When George W. Bush raised his right hand to take the Presidential oath the other day, for a moment it looked as if he was going to give a high-five greeting to Chief Justice William H. Rhenquist, the veteran conservative charged with administering the oath. It would have been fitting; after all, Bush owes a huge debt of gratitude to Rhenquist and his Supreme Court colleagues. It was their votes, not those of the electorate, that finally gave Bush the Presidency by stopping the recounts in Florida.

One line in the oath seemed particularly suited to Bush: the bit about promising to 'execute faithfully' the office of President. After all, whilst he was Governor of Texas, that state faithfully executed a phenomenal number of its citizens.

Being British, I am in no danger of being directly governed by the man, a fact for which I am very grateful. Indeed, it might well be argued that America's internal politics are none of this Limey's business; but I'd disagree. The fact is that America's influence is so far-reaching that it sets the tone for the rest of the world. We can't ignore America; it's all over our televisions and cinemas and radios, for better or for worse.

So I listened to Bush's inaugural address with great interest: and for a while, I began to wonder if I'd misjudged the man. He returned to the theme of healing and reconciliation that he'd spoken of since the Supreme Court handed him the Presidency. He spoke about how:
'...the ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing schools and hidden prejudice, and the circumstances of their birth. And sometimes our differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country. We do not accept this, and we will not allow it'.

Impressive stuff! Of course, he got his biggest cheer by promising tax cuts to his predominantly prosperous, Republican audience; but you could almost believe that he was serious about all this inclusive, we're-all-in-this-together stuff.

Until he got to work, that is, when it immediately became clear that you're not welcome in Dubya's new model America if you're an environmentalist. He had hardly arrived in the White House before he made it his business to reverse some environmental protection orders made by Bill Clinton during his last days in office. Clearly, the land of the free and the home of the brave will never be protected from those who want to use up its resources to make a quick buck - not if George can help it.

Then, having already given one gift to the religious right by appointing ultra-conservative John Ashcroft as Attorney-General, Bush made another by hurrying to cut overseas aid to any agencies deemed to be pro-abortion. Those protesters at the inauguration who'd been voicing fears for women's rights under a Bush administration could hardly have been reassured.

So which is the real George W. Bush: the conciliator or the religious zealot's friend? One popular view is that he had to make a couple of gestures towards the religious extremists to reward them for their help during his campaign. This view claims that Bush will soon move towards the centre, realising that he dare not alienate the middle ground if the present Republican Party success story is to continue. After all, Congress remains closely divided, and he wouldn't want to have to fight it at every turn like Clinton often had to.

The opposite view was nicely summed up in a recent interview by no less a commentator than Thom Yorke of the excellent British band Radiohead. Yorke has recently been under fire from some of his American fans for loudly endorsing Ralph Nader's candidacy during the campaign and thus, his critics claim, possibly diverting a few crucial votes away from Al Gore.

Thom had this to say:
'When Bush gets in, that'll be the start. There'll be a real anger. It's going to galvanise, I totally believe that's true, and there'll be change for the better. All the negativity you hear everywhere... I think it's how a virus works, and how a virus works is eventually it kills itself. And I think we're in the middle of that right now'.

Bush: healer of divisions, or virus in the body politic? I have a feeling that the answer will soon be all too clear.

We British are a placid race, rarely roused to mass public demonstrations of anger. It usually takes self-interest to get us Brits out on to the streets or the roads to demonstrate, as in the case of the recent protests over fuel tax by the nation's truck drivers.

Yet recently there have been huge demonstrations across the country led by the Countryside Alliance, a body that apparently believes that the very fabric of British life is under threat - because the Government proposes to outlaw hunting with dogs. For Britain's fox hunting fraternity, the last legal "tally ho" looms - and they're furious about it.

Opinion polls have consistently shown that most of the British public support such a ban, and in any case only a small percentage of the population would be affected. Even here in quaint, eccentric old England, not all that many people choose to spend their spare time chasing across the countryside on horseback in the hope of seeing hounds tearing a fox to pieces; and some who might wish to join in can't afford to do so. Hunting is a minority pursuit for a privileged few, abhorred by the many who, like me, view it as sadism thinly disguised as sport.

Yet listening to TV and radio debates on the subject, I keep hearing anguished voices (usually with posh accents) deploring the proposed ban as a diabolical attack on civil liberties. They say that the Government represents an urban dictatorship, passing judgement on traditional country practices that it simply does not understand.

The ban has now been approved by the House of Commons, but hunt supporters have promised to fight it every step of the way in the House of Lords. Some hunters have even threatened to ignore the new law if and when it is introduced. Civil disobedience, usually the weapon of radicals, is apparently going to be used by conservatives in defence of the right to dress up in absurd red coats and pursue terrified animals.

The Government itself has seemed a little anxious about affronting the hunting lobby: the ban was promised in its 1997 General Election manifesto, but it's taken this long for anything to be done to implement it. It's highly unlikely that the new law will come into force before the next General Election, expected in May; so the Government will presumably be seeking the reassurance of a further mandate before completing the change in the law. Although the ban has been largely supported by Members of Parliament from the ruling Labour Party and opposed by those from the Conservative Party, Prime Minister Tony Blair slightly distanced his Labour Party from the hunting ban by allowing a "free vote" in the House of Commons on the issue. In other words, MPs were allowed to vote according to their consciences, without pressure from the party whips, those shadowy figures whose usually do their damnedest to make sure that MPs vote according to their party leaders' wishes. Blair declared himself to be a supporter of the ban - but was unavailable to cast his own vote due to a conveniently urgent meeting in Northern Ireland, which required his personal presence for reasons that were never quite made clear.

So what exactly is everyone getting so anxious and excited about? True, a few country folk will lose their livelihoods as and when the hunting ban becomes law, but mass redundancies in manufacturing industry are accepted with far less fuss. It's obvious that hunting has a symbolic significance far beyond its inherent importance. The hunters are outraged because the Government has dared to poke its nose into the practices of a closed, elite society: the English aristocracy. Used to telling others what to do, they are horrified that some upstarts without mansions or titles to their names dare try to reverse the roles and tell them that their pastimes are unacceptable in the 21st century.

In the end, I'm sure that fox hunting will be rightly consigned to history, just as other ugly parts of old England were by previous generations. History tells us that some fought furiously against the abolition of slavery and the laws against employing children in factories; but when the public desire for reform is as clear as it is on fox hunting, reform usually takes place.

It seems fitting that the venue for the hunters' last stand looks likely to be the House of Lords. The Lords have the power to send the new law back to the House of Commons three times before the British people's elected representatives can finally impose their will. I rather hope they do so. If, as expected, Labour are returned to power at the upcoming election, another confrontation with the House of Lords might be enough to persuade Mr Blair that the time has come for further reforms to the Lords. An unelected second chamber with the power to block the will of the people's representatives is an offensive anachronism in the 21st century.

Rather like fox hunting, in fact.

Finally, new hope for would-be ex-smokers. A company in Miami has devised a cigarette made from genetically-modified tobacco, which they claim contains hardly any nicotine and fewer carcinogens that a conventional ciggie - but nonetheless retains the full flavour of a regular cigarette. It will go on sale in America early next year, and will then be launched worldwide if sales are as strong as expected.

A spokesman for Vector, the company who've come up with the new, safer smoke, has claimed that people using their cigarettes would smoke less because the new-style cigarettes were virtually free from addictive ingredients.
'It will enable people to smoke because they want to, not because they have to'.

he said. He added that smokers could then, if they wished, wean themselves off smoking altogether.

Sounds like good news - and perhaps especially handy for those whose smoking enjoyment is not exclusively centred around tobacco. They'll now be able to mix their favourite herbal remedy with something healthier than traditional tobacco.

I myself stopped smoking last summer. I did it with the aid of a rather drastic treatment known as "poverty". With cigarettes at around £4 a packet of 20, it was a powerful incentive. Poverty worked for me - but I don't altogether recommend it.

It has some rather depressing side-effects.

Ormondroyd

22.01.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page