideology has provoked conflict and there is little hope of that changing. Europe tried to replace national and religious intolerance with supra-national secularism but theocratic Islam and the fundamentalist Christian US have not followed the lead.
It now appears that the West is dividing philosophically with Europe wanting a Kantian ‘perpetual peace’ whereas the US sees a Hobbesian world of competing military might.
The hope is that new technologies and widely-spread new sources of fossil fuel will at least remove international tension based on the belief that we are running out of resources.
But economic power is shifting from the West because of decadent practices such as addiction to debt, welfarism and over-regulation which result in a huge cost base. Western idealism is threatened everywhere by the realities of human nature and the fact that repressive regimes have proved to function so successfully as factories of prosperity.
Conceptions of history such as Fukuyama’s arise in optimistic ages of plenty whereas the recent global downturn offers opportunities for ‘hard-times’ world views like Islam.
The incredible
comeback of
Rick Santorum
Alan Fisher
Rick Santorum had a good night last Tuesday. Two wins in deeply Republican southern states helped cement the idea that the battle for the Republican Party’s presidential race is now a two-man contest between him and Mitt Romney.
Newt Gingrich pinned his hopes on a southern strategy. He won South Carolina early in the nominating process, then secured a victory in his home state of Georgia. As the only candidate from the south in this battle, failure to win in his own backyard in Alabama and Mississippi has left him a deeply damaged candidate.
Even some of his most ardent backers believe he may now struggle to continue to bring in the donations which have kept his show on the road – even though he is defiantly proclaiming he will continue until the Republican convention in Florida in August. However the idea of a third Gingrich comeback, even in this unpredictable race, seems highly unlikely.
Rick Santorum would like him to quit. He sees himself now as the main conservative voice in the campaign, and Gingrich’s continued involvement simply splits the right. By stepping out, he believes the anti-Romney vote could be united and give people a clearer choice in the candidate they would like to see tackle Barack Obama in November.
Santorum appeals to poorer Republican voters. He wins more votes than Romney among those who earn less than $100,000 a year. Multi-millionaire Romney does well with the better off. The former Pennsylvania senator appeals more in rural areas and small towns. Romney picks up votes in urban and suburban places. Santorum does better with those who describe themselves as ‘very conservative’ while the former governor from Massachusetts gets support from those who are ‘moderate to liberal’.
Santorum believes he is stronger on issues such as single-sex marriage, abortion and fiscal responsibility and that seems to chime with a large part of the Republican base.
There is no guarantee that removing Gingrich from the race would mean that all his supporters would switch directly to Santorum. While delegates are awarded on a PR basis, the departure of the former speaker might actually help Romney get to the magic number of 1,144 delegates needed to secure the nomination more quickly.
In poll after poll, Santorum’s biggest vulnerability is exposed. People think Mitt Romney is more electable in November. The fact that Santorum is even still competitive is quite astonishing. Back in December in Iowa, his poll numbers were in single figures, voters didn’t know who he was or what he stood for. By shaking a lot of hands and talking at a lot of meetings he won the state. That gave him exposure and momentum.
So – as has been the way so far in this contest – the next big battle becomes the most important. Santorum has to win in Illinois. That would shock the entire process and perhaps give him hope that he really could be the nominee. Romney is ahead in the polls there, spending money and getting organised. He has to win to stop the narrative being about a sure-fire candidate who keeps losing.
Conservative voters will make the difference again. They have to decide what is more important: ideology or electability.
Alan Fisher is an Al Jazeera correspondent
